Why racism is considered a rightwing ideology? Son of a!

For example, this wiki page:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan

denotes KKK's ideology as far right. I don't even know how to begin refuting such blatantly nefarious accusation. Also, people say Hitler is on the far right because he hates Jews.

Well first of all, there are a lot of rightwingers that are Jewish, African, Asian etc. etc. So where does that assumption leave them? Self-loathing? Or do rightwing Africans hate white people? Oh yea, there was this African equal rights movement leader who was, at some point, anti-white and wanted to kill all white people in South Africa:

Here is the link to that infamous "kill white people" son:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5TD2HpXcH0

Here's a cnn article on that:
http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/06/world/africa/nelson-mandela-other-side/

And guess which side absolutely are in love with him and his legacy? Not the right side!

If I were to list all the counter-arguments/evidence here, this thread would be just too long. Also, take a cursory look at Hitler's fiscal policy. Is it highway (pardon the pun) socialism or free-market capitalism? Decide for yourself.

This is how people should categorize and classify ideologies: the size of government they want.

Gigantic government: Far left socialist fascism.
Small government: Minarchist rightwing-ism.
No government: Far-right anarchism.

 

And why do you think the scale should be based on the preferred size of government? Let me tell you, it does not make any sense at all. Why? Because you're simply trying to fit all ideologies into your libertarian world view. Basically, your scale is stupid because its only libertarians who care about the size of government in this way. It is very libertarianocentric if you will, because other ideologies are not based around the size of government. For socialists, the size of government is really a non-issue, for example, but socialists care about class warfare stuff, which for you might be a non-issue. Trying to fit socialism into your government size scale is like trying to fit libertarianism into a class warfare scale. The problem is that socialists do not consider the size of government to be an issue, just as libertarians don't really consider class to be an issue. Not only are people not agreeing with each other, they are also seeing completely different "problems" in society.

And also, your scale is shallow. My preferred scale is kind of like this, with the thing on teh left being leftwing and the one on right being right wing...
Rationalism Empiricism
Idealism Realism
Deontology Utilitarianism
This is the personal scale I use, which I find more satisfying since it's based on more fundamental philosophical differences. In this scale everything from communism, socialism, feminism, the green movement, anarchists to an-caps are considered to be on the left wing because they all have those three characteristics. In summary they are all un-thought-through and naive, which is what I see leftism in general to be. And on the right we basically just have conservatives and certain kinds of liberals.

 

Demographics of Repubican Party.

Non-Hispanic White = 89%
Non-Hispanic Black = 2%
Hispanic = 6%
Asian = 1%
Other = 1%
Undesignated = 1%

http://www.gallup.com/poll/160373/democrats-racially-diverse-republicans-mostly-white.aspx

Where did this idea that the right-wing is diversified come from? It's ovewhelmingly non-Hispanic whites. Right-wing conservatism isn't even very popular in the United States as only about 25% of Americans state that they support the Republican Party.

I didn't check for religion but only 1.7% of American adults idenfity themselves as being Jewish and a large percentage of those are liberal Democrats, most are independents, so they don't even fit into the equation.

 

The USA itself is overwhelmingly non-hispanic whites, so it's not really as much of a problem as you make it seem.

 

Precisely! It's not possible to create an ideology-independent spectrum.

 

Where was this poll conducted? San Francisco, Seattle, or some other liberal enclave?

 

Well seeing as democrats are 60% non-hispanic white, sort of changes the accepted talking points that whites are becoming the minority in America.

You might say that democrats are overwhelmingly non-hispanic white!

40% of Americans self identify as conservative, while less than 20% identify as liberal.

Racism is not assigned to any particular political ideology. You can be a leftist communist and be a racist. You can be a left-wing fascists and be a racist. You can be a right wing dictator and be a racist. Identifying racism or nationalism with right-wing is a mistake. It is not so much about political ideology as it is about one's particular belief in one's own racial superiority.

 

Hitler was right wing because he was a fascist. Fascism is the extreme element of the right wing spectrum. The original name of the national socialist party was the "right wing" national socialist party. I am not sure about the ku klux klan, but some political scientists attribute "dominant group superiority" as being a right wing trait. I think we can agree the KKK wasn't comprised of social liberals.

 

I didn't say it's impossible. The real differences lie in what I talked about.. Utilitarianism vs deontology, rationalism vs empricism, idealism vs realism, and so on.

 

Actually, Hitler was a socialist. A left wing socialist. While racism exists across the spectrum of all political ideologies, the most ruthless, despicable and murderous despots throughout history have been left wing types.

 

of racismI always separate political ideology, economic ideology and party affiliation when I subdivide. I attach the 'social issues ' either as a lump or individually separately from the ideology insofar they tend to work independently from any generalized theory or rule. Racism, sexism, homophobia etc involves an personal internalized antipathy or animus which may or may not be reflected externally in political ideology or the 'social issues' They are rarely intrinsic or elemental.

"Size' of government can be measured either by its physical volume (number of buildings, employees, inventory ) its economic volume (yearly or monthly revenue /expenditure, net worth, amount of the economic activity it cycles,) or the volume of its impact ( number and scope of laws, regulations and restrictions).

I don't feel comfortable with efforts to staple or glue racism or homophobia on people based on ideological label or party affiliation EXCEPT when almost impossible to deny that they are elemental to the ideological or political identity. I won't accept a label such as racist on 'tea partier','leftist', 'conservative' or 'progressive' as a conduit by implication, but is ridiculous to deny that racial/ supremist Nazi groups which formulate their platform based on either separation or animus from a class. They do the connecting themselves because they are proud of it.

In short, we should not gluing these terms at the front end,based on 'correlation' . Its usually just an effort to wrap and tie a negative stereotype on an ideology we dislike. It is perfectly appropriate to glue them on at the back end when discussing the impact of specific policies. Tea partiers are not racist, but some planks of their platform may have a racial implications,

 

Racism and bigotry exists in all parties, but the leftists are completely obsessed with it.

Here is a video that addresses it:

[video=youtube;6HiLcgvo1j4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HiLcgvo1j4[/video]

 

Yes, a large segment, 40%, self-identify with being "conservative" but not identify with "social conservative" which is competely different. Hispanic voters are almost all conservative but about 75% vote for Democrats because they oppose the social conservatism of the Republican Party.

Racism is tied to "social conservatism" and not to general conservatism in political ideology. It is also tied to low intelligence and low intelligent people are drawn to social conservative ideology.

http://www.livescience.com/18132-intelligence-social-conservatism-racism.html

http://www.alternet.org/story/154082/conservatism_thrives_on_low_intelligence_and_poor_information/

As the 2012 study results in my signature reflect no political ideology is absent racial prejudice but (right wing) Repubicans are over twice as likely to express anti-black racial prejudice as Democrats (link provided). So yes, racial prejudice crosses political ideologies but it's overwhelmingly associated with right wing social conservative political ideologies.

http://www.alternet.org/story/154082/conservatism_thrives_on_low_intelligence_and_poor_information/

 

Because if it says socialism in the name it must be socialist
Fascism IS a mostly right wing ideology (which Hitler and Mussolini said only a million times), but eventually the right and left start to look the same. It is Peter Baker's Horseshoe. I wonder why fascists and communists hated each other so much?



- - - Updated - - -

Exhibit Two

 

'Racism' is a political weapon or political tactic to prevent and/or cause (political) discussion. Right or left has nothing to do with it, because both politcal ideologies use it in opposite way, they let their voters fight with them (anti or pro), because political weapons cause fight or discussion.
When a small group insert new ideas (ideology) in a large group, that large group becomes the same in thinking and acting as that small group (especially when you are influeced by it since birth), that is what politics and ideology is all about.
People copy information/ideas they believe (political ideology), they take a stance, attack or defend a believe (political ideology works nearly the same as a religion with one difference, 'god' is not out there)

Most people will always believe in a system, political or non-political, because people are part of a tribe or an organisation, an hierarchy.
Anarchism is a believe/ideology too, the term anarchism/anarchist was politicized (not by the far right, but by masterminds who had knowledge on how the human mind and emotion works) 'Anarchists' don't wat to be part of the system, so they try to become independent, which is very hard, so some try to attack the system or live in caravans and tents and want to be left alone. An anarchist party is ofcourse part of the system (a green party or a pro animal party, or animal liberation front, or whale wars sea shepard), to try to organize the people with 'anarchist' feelings. A lot buy into it. To become independent (not 'seperatists', which is yet another political label to draw people in the current political war)

In (human society there is always hierarchy, try to come up with a system were nobody can rule over another. It should be a democracy, but not the current type of democracy (where there are dominant politicians and too many people that submit and give away their power (a vote and/or emotion)

A free and open system is really hard to create while human hierarchy and domination is always in the way. The definition of democracy is that every adult citizen need to influence every change in society. And it is not reached by an electionday, because for four years nobody can influence new ideas, but only thinnk and talk for four years, and when millions think and talk for four years over ideas that do not come from their mind, they give away their power.
So only a few people can come up with a new idea for a system, and this creates the same problem as when a majority starts to think collectively over an idea of a new system.
One thing is for sure, you need to stop thinking how politics thinks and what the media presents to your mind to remain free. Remaining free is the first priority (ofcourse), next a few people have to come up with a waterproof and solid new system. Democracy (different as the current one) is an old idea, it has never seen the light thus far. No need for politics and politization, but you need a governing group or other governing organisation that is controled by randomly picked people now and then.

 

Well I was right with ya until you started in on the dribble of low intelligent people tend to be racist.

That is a bunch of horsecrap.

Most high intelligent people are elitists snobs.

Do intelligence and education are not any real deterrent to racism and bigotry.

 

You know what is more annoying? How Americans confuse right and left as having social connotations.

Left and right wing is only an economic concept. The more left wing you are, the more you believe the government should be managing the economy. The more right wing, the more you believe the government should act independently of the economy. In the Soviet Union, the government controlled the means of production. In Italy and Nazi Germany, the government worked for big business, who held positions in government. The fascist and communist revolutions were funded by different social classes. Fascism was launched out of fear for communism by the wealthy and middle class, while communism was launched out of spite for the wealthy.

People need to understand two more "wings." Authoritarian and libertarian, which can be coupled with either left and right wing.

 

I'm right wing and I'm pretty racist. Goes hand in hand with the whole "see the world for what it is" way of looking at things vs the left wing "bury your head in the sand and pretend everything is rainbows and unicorns and we're all equal" way.

 

That has to be the dumbest rap I've read for a while. Whoever wrote that had the conclusion in mind before they went out to prove their thesis.

If low intelligence people are drawn to social conservative ideology were true, why aren't there more blacks and minorities in the GOP? Are all blacks and minorities of higher intelligence in spite of having poorer educations, the worst school systems and lower graduation rates? If your statistics were at all accurate, then blacks and minorities would be more likely to be conservatives because of the educational gap between them and whites, and the unmentionable white/black test score gap.

As a Hispanic and a conservative, I think that the republican's social and economic conservatism is more in line with Hispanics. Most Hispanics are Christians, and a large majority Catholic. Catholics are socially conservatives who are against abortion, premarital sex, contraception, assisted suicide, gay marriage and government funding of contraceptives and abortions.

Social conservatism is about freedom and liberty, so to say that racists are attracted to that ideology is like saying Jews are attracted to Nazism.

Racism in America as an issue is dying because Americans have become racially integrated. The only places we aren't are in democrat run big cities where blacks live in dangerous segregated neighborhoods and segregated schools. They have slowly resegregated blacks with their social programs like welfare and section 8 housing.

The only thing keeping racism alive is the leftists desires to keep the civil rights movement (for which the republicans were once the sole advocates) alive by creating racial tensions and division in places like Ferguson MO. If liberals were worried about the plight of blacks in this country, they would do more to solve the problems which plague them, low employment, broken families, crime, poor education.

 

Both sides claim the other is racist for partisan reasoning. In reality , both have their fair share of racist... racism often trumps political lines.

 

Usually when a leader calls himself a socialist and governs as a socialist centralizing more power to government, he (or she for that matter) is indeed a socialist. Socialism is not a right wing ideology.

For some reason, the left believes no one who subscribes to a left wing ideology can be a racist. Quite often the opposite is the case. I can't think of one left wing government which is not racist, can you?

I also don't know of any leader in history who claims, or claimed to be a socialist who didn't believe in socialism. Can you?

One would think that a person who calls him or herself "Scholar" would know this without any confusion.

 

Liberals hate Israel. Conservatives support Israel. Which one of those sounds more like Hitler's stance?

 

Racism and conservatism go hand in hand. There are many examples throughout this countries history to prove it.

But if you want current proof, look at this forum as an example. This forum is infested with racist excrement being regularly spouted by right wingers on a daily basis.

 

Congratulations on utterly failing to disprove anything that poster said. Kudos to you sir.

 

Yes there are many examples.

But blind ignorance prevents you from seeing them.

http://finance.townhall.com/columni...-you-by-the-democrat-party-n1632012/page/full

http://www.nationalblackrepublicans..._Rights___Republicans_Championed_Civil_Rights

And spare me your "right wing lies" bullsh*t...if you can prove it wrong then do so, or don't bother responding!