Polling guru Nate Silver predicts Trump has 64% chance of winning the Electoral College in latest forecast
Polling guru Nate Silver predicts Trump has 64% chance of winning the Electoral College in latest forecast
Nate Silver predicted Trump has a 64% chance of winning the Electoral College on Sunday in an update to his latest election forecast, following the results of new poll.
You're viewing part of a thread.
@LookBehindYouNowAndThen @wintermute_oregon
By definition, the Radical Republicans were progressives.
Back then it had a lot more to do with industry than Communism.
Your profile says you're a conservative and a fascist? @neuromancer said before they're incompatible, and he's a conservative.
He also says Lincoln was a conservative.
Why do you both say the opposite? Is conservatism so meaningless that such fundamental differences are just ignored?
Why do you think conservatives deny that fascists are part of their movement when they clearly are?
Fascists are hybrids. Fascism is corporatism, i.e. state control through corporations.
What does my profile say?
"Furthest Right: raging realism plus transcendental reverence. I write at https://www.amerika.org/ and https://www.deathmetal.org/ about topics such as nihilism, ecofascism, paganism, eugenics, capitalism, perennialism, conservatism, natural selection, and of course death metal."
Ecofascism is a separate movement. You read your Linkola and Kaczynski?
Full readout here:
https://annihilation.social/notice/AgRr091ay4W0HCTtcuLincoln was a radical. He, too, was a hybrid, in that he came from the Anglo tradition but was outside of it as a "radical."
He was a progressive of his age. He was closer to Marx than Washington.
So you're saying that fascists and conservatives work to similar ends?
The most conservative society:
* Absolute monarchy
* Ethno-nationalist
* Free market based
* Caste system
* Culture/religion unitedLike anything else, there are degrees of conservatism.
Some conservatives, like GWB, are barely conservative.
You're wanting the US to be an ethnostate again then?
Absolutely, and every other nation as well, since it is the best way and I wish them well.
Fascists still believe in the State; conservatives are free market devotees but ambivalent if not hostile to the State.
Not all conservatives are free market devotees; that's a modern twist that is not universal.
But you agree that they work to the same ends?
I disagree. Conservatives naturally favor organic methods like common law, free markets, culture, and hierarchy.
As far as work to the same ends, I think you have it backwards. Fascism is a hybrid. It borrows some goals and methods from both Left and Right.
Conservatism also borrows from the leftist rhetoric and action though, so that's not a solid distinction.
They're both counterrevolutionary in nature; I don't see the distinction that you do. It appears that they are possibly different in degree instead of kind. This is the "ends" that I refer to: opposition to the liberal revolutions since the 18th century.
Also, wanting something other than the revolutionary order is not opposition.
It's a choice for an alternative.
Ordinary people recognize that, but ideologues do not.
Conservatism existed before Leftism. Any borrowing is the other way.
Leftism is inherently revolutionary. You recall the origins of the term?
Conservatism was a reaction to revolutionary politics, it did not proceed it. Even the name makes it clear that it is a response to action.
Leftism is inherently revolutionary, and conservatism was a response to that.
But back to my original question: why do you think @neuromancer denies that fascists and conservatives make natural allies?
On the contrary, conservatives were always here. We just had to take a name after Leftism so people did not think we supported the "new way."
I don't think conservatives and fascists make natural allies. Conservatives and conservatives make natural allies. You cannot trust the radical big state people.
As to what conservatism is, I write about that a lot:
It is a focus on order beyond the individual and the social group; we call it realism, and it tends to favor historically-proven results and a case-by-case basis instead of ideological categorical containers.
About ten thousand people in North America can successfully parse that sentence.