It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Right Wing Ideology In A Nutshell

page: 1

log in


posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 11:27 AM
A few days ago, I noticed a thread entitled "Right Wing Ideology In A Nutshell," in which the author of the thread had cut and pasted an article from another web site. The thread was removed from ATS because, as I understand it, it's against the rules to cut and paste an entire article from another source.

The article was posted on a site called "conceptual guerilla" in 2006, although it becomes evident after reading it that it was written sometime prior to the 2004 elections. I don't know who the actual author is but his perception of right wing ideology is as accurate today as it was then. An article well worth reading and it doesn't take more than 5 minutes.

It can be found at;
edit; once you've linked to the site, you must manually enter the /55 after the word "node" in the web address to get to the article. It starts with "Defeat The Right In Three Minutes."

Maybe now, the discussion regarding this article can continue here on ATS. It was just getting started when the original thread was removed.

I hope that I have posted this in a manner consistent with ATS guidelines, if not I guess I'll pay the price.

[edit on 21-8-2010 by Flatfish]

posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 11:45 AM
Don't forget about the Left Wing Ideology In A Nutshell.
We're going to be gifted with a health care plan written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn't understand it, passed by Congress that hasn't read it but exempts themselves from it, to be signed by a president who also hasn't read it, with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes.

[edit on 8/21/2010 by texastig]

posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 11:51 AM

Originally posted by texastig
Don't forget about the Left Wing Ideology In A Nutshell.

But there's something more sinister behind right-wing ideology than left-wing ideology. I much prefer leaning left than right.

"Save the whales" resonates much more with me than "Save the rich".

posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 12:12 PM
Both party's have done bad things. You just can't say it's one party. All of them are guilty of treason.

[edit on 8/21/2010 by texastig]

posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 12:14 PM
I think to have an intellectual conversation on this both right-wing and left-wing have to be defined because it means different things to different people and has different meaning in different countries. I think a discussion on actual ideologies is more useful.

posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 12:23 PM
I read about the first half of the article and then started to skim it. To me it reads like the same ol' same ol' script: they are wrong and bad, we are correct and good.

I'm no fan of the Right Wing and lately I've had to separate myself from the Left, too, because we can continue to stand on opposite sides of the fence and hurl insults at each other all day long but nothing of value is getting accomplished.

It is depressing and frustrating that both sides have been taken away from actual work to focus on destroying each other.

posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 12:27 PM
Labels are useless.

Humans are imperfect but at least the so called Left:

Want to feed human beings

Give then health Care as a right just like every other civilized country in the world

Stop pollution

Give people education

Help the poor

And support many other basic humanitarian causes

Of course they arent perfect

On the other hand:

The Right wing want to:

Give the wealthy tax cuts

Support America even when its morally wrong like the Iraq war

Support Bigotry

Never want to help the poor or needy

Support immoral wars

Prevent woman from exercising their right over their own bodies

Didn’t support social security, and now want to privatize it and give it to wall street gamblers

And support many other selfish anti-human selfish causes

They are always against supporting basic human needs and strangely claim to be Christians on the most part

Does anyone really believe that Jesus Christ if he were here would be a republican right winger?

posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 02:08 PM

Originally posted by texastig
Both party's have done bad things. You just can't say it's one party. All of them are guilty of treason.

I thought we were speaking of ideologies-- a collection of characteristic values observed to often accompany one another-- not parties.

posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 02:11 PM
Right Wingers don't mind government entitlements when it's their name on the check.

posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 03:58 AM
Partisan nonsense. As somebody has already pointed out, discussing ideologies is far better than discussing 'wings' because each wing has many differing beliefs within it.

[edit on 22-8-2010 by LeftWingLarry]

posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 05:16 AM
This is just partisan nonsense, and its only intention is to keep the division between people alive. Leaning right in ones politics does not demand that those politics favor "the rich" over the poor. Conversely, leaning left in ones politics does not demand that those politics favor "the poor", and frankly it is hard to see where much of left wing politics does anything for the poor but ensure they stay poor.

The left does not hold a monopoly on charity, and in fact, when the left demands that charitable institutions register with the government in order to be charitable, and demand taxation as a form of "charity" they are not at all advocating charity, but rather big government as a nanny state, nothing more.

The greatest conceit of the left is evidenced right here in this thread, when it is asserted the left want to "give health care as a right", as if rights can be given. Rights either exist, or they do not, but they can not be given and can only be enjoyed by those who own them. That is why they are called rights, because they are done by right, not by privilege or grant.

When someone, whether "left" or "right" advocates "giving health care as a right" they fail to explain who will pay for this "right" and can only offer up taxation as an answer, but still fail to answer how taxation will, or even can cover the expense of "health care". Further, the whole discussion of "health care" becomes so diluted that no discussion what-so-ever is placed upon actual health care, and instead is placed upon insurance schemes as if insurance schemes will some how cover the cost of health.

Poor diets, bad hygiene, and a lack of proper exercise, both mental and physical, demonstrably leads to much of the chronic illnesses that exist today in modern societies. Environmental factors play heavily into this as well. There is a whole interconnectedness to health that can not in anyway be given to people, and most people are better off taking responsibility for their own health.

The left often argues that people can't always take responsibility for their own health, but the left is the ones who have heavily advocated big government. It is big government that incrementally and steadily have so regulated the ability to take responsibility for ones own health, that increasingly it is becoming difficult to to make personal decisions about ones own health care because of this. If a person wants to drink fresh whole un-homogenized milk, they can not "legally" do so unless they own their own farm where they keep their own cows to do so. They can not, if they so choose, purchase un-homogenized milk as an option towards health.

If a person wants to use tryptophan as a supplement to calm their nerves, they cannot legally purchase it. The FDA, at the behest of major pharmaceutical corporations, have for years been attempting to regulate the vitamin industry, and push out the smaller companies, so that it remains solely in the hands of major corporations. Which leads to another conceit of the left.

The left claim it is the right who favor corporatism but it is the left wing policies that ensure smaller companies cannot compete with corporations. Further, corporations are created by government. All corporations exist by charter. A corporation cannot exist without a grant of government allowing that existence. Charters can be revoked, but are they? Does government ever agree to take away a charter from a corporation? Does the left even attempt to engage in charter revocation?

I created, a while ago, a thread here, offering information on how to kill corporations, and in all honesty, a couple of my left leaning friends did join this thread for discussion, but most left wingers in this site had no interest at all in this thread. To be fair, few right wingers had much interest in this thread either, but all this proves is that neither the left nor the right have any real interest in doing away with corporations. If the left was such an enemy to corporations would they advocate so many policies that favor corporatism?

Neither the left nor the right truly care about individualism anymore, and the smaller company's have no allies from either side. This is the real problem, that both the hard left, and hard right have allied themselves with each other, mainly in the form of a two party system that has endeavored to keep power and maintain control at the expense of protecting the rights of the individual.

The left claims they are the party of the "minorities' but they constantly and insistently declare "minorities" to be groups of people, when in truth, there is no greater minority than that of the individual.

The individual has been consistently and systematically shut out of the current system, and both the left and the right have adopted collectivism as the only viable model for governance. Government is no longer about the protection of individual rights, it is has adopted policies that favor "civil rights" that increasingly becomes "collective rights".

The left will, in its most extreme, declare all property theft, and then create boundaries and trespassing laws that are very much an acknowledgment of property. Thus, when they declare all property theft, what they really mean is that only the elite of which they favor gets to control the use of property.

To view corporatism as some creation of the right, is as useless as viewing environmentalism as some creation of the left. Individuals ultimately adopt conservationist ideals, or environmentalist ideals if you prefer, but rarely governments or corporations. Governments and corporations, as a tool of propaganda, will pay lip service to environmentalism, but then corporations will crunch numbers and decide it is cheaper to pay fines for polluting than to change their business paradigms, and governments being every bit as greedy as corporations, will accept these fines as an appropriate measure, rather than revoke the charters from those corporations that egregiously pollute.

This is the alliance between the left and the right, and the biggest tool of propaganda they rely upon are the degrees in which they regulate corporations. Thus, the left declares themselves more concerned for people because they favor more regulation, and the right declares themselves more for freedom because they favor less regulation, but both clearly favor regulation over simply revoking corporate charters that egregiously abrogate and derogate the rights of others through malfeasance.

Neither side cares a whit about freedom, nor protection of individual rights. Both sides have willingly, and more and more, openly declared war on the individual, and most certainly the notion of the sovereign individual. Regulation is the mantra of both sides, and it is the regulation of life itself that they advocate. Whether it be more or less regulation, it is regulation that of the individual that they advocate.

Revoking a corporate charter is not regulation, it is the deprivation of privilege that has been granted by the state. When the state views itself as existing by grant of the people, and exists to act on behalf of the people, then we come closer to a state that exists to protect the rights of the individual. When a state, or more accurately those who are employed by the state, view themselves as rulers of the people, then the state comes closer to protecting the privileges they have created for the elite few they have chosen to enjoy those privileges, and all other individuals exist to support that system. This is neither a right wing conspiracy, nor a left wing conspiracy, but rather a conspiracy of tyrants who have agreed to take different sides while pretending to oppose each other, in order to usurp the power that inherently belongs to the people, spread out equally, and not at all concentrated.

The more concentrated the power base, the more assured tyranny will prevail, regardless of whether that concentration resides with the left, or the right.

posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 11:25 AM
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Thanks for taking the time to read the article and composing such a thoughtful response. I thought it was a very good read and I agree with you on many of the points you made therein.

Although, on some issues like healthcare I totally disagree. I agree that we do not create "rights" but it is our duty and that of our government, to recognize and protect fundamental human rights from abuse by others.

Police and fire protection are considered to be fundamental rights or services provided to all on a "not for profit" basis and fundamental healthcare should be one of those services as well. Corporate insurance companies should not be allowed to prey on the sick and dying in their quest to generate a cash profit.

I believe that if we take the profit currently being generated by the corporate health insurance companies and devote it to actual health care that the means will meet the needs.

Personally, I'm for a single payer system when it comes to health care. Health care, like police and fire protection, affects us all. When our children are exposed to children who are ill due to lack of fundamental health care, they get sick and the illness or disease spreads. A lot like a fire may spread to the house next door if the first house is left to burn for lack of insurance.

So long as corporate fiduciary responsibility guidelines continue to mandate that corporate heads place company profits above the needs of people and the environment, then we have a big problem. So long as corporations enjoy the right to spend their profits on unlimited lobbying and campaign contributions, we have an even bigger problem.

With all this said, I still believe that Conceptual Guerilla hit the nail on the head with respect to right wing ideology. That's not to say that some lefties don't think the same way.

[edit on 22-8-2010 by Flatfish]

posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 11:51 AM

Originally posted by EnlightenUp

"Save the whales" resonates much more with me than "Save the rich".

Until you realize that the leadership on the left is rich.

They didn't get rich by saving the whales.

[edit on 22-8-2010 by badgerprints]

posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 01:53 PM

Originally posted by badgerprints

Originally posted by EnlightenUp

"Save the whales" resonates much more with me than "Save the rich".

Until you realize that the leadership on the left is rich.

They didn't get rich by saving the whales.

See the statement above about equating a certain leftward lean to "parties". Same goes with "leadership".

top topics


log in