#walkaway

[Kephalos]

What is most interesting about these videos (I've seen a couple) is that they don't speak about the right-wing having better policies than the left, or at least than the left has worse policies overall, but that they came into a state of mind or feeling where they have the realization that speaking of your country as being good (or great) makes them less anxious about the state of society and angry at those that say that things are not going well for them. Something curious because these people are at the same time saying that things have never been better -- in history -- and yet are angry and deeply dissatisfied. It's amazing how similar rhetoric or tactics the US president and the Mexican president employ -- despite having opposite political stance (right for one left for the other) and background. Nationalism blinds people to one's own country's problems and even makes them worse because nationalists get defensive every time even people from inside the country point them out -- when a more critical attitude would make them better.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I absolutely think this led a lot of people for Trump. I know many many individuals here said they weren't really voting for Trump, they were voting against that sort of thing because those people heavily aligned themselves with everything democrat and DNC. Sadly because the MSM shoves THOSE types of people in your face as the image, it gets forgotten that most are actually...not like the wokeist people.

Speaking of people within the college I went to during the 2016 elections. Another good hunk merely chose not to vote because they felt it didn't matter either way it went. Kinda difficult to see so many people "not voting" for a person or choosing to merely opt out rather than try to find a solution but I also see the frustration.

I think people may find Biden less compromising, most of them did like Obama, so I figure they aren't going to vote not to vote for Biden the way things went last time. I think that's why Trump will lose. Now people are voting for Biden not to vote for Biden but to "not vote Trump."

I'd like to get us back to a point we're voting on a person and their policy, not against something else regardless of what the other side states.

It would be ideal, yes.

That being said, I would be very happy if Trump lost next month.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

What is most interesting about these videos (I've seen a couple) is that they don't speak about the right-wing having better policies than the left, or at least than the left has worse policies overall, but that they came into a state of mind or feeling where they have the realization that speaking of your country as being good (or great) makes them less anxious about the state of society and angry at those that say that things are not going well for them. Something curious because these people are at the same time saying that things have never been better -- in history -- and yet are angry and deeply dissatisfied. It's amazing how similar rhetoric or tactics the US president and the Mexican president employ -- despite having opposite political stance (right for one left for the other) and background.

Right, but across candidates and parties, how many people vote based on policy? Probably not that many, but this could be because so many policies have not really been up for discussion; alternatives were simply off the table.

Biden didn't win the nomination because people liked his policies, for instance.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Nationalism blinds people to one's own country's problems and even makes them worse because nationalists get defensive every time even people from inside the country point them out -- when a more critical attitude would make them better.

Nationalism is a cancer rotting the U.S. from the inside. Rather ironic, really.

I'm sorry, but stubbornly refusing to fix any problems because that's "not the way we do things" doesn't make a country great.

 

[anticlimatic]

A lot of the walkaway testimonials I watched were from religious people, and people with inherit conservative values who were over saturated in a culture they don't instinctively identify with.

I can see religious people clashing, morally, with the religitized woke left- since the moral codes in each are very much at odds with one another on a fundamental level.

 

[Vendrah]

A very up-front, detailed, and intimate story about this lady's political journey:

Is there a movement like this in the other direction- from right to left- with similarly up-front, detailed, and intimate stories to go with them?

[MENTION=8936]highlander[/MENTION] was a former republican, and then he had an avatar from a democrat candidate that I had forgot the name but it seems that democrat candidate didnt make it and Biden went instead.

If international counts, I had used to vote politicians on the right-wing some time ago and I have been leaning towards left, but I was never a far right wing supporter and I will probably never be a far left wing supporter either. I sort of have my own ideology and think that for my country left is best because inequality is wayyyy too high. Last presidential elections our far right wing here is so bad and disappointing to anyone who have enough critical thinking, intelligence - and is not on the list of the 2-8% who are winning and profiting from the disgrace of burning forests, COVID deaths and neoliberalism - that I am even thinking of regretting voting null 2 years ago (there are 2 rounds here and the 2nd one was a bad left-wing candidate vs far right one).

Anyway, I think that your last question plus further posts suggesting that no one leaves the right wing to the left to be statistically impossible. Knowing the size of the US and number votes, someone, even a few people, migrating from left to right or right to left is so imminent that is certain. Somebody might be migrating from right to left and left to right, these things are not really alien at all.

 

[Kephalos]

Nationalism is a cancer rotting the U.S. from the inside. Rather ironic, really.

I'm sorry, but stubbornly refusing to fix any problems because that's "not the way we do things" doesn't make a country great.

I think it's more that nationalism, for it to make sense of its own rhetoric, must claim that things are great already -- and this leads to thinking that if things are great already, there is no need to change anything. What happens is that as problems get worse and worse, nationalist claims get further and further away from reality.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I think it's more that nationalism, for it to make sense of its own rhetoric, must claim that things are great already -- and this leads to thinking that if things are great already, there is no need to change anything. What happens is that as problems get worse and worse, nationalist claims get further and further away from reality.

That's probably accurate. Fortunately, this is purely a hypothetical conversation with no relation to current circumstances.

 

[anticlimatic]

[MENTION=8936]Anyway, I think that your last question plus further posts suggesting that no one leaves the right wing to the left to be statistically impossible. Knowing the size of the US and number votes, someone, even a few people, migrating from left to right or right to left is so imminent that is certain. Somebody might be migrating from right to left and left to right, these things are not really alien at all.

I don't disagree. I'd like to hear their story if it's as eloquent as the girl's delivery in the OP.

 

[Red Memories]

Actually since this thread is here...I am curious how some of you respond to "Black Voices for Trump"

Do you think there's a particular reason these people deviate from others? Many of them I notice discuss feeling more "freedom of thought", in a way I have seen a small select few LGBT+ youtubers discuss going from left to right for the "freedom of thought." Do you think it perhaps is damaging to these movements to try and force them all to fall under a specific theory, or for the general public to stereotype them into these places? Do you think they'll remain on the "right"? Do you think this is just a rebellion for them? If you see the steady train of conversation it seems there would be little benefit to them being for it. Why aren't they against it? How could the democratic party do better to make these people feel less like this?

I mean, I also see these people mentioning "freedom of thought", but I find it interesting to hear LGBT+ or general minority people discuss how they went from being SJWs to being more on the right. When I listen to them, I would actually consider most of them to be more moderate than true right, but I think it is a problem when even people in these communities feel alienated or are bullied for having a different POV about the situations...

 

[anticlimatic]

What is most interesting about these videos (I've seen a couple) is that they don't speak about the right-wing having better policies than the left, or at least than the left has worse policies overall, but that they came into a state of mind or feeling where they have the realization that speaking of your country as being good (or great) makes them less anxious about the state of society and angry at those that say that things are not going well for them. Something curious because these people are at the same time saying that things have never been better -- in history -- and yet are angry and deeply dissatisfied. It's amazing how similar rhetoric or tactics the US president and the Mexican president employ -- despite having opposite political stance (right for one left for the other) and background. Nationalism blinds people to one's own country's problems and even makes them worse because nationalists get defensive every time even people from inside the country point them out -- when a more critical attitude would make them better.

Not exactly. I believe you're running it through the wrong translation. Most of them seem to focus on feeling less anxious, as you identify, not out of a sudden validation of their inherit nationalism, but rather a sudden validation of their fundamental values and ways of thought- which are ostracized by major swathes of society including the MSM, corporate establishment, etc. The anger and dissatisfaction is in the unfair and frankly stunning marginalization, in any post enlightment era, of such a large and well rooted demographic. Rightwing values, despite the lies and malignment by the establishment, are actually quite healthy reliable and stable. Little wonder they find the culture anger inducing and, at the very least, unsatisfactory.

Most on the right understand and appreciate the founding and constitution of the US. Many on the right also think America is just number one for no particular reason other than a small and battered ego. Two things can be true at once. It's not always just the later, sometimes it's both, and sometimes it's just the former.

 

[ceecee]

Actually since this thread is here...I am curious how some of you respond to "Black Voices for Trump"

Do you think there's a particular reason these people deviate from others? Many of them I notice discuss feeling more "freedom of thought", in a way I have seen a small select few LGBT+ youtubers discuss going from left to right for the "freedom of thought." Do you think it perhaps is damaging to these movements to try and force them all to fall under a specific theory, or for the general public to stereotype them into these places? Do you think they'll remain on the "right"? Do you think this is just a rebellion for them? If you see the steady train of conversation it seems there would be little benefit to them being for it. Why aren't they against it? How could the democratic party do better to make these people feel less like this?

I mean, I also see these people mentioning "freedom of thought", but I find it interesting to hear LGBT+ or general minority people discuss how they went from being SJWs to being more on the right. When I listen to them, I would actually consider most of them to be more moderate than true right, but I think it is a problem when even people in these communities feel alienated or are bullied for having a different POV about the situations...

I wonder how the LGBTQ supporters will feel when the Republicans succeed in repealing gay marriage and all the rights that people have fought and died for regarding gay rights. It's simply an act, it can be gutted and repealed the same way The Voting Rights Act has because it isn't law. This is part of the platform, particularly with the SCOTUS nominee. But it's part of the voting against your own interests that manifests itself in this way so you end up with support for the person that's going to kill you, literally and figuratively.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

A People’s History of The United States should be mandatory reading for every one of these people.

 

[Lark]

I wonder how the LGBTQ supporters will feel when the Republicans succeed in repealing gay marriage and all the rights that people have fought and died for regarding gay rights. It's simply an act, it can be gutted and repealed the same way The Voting Rights Act has because it isn't law. This is part of the platform, particularly with the SCOTUS nominee. But it's part of the voting against your own interests that manifests itself in this way so you end up with support for the person that's going to kill you, literally and figuratively.

Historically homosexuality, at least male homosexuality, has been solidly right wing, not a few of the fascists throughout history and those at the fore front of new movements in the UK have been homosexuals, often pederests too, I dont know what makes for those sorts of correlations but they definitely are a thing.

In the EU some of the radical right wing anti-immigration parties, like the one in Holland, have been lead by (male) homosexuals.

The right wing capitalist vote has been able to recruit a lot of (mainly male) homosexuals to neo-liberal causes because of the whole "breeders" and "useless eater" prejudices, and not a small bit of misogyny directed at the folk devil of female heads of household and single parents.

This stuff has been trending and going on for a long time, some feminists have been able to point it out, although even they have come in for black listing and censor culture like JK Rowling or that guy in the UK who had the temerity to question the idea of trans children with the suggestion they just be attracted to the same sex and should post pone the surgery it was likely they'd live to regret.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

Yikes, I’m bowing out of this one.

 

[Lark]

Right, but across candidates and parties, how many people vote based on policy? Probably not that many, but this could be because so many policies have not really been up for discussion; alternatives were simply off the table.

Biden didn't win the nomination because people liked his policies, for instance.

I would actually love to vote on the basis of policy, I hate that so many people vote on the basis of values or beliefs that I really, really think apply much less to the public sphere and much, much more to private life.

Seriously. I could give a damn what people do within their homes between consenting adults. Provided it has not a massive externality, environmental or social impact go for it. I'm a socialist and I even believe in capitalism between consenting adults, its hard to find an example of it but I'm sure that somewhere "free/fair trade is no robbery" might actually be true. I wouldnt choose it but people choose all sorts of things I definitely wouldnt and it makes little difference to me or the world at large.

Its when people start to decide that their personal beliefs at not just good for them but good for their non-believing neighbours or nations that I think there's a problem. Especially when, despite their personally feeling those beliefs are patently of benefit to all that they've never caught on spontaneously without A LOT of deliberate engineering and constant reinforcement.

So, for instance, if there was some arch conservative party which suddenly had a manifesto packed with UBI, decentralization, democratization, demilitarization etc. I'd vote for them over the paler shade of neo-liberalism most labour parties have become but I very much doubt that is ever, ever going to happen. The belief that people are lazy, no goods, who need to be duped or exploited to keep the over privileged in the condition to which they've become accustomed is too entrenched. Its belief though, more often than policy.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

I would actually love to vote on the basis of policy, I hate that so many people vote on the basis of values or beliefs that I really, really think apply much less to the public sphere and much, much more to private life.

Seriously. I could give a damn what people do within their homes between consenting adults. Provided it has not a massive externality, environmental or social impact go for it. I'm a socialist and I even believe in capitalism between consenting adults, its hard to find an example of it but I'm sure that somewhere "free/fair trade is no robbery" might actually be true. I wouldnt choose it but people choose all sorts of things I definitely wouldnt and it makes little difference to me or the world at large.

Its when people start to decide that their personal beliefs at not just good for them but good for their non-believing neighbours or nations that I think there's a problem. Especially when, despite their personally feeling those beliefs are patently of benefit to all that they've never caught on spontaneously without A LOT of deliberate engineering and constant reinforcement.

So, for instance, if there was some arch conservative party which suddenly had a manifesto packed with UBI, decentralization, democratization, demilitarization etc. I'd vote for them over the paler shade of neo-liberalism most labour parties have become but I very much doubt that is ever, ever going to happen. The belief that people are lazy, no goods, who need to be duped or exploited to keep the over privileged in the condition to which they've become accustomed is too entrenched. Its belief though, more often than policy.

That last paragraph sums up why we’ll probably never achieve any lasting bottom unity with ancaps. The core philosophies are fundamentally different. You can’t partner shepherds with wolves and expect the sheep to be in a better position

 

[Jaguar]

I wonder how the LGBTQ supporters will feel when the Republicans succeed in repealing gay marriage and all the rights that people have fought and died for regarding gay rights. It's simply an act, it can be gutted and repealed the same way The Voting Rights Act has because it isn't law. This is part of the platform, particularly with the SCOTUS nominee.

Thankfully RBG can't see this crazy shit.
Barrett tied to faith group ex-members say subjugates women

President Donald Trump’s nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court has close ties to a charismatic Christian religious group that holds men are divinely ordained as the “head” of the family and faith. Former members of the group, called People of Praise, say it teaches that wives must submit to the will of their husbands.

Submit to the will of their husbands. What century is she stuck in?

 

[Totenkindly]

....I mean, I also see these people mentioning "freedom of thought", but I find it interesting to hear LGBT+ or general minority people discuss how they went from being SJWs to being more on the right. When I listen to them, I would actually consider most of them to be more moderate than true right, but I think it is a problem when even people in these communities feel alienated or are bullied for having a different POV about the situations...

Well, it happens. I'm part of LGBT but remain quiet sometimes in conversations with some LGBTs because the far left can be pretty outspoken and I feel like I would be judged for being more moderate or for not understanding what someone thinks "proper language" is today. They can be pretty speech police. It's simply just not worth engaging sometimes, because I feel like they're off on some unprofitable warpath and it doesn't help anything to argue.

But there's no fucking way I am "going right." I have trouble understanding how sensible reasonable people would have that kind of reaction, in part because of what ceecee notes -- the Right is not their friend, never will be, and will codify whatever it can to crush them... let there be no doubt about it. Nothing is set in stone. They're spoiled by what they have gotten without decades of suffering, and could end up having a large wakeup call.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Historically homosexuality, at least male homosexuality, has been solidly right wing, not a few of the fascists throughout history and those at the fore front of new movements in the UK have been homosexuals, often pederests too, I dont know what makes for those sorts of correlations but they definitely are a thing.

In the EU some of the radical right wing anti-immigration parties, like the one in Holland, have been lead by (male) homosexuals.

The right wing capitalist vote has been able to recruit a lot of (mainly male) homosexuals to neo-liberal causes because of the whole "breeders" and "useless eater" prejudices, and not a small bit of misogyny directed at the folk devil of female heads of household and single parents.

This stuff has been trending and going on for a long time, some feminists have been able to point it out, although even they have come in for black listing and censor culture like JK Rowling or that guy in the UK who had the temerity to question the idea of trans children with the suggestion they just be attracted to the same sex and should post pone the surgery it was likely they'd live to regret.

Wilders is gay ? (for some reason I don't find that surprising)

I know that many will find the upper post "disturbing" but there is some truth in that. Plus if I am not mistaken leader of Austrian far right was also gay at the time. Leader in one dictatorship close to my country has far right government and the guy on top is probably also gay. After all his deputy is self declared lesbian. There probably aren't any too strict correlations but far right or right wing economics probably aren't nearly in contradiction with being gay as some would like to think.


On the other hand one of the definitions of the first world is that there is no real left in the political system. Therefore people in those countries tend to see liberal values as left wing values, what isn't really correct since most of the first world countries have no real left. Therefore judging the closest thing you have to the left as the left is kinda simplistic. In other words the biggest macho in my local politics is my left wing president that often starts rallies with "Hello comrades". Who btw. just the other day slammed the association that protects women. Calling them incompetent, useless, imprecise (and that they have a lousy group name). Then when that exploded he also slammed the main commissioner for gender equality. While day after that he slammed really hard two liberal anti-corruption MPs (both women), saying they are crybabies, second class "experts", frauds etc. I mean next to him the leader of our far right really looks kinda gay when you think about it (folk singer). Also we had elections recently and it turned out that one of key people that our main left wing party put forward was gay ... and then they quickly removed him from the leading position in the middle of campaign. Therefore overall center right and their centrist partners probably did more for local LGBT than the left (which are what the US would consider strong left, what is because out entire spectrum is moved to the left of the one of US). Also in one of the countries in this part of the world the left even banned gay marriage through constitution. Etc.
In other words LGBT stuff are completely incompatible with genuine extreme left positions, since they are very individualistic in nature and the extreme left wants to phase out those kinds of things in order to have more compact society (communism).


Just saying.