Why Is the Right So Stupid?

[recluse]

So what if the Right is stupid and loutish? Do intelligence and sensitivity inevitably lead to progress and justice? I'd love to believe that it does, but people (including intelligent and sensitive people) are scum.
Sorry, but I can't think of a nicer way to say it.

[Aria88]

Misanthropic as that may sound, it's often true. You won't get much of an argument from this boy. I used to be idealistic, then I became merely an optimist. I then went from pragmatist to pessimist and finally, nihilist. The last stage, I'm afraid, will come one day -- cranky old man.

[izabet]

No, character and ideology do not correlate. There are plenty of very kind right-wing Christian types who, for example, set up homes for unwed mothers or provide diaper and formula to poor moms. They don't like abortion so the least they can do is help the mums after their kids are born.

Then there are nasty left-wing types and hot-tub socialists; the people who claim to be progressive socially but are in fact very image and status-conscious.

Not a valid argument if you try to correlate character and ideology. You could try! but good luck.

I do agree that there are brainwashed lefties. The people who go to anti-globalization protests just to make trouble. People who quote Michael Moore and claim to know everything there is to know about US foreign policy.

As for me, I am an under-informed moderate who leans to the left when it comes to daycare and other things that help improve women's lot. (Although I am educated and a professional, it isn't easy raising a child on your own.) Licensed daycare where I live is one paycheck for me, so I send my son to part-time home daycare, at one third the price.

[klevius]

I'm not so sure about the leftist's will and capability (in a state setting) to improve children's and women's lives - see e g Angels of Antichrist on klevius.info/Antichrist.html?1076447891526

Sweden has some of the poorest single mothers and a terible compulsory school system although the taxes are the highest in the world. And although Sweden has a good gender representation in the parliament this doesn't reflect the shadow side, i.e. that Sweden has one of the lowest levels of women in higher non-state jobs and in natural sciences!

And by the way, the PM of Sweden, social democrat Göran Persson lacks even a basic university degree!

Peter Klevius
www.klevius.info (with a link to the World Values Survey according to which the Swedes seem to have become the most ego-tripped individualists of all!)

[DVXspqrNOBIS]

If rightists are so unintelligent, then I guess the creation of a government would have not lasted from 1922-45 and rose Italy's economic power. That is a well deserving goal and he is not credited enough in history. Italy needs another Mussolini. It would get the country in political order. Right now, I see their politics shifting all over the place. I do not give Leftists any credit, though their government might still exist, look at how much they are in the shambles.

[izabet]

No ideology is all good or all bad. Hitler proved to be very good for Germany in many ways (infrastructure being on of them) and Mussolini began what was Italy's advancement from 3rd world living conditions. Also: the Right of one country does not equate with the Right of another. They cannot be mapped directly on to one another, so talking about Sweden's single moms cannot be compared to where I live, for example. Nor can party names be equated with a set of beliefs, which change from year to year, decade to decade.

As I see it, the right in North America is generally out of touch with the day to day lives of its citizens. They do not account for ambiguity, failure, chance, or tragedy in the lives of individuals, and therefore endorse the reduction or elimination of supports for the less fortunate or the stricken. (I cite Dr. Laura as an example of this sort of ignorance.)

[alex221166]

izabet said:

No ideology is all good or all bad. Hitler proved to be very good for Germany in many ways (infrastructure being on of them) and Mussolini began what was Italy's advancement from 3rd world living conditions. Also: the Right of one country does not equate with the Right of another. They cannot be mapped directly on to one another, so talking about Sweden's single moms cannot be compared to where I live, for example. Nor can party names be equated with a set of beliefs, which change from year to year, decade to decade.

As I see it, the right in North America is generally out of touch with the day to day lives of its citizens. They do not account for ambiguity, failure, chance, or tragedy in the lives of individuals, and therefore endorse the reduction or elimination of supports for the less fortunate or the stricken. (I cite Dr. Laura as an example of this sort of ignorance.)

Two or three years ago, I read Churchill's WWII Memoirs, and he had the best of opinions about Mussolini (unlike his about Hitler). The crucial (and deadly) choice Mussolini made about supporting Germany by declaring war on France in 1940, placed Italy and Britain in opposite fields. It wasn't always like this. In the mid-1930s Mussolini was very close with Britain and he was very anti-nazi. He considered the nazis as a bunch of thugs, while his fascist movement (which unlike Hitler's nazism, was not racist nor anti-semitic) wanted to claim and revive the ancient Roman empire. The fact that Mussolini viewed himself as a modern Caesar, explains why he got himself involved in WWII even though he knew very well that Italy wouldn«t be ready for war until 1943 - he didn't want to miss the chance. When he saw how easy Germany's conquest of Poland was, he simply didn't want to miss the chance of conquering Albania, Greece, and Egypt - all turned out to be failures).

While Mussolini gave italy a great deal of infrastructure, corruption was always endemic during his rule (which is a given in most totalitarian regimes).

As to the American parties, all I can say is that I dislike both. The democrats were responsible to a great deal about the so called "War on Terror". Remember the pro-Albanian UÇK which CNN labelled as "freedom fighters"? They are involved in drug smuggling, human trafficking, prostitution, they have deep connections to the Albanian MAFIA and they always were Al-Qaeda's arm in Europe; Clinton's administration bombed a sovereign European nation - Serbia - and that is something I will never forgive nor forget.

As to the Republicans, this administration in particular is completely corrupt (remember how Bush was going to award ALL the construction deals in Iraq to American companies?) and is in the hands of the main lobbies.

[SwordandCompass]

alex said:

Two or three years ago, I read Churchill's WWII Memoirs, and he had the best of opinions about Mussolini (unlike his about Hitler). The crucial (and deadly) choice Mussolini made about supporting Germany by declaring war on France in 1940, placed Italy and Britain in opposite fields. It wasn't always like this. In the mid-1930s Mussolini was very close with Britain and he was very anti-nazi. He considered the nazis as a bunch of thugs, while his fascist movement (which unlike Hitler's nazism, was not racist nor anti-semitic) wanted to claim and revive the ancient Roman empire. The fact that Mussolini viewed himself as a modern Caesar, explains why he got himself involved in WWII even though he knew very well that Italy wouldn«t be ready for war until 1943 - he didn't want to miss the chance. When he saw how easy Germany's conquest of Poland was, he simply didn't want to miss the chance of conquering Albania, Greece, and Egypt - all turned out to be failures).

While Mussolini gave italy a great deal of infrastructure, corruption was always endemic during his rule (which is a given in most totalitarian regimes).

As to the American parties, all I can say is that I dislike both. The democrats were responsible to a great deal about the so called "War on Terror". Remember the pro-Albanian UÇK which CNN labelled as "freedom fighters"? They are involved in drug smuggling, human trafficking, prostitution, they have deep connections to the Albanian MAFIA and they always were Al-Qaeda's arm in Europe; Clinton's administration bombed a sovereign European nation - Serbia - and that is something I will never forgive nor forget.

As to the Republicans, this administration in particular is completely corrupt (remember how Bush was going to award ALL the construction deals in Iraq to American companies?) and is in the hands of the main lobbies.

"The democrats were responsible to a great deal about the so called "War on Terror".

huh?


"As to the Republicans, this administration in particular is completely corrupt (remember how Bush was going to award ALL the construction deals in Iraq to American companies?) and is in the hands of the main lobbies"

Why not?Who has the most troops in that country?Who is leading the way against terrorism?Why not ask Israel how they feel about Americas leading wge against terrorism.

Hey Mel have anything to add?I would like to hear what you have to say.

[SwordandCompass]

www.historylearningsite.co.uk/aby1.htm
www.dickinson.edu/~history/dictators/mussolini_war.htm

Mussolini did do some good things but most of it was bad.Unlike A true leader Salazar.

[izabet]

No doubt Mussolini did bad things. He allowed death camps in Italy, run by the Germans, and allowed his citizens to be 'hired' by the Nazis. Both of my maternal grandparents "worked" for M or the Germans in some capacity in the 1930s and 40s.

[alex221166]

SwordandCompass said:

"The democrats were responsible to a great deal about the so called "War on Terror".

huh?


"As to the Republicans, this administration in particular is completely corrupt (remember how Bush was going to award ALL the construction deals in Iraq to American companies?) and is in the hands of the main lobbies"

Why not?Who has the most troops in that country?Who is leading the way against terrorism?Why not ask Israel how they feel about Americas leading wge against terrorism.

Hey Mel have anything to add?I would like to hear what you have to say.

All I said is true. Clinton's administration actually HELPED Al-Qaeda in Kosovo. Right now there is a pogrom happening in Serbia with the victims being native Serbs. Why doesn't anyone talk about the hundreds of murdered Serbs nor aboutthe hundreds of thousands of Serb refugees who were forced to flee from Kosovo because the UN can't garantee their safety.

As to having the mroe troops on the terrain, let me just ask you one thing: is Iraq American territory? It isn't is it? Therefore, the Americans have NO SAY about what will happen during the reconstruction. The fact that Bush had already given most of the deals to American companies not only gave precious ammo to those who said that the war was about money, but it also made him look like the moron he is when he was forced to ask (and to accept) for foreign help because he couldn't contain the Iraqi insurgents.

Bush's administration is corrupt, and Clinton's actions in Somalia and in Kosovo made sure that the first victory was Al-Qaeda's. I liked Clinton, but when it comes to those two things he sucked completely.

The last American president with a coherent (and intelligent) foreign policy was Richard Nixon. Even Reagan (who was an excellent president) was responsible sponsoring the Muslim extremism against the Soviets, without ever realising that America would have to fight the same enemy years later. I also can't forgive how he bargained with the Iranians during the Irangate incident.

In my book, to be able to predict the future is a sign of intelligence, and to have a backbone is a sign of courage and integrity. All the mentioned three virtues are non existent in the last few administrations (recklessness is not the same as courage).

[alex221166]

SwordandCompass said:

www.historylearningsite.co.uk/aby1.htm
www.dickinson.edu/~history/dictators/mussolini_war.htm

Mussolini did do some good things but most of it was bad.Unlike A true leader Salazar.

Salazar did bad things also. While the Portuguese dictatorship was very mild when compared to most others (basically the political police would only bother you if you were a communist) it was still a dictatorship. Salazar had good intentions, but some of his polices were terrible (particularly in what concerns education and Portugal's relation with the colonies).For instance, he should have predicted the invasion of the Portuguese India in 1960, and make the bulk of the population side with Portugal (this did happen in Goa after the invasion but it happened spontaneously, not because of any specific policy).

In a simplistic way, I use to say that Salazar's regime was very beneficial for Portugal until 1945-50. After that period, it dragged Portugal to a colonial war and to a leftist revolution that was able to ruin our economy for decades and which diverted (in illegal ways) most of our national gold reserves to foreign countries (such as the US).

[Silveira]

Salazar did bad things also. While the Portuguese dictatorship was very mild when compared to most others (basically the political police would only bother you if you were a communist) it was still a dictatorship. Salazar had good intentions, but some of his polices were terrible (particularly in what concerns education and Portugal's relation with the colonies).For instance, he should have predicted the invasion of the Portuguese India in 1960, and make the bulk of the population side with Portugal (this did happen in Goa after the invasion but it happened spontaneously, not because of any specific policy).

In a simplistic way, I use to say that Salazar's regime was very beneficial for Portugal until 1945-50. After that period, it dragged Portugal to a colonial war and to a leftist revolution that was able to ruin our economy for decades and which diverted (in illegal ways) most of our national gold reserves to foreign countries (such as the US).

I have studied Salazar and his life quite a bit and have reached the conclusion that he may have suffered from a mild form of autism, which would explain his intellectual genius as well as his odd habits and personality. People, especially left-wingers who disliked his regime, have accused him of being a "master-manipulator" but I think the very opposite is true. Salazar had very pure intentions, however he was used and taken advantage of by most of the people who surrounded him.

[Silveira]

which diverted (in illegal ways) most of our national gold reserves to foreign countries (such as the US).

I have heard reliable first-hand accounts of several people (high-ranking employees of the Portuguese state) being seen arriving in foreign countries (namely Canada) days after the 25 de Abril coup who, under police escort, did not have to go through customs inspection and had armoured bank trucks waiting for them at the airport. There is every reason to believe that much of the gold in the Portuguese coffers was looted by corrupt high-ranking officials with the assistance of the intelligence agencies of western countries.

[Silveira]

Speaking of Prof. Oliveira Salazar, he has come back to life and now has own web blog:

www.professorsalazar.blogspot.com/