Enlighten me

The idea is there’s a balance. Progressives are all about new ways of thinking and trying to fight for new causes, new reforms, while conservatives stick with what’s “tried and true” in regards to civilization. A healthy relationship between them means that only the best ideas are passed. Yes, progressives came up with nearly every advance in social causes, but they also came up with a lot of stupid shit you don’t hear about until it goes catastrophically wrong, like communism. If there were only conservatives, the world would be stagnant, and if there were only progressives it would be chaos.

Now why are people here so far right? Ideas like nationalism and simply preferring your own culture/people have historically been taken for granted, nobody not even the most radical of reformers seriously opposed these things. Now believing in them makes you a far right racist, so we became the far right racists.

t. Moderate conservative, honestly still kinda a libertarian at heart

I just hate non whites in general and their cultures in particular

Are you retarded?

Fuck off Tyler

Attached: 1564117357612.jpg (471x500, 105K)

>what is the appeal of right wing politics

1. there are lazy people and people who like to cheat the sytem

2. politicians pass laws to buy votes, and the easiest ones to buy are people in (1)

so, right-wingers don't want a nanny state that pretends that everyone is a victim and nobody is responsible for their plight. Like running up 500,000 in student debt is something that we should treat as a victim who was abused by the system, rather than a fucking idiot who can't do math.

Progress is fine. Degeneration is not.

That does make sense. Thank you for sharing.

I couldn't agree more.

A good question to ask, I’ll ask another, what is progress? Sexual immorality? Freedom? Democracy? Individualism? It is all and none of these things, progress is to simply move forward, and what can moving forward lead to? Sometimes it can lead to wonder, but it always leads to collapse, and then the progress stops, people become unhappy, people have lost all spiritual meaning and tradition, then you go right back to square one, tradition. Tradition is a state of being, faith, hierarchy, order, all of those can be directed to tradition. Our current civilisation is progressing, but we are in decline, our birth rates stall, people have little meaning, suicide, depression increase, all of these are the results of progress. To be a traditionalist is to reject the false gods of progress, to find comfort in normality and hierarchy, to preserve the order that our past generations left, only then can someone find true happiness. In faith, hierarchy and order.

Progress never lasts, people get to comfortable and it breaks and leads to doom.

Attached: CF337548-9408-42DD-AE64-A868C92B0F4B.jpg (768x512, 96K)

tits or gtfo

Fags are not progress

I never said hey were.

It is possible to progress in the wrong direction and that has recently obviously been the case.
Conservativism is just being progressive with brakes. When you get older you get much more humble and understand that you can't predict most of the time what outcomes even the smallest changes have on an infinitely complicated system like society.

Literally who?

Explain please. Don't politely ignore.
(Lurker)

Progress is inevitable, it also comes, but the difference between progress and tradition is that progress comes from the success of a traditional society, whilst tradition comes from the failure of a progressive society.

Right wing = to keep the status quo(new technology means a new society, a new society means that the previous status quo does not fit modern times, right wingers are usually boomer tier and they're always stuck in the past.)

Left wing = to change the status quo(sometimes not for the better tho and thats whats wrong with it, they feel everyone needs to be helped when some definitely do not deserve it)

well then, if current progress is viewed by some as the reason of accelerated degeneration, and leftists are seen as the main culprits, is it not then a very logical thing to find appeal in things that oppose them?

Ask any leftist and they'll tell you they are making progress. The triumphs of the civil rights movement or electing a black president or homos getting married. Ask anyone confronted with facts, and they'll tell you a different story. They'll tell you about how in 1965, 95% of blacks were literate but in 2019 there are major school districts where every single pupil (no exceptions) is unable to pass reading standards set for their grade.

We could name a billion examples like this. The people the left is progressing are actually being decimated. It's a horrific and tragic thing. Despite all of it, you'll see leftists triumphant about their victorious long march through institutions and time, self-satisfied with their "achievements" but oblivious to reality.

Explain what exactly? I agree with what that person said.

personally, the appeal is just that right wing works better. economics, history, human nature, all things that the right aligns with better, and more productively.

there are a lot of "right wing" beliefs that don't, ofc, but the political foundation of the "right" just works better in reality while reducing harm the most. funnily enough, 'traditions, religion, patriotism' are all the parts of it I don't really like.

but right and left are fundamentally economic in nature, not social/philosophical/dogmatic/etc. lefty economics is inherently unstable and abusive and encourage large govt (which is no good). so i lean right.

No, your statement is the retarded one. What the fuck is "progress" supposed to be? What are we progressing toward? Is there singe magical predetermined state of societal being that we are headed toward? If so then why not lay it all out for us so we can just do it overea instead of doing these bullshit baby steps. "Ooh gotta treat niggers like humans, that's progress". "Ooh gotta let women vote that's progress". "Ooh gotta create the welfare state that's progress". "Ooh gotta import a billion foreigners that's progress". "Ooh gotta wax that tranny's dick and ball sack that's progress".
What if my idealized society is more our a limited republic led by land owning white men with families like the ancient Greeks talked about? Then "progress" would mean removing voting rights for most people, abolishing the welfare state, and gassing the fucking kikes. Do you agree that those qualify as "progress"?

Lesser evil is still evil. It's like having to choose between Hillary and Trump. That worked out well...

boobs or begone

teats or retreat

pretty sharp thinking brother. and no traditions are not "stale". might as well say virtue and discipline is stale.

now if you are talking about rigidness, lack of vision and compassion then yeah that is bad.

but neverending "progress' is a myth.

I would argue that the current status quo is to be aggressively progressive and thus currently being conservative is being against the status quo.

choices, even if shityy, should never be turned down. sorry bro Hillary lost.

Attached: D6mICfuUYAYl9bN.jpg (1016x686, 111K)

True, but lesser evil is still LESSER evil. If there are only two options available, and even if you think that they are both evil (which may or may not be the case), it's rather counterintuitive to opt for the one you think is more evil than the other.

I define progress as healthy growth of economics, technology, health care and most importantly - education. You want society to get smarter, not dumber. For that ideas need to be freely expressed, opinions discussed and systems in place critiqued.

When did I ever say tradition was stale? It is actually the most enlightened thinking an individual could ever consider.

>Neverendinf progress is a myth
You misinterpreted my statement, I agree with you, it is a myth, I am merely saying that eventually a society will leave its spiritual boundaries and progress, this progression will lead to its collapse, there will never be society that does not eventually collapse from its progress, humanity moves forward, but will eventually fall. Traditionalism is the best ideology and way of thought that has ever touched mankind because it is the most sustainable.

One word: TRUTH

The best society that has ever touched mankind is one that is economically progressive and socially traditional, the societies that best fit this definition would be Ancient Greece and the late European monarchies.

>systems in place critiqued.

problem in america is that one side says it's all white people and corporations that need to change, and the other side says the welfare state and the ghetto mentality need to change. And if you see the pros and cons of both sides nobody takes you seriously.

So what part of your progress means my wife needs to wax a tranny's balls, what part means we need a racial underclass of permanent serf untermench, what part of your progress means my son needs to learn about faggots in early elementary school, how do all those things factor into your definition of progress?

> economics, technology, health care

You understand that, within the academy, the ones doing physics / math / etc. are the right wing and the ones doing useless garbage are the left wing? You understand that typical college grad can't handle the material meant for 9th graders 100 years ago right?

We're seeing substantial change for the better. Economic growth, technology that makes life easier. We're also seeing substantial change for the worse, especially in educational attainment.
The things improving are dominated by right wingers, and the things degrading are dominated by left wingers.

One can't help but wonder why anyone would be a leftist.

Read up on r/K selection theory.

Change for the sake of change doesn't necessarily move society forward. 200 years ago, leeches and bloodletting were "progress". 70 years ago, lobotomies were "progress". Today, we're lucky enough to witness the transgender revolution - progress at its finest!

Nobody here advocates stagnation, just a healthy amount of skepticism towards new ideas that haven't yet been tested.

Attached: 1506204934839.jpg (379x496, 83K)

op didn't post tits, and gtfo
perfect.

the most ironic aspect of how they want to change math and science to move away from the patriachy (whatever they mean by that), is that is almost exactly how the nazis ruined their superior educational system by trying to have national socialistic physics instead of jew (Einstein, etc.) physics.

This is a problem that I see with how things are done "traditionally". You get two shitty options that no one wants and are forced to choose one, in fear of the other. Why did nobody vote Bernie or something?

Bernie can’t even stand up to the corruption in his own party let alone drain the swamp

Right wing politics is the politics of the powerful and comes as a reaction to social forces that threaten the established hierarchy of power. The appeal of right wing politics should therefor be self evident - the people for whom the current system is skewed favourably towards have a vested interest in maintaining that advantage.

That's what I have a problem with.

>Why did nobody vote Bernie or something?
Because he is a socialist wacko
who sees ideology first and reality second

You see bernie standing up to russia, china?
Would he have started a trade war with china?
developing a relationship of trust between Kim Jong Un to aviod nuclear war?

Showing confidence and compromise to Saudis and Israelis, regional allies, against the nutjobs in teheran?

To clarify - I do realize that progress can go either way - for the better, or for worse.
I am also not saying that the SJW agenda has anything to do with any real progress.

>That's what I have a problem with.
What exactly?
That "order" is whats holding the damn country together.

IDK, I'm not American, sorry. I was just following the logic of "choosing the lesser evil" - which out of the three... wouldn't be Bernie?

Except it is wrong. Pretty much every government in the world right now is some mix of neoliberalism and progressivism, which are hard left political perspectives.

Right wing politics seeks (by today's standards) extraordinary measures to dethrone a variety of entrenched powers like banning usury to stifle international finance.

I have a problem with oligarchy.

>. I was just following the logic of "choosing the lesser evil"
There is no fucking logic in that
You are quoting a metaphysical concept to explain cold stoned reality.

Be a pragmatist or die by confirmation bias to your own bullshit.
> which out of the three... wouldn't be Bernie?
Bernie is a disaster, he couldn't even stand up to 1 angry nigger who took the microphone from him.

He cant even stand up to 2 bitchy black women

Yes, when things don't change, they tend to stagnate, which in the end leads to only bad alternatives. But, until change presents itself either by actions or otherwise, there is no logic in choosing the option you view as worse than the other. Going for lesser evil is essentially damage control, but it is still better than doing nothing. And since there are no perfect options, all the choices boil down to the fact that you have to choose the lesser evil. Or the least evil, if there are more options than one.

As I stated earlier I actually do not believe in "choosing the lesser evil".
Believe it or not I'm actually a pragmatist.

Just in theory - why not boycott the forced choice you're given?

>I have a problem with oligarchy.
Oligarchy is a fucking meme.
Everyone goes up
and down.

Rich and poor
everyone is part of the same tribe
Plebs and Elites copy each other.
The Values the oligarchy says it holds are also held by the commoners, Values, ethics, traditions, effort, etc, etc...
They also copy the degenerate stuff.

Asking such a question on Jow Forums of all places...

Attached: 1565010924297.png (900x676, 410K)

your point?

>your point?
He is a nigger.

When the power is in the hands of few, you come closer and closer to authoritarian rule.

Attached: 1564512334926.png (960x575, 77K)

Jow Forums in general is a place where people talk about topics they don't understand. Jow Forums in particular is a cesspool of people who would get absolutely destroyed in a real debate about politics where ad hominems and other logical fallacies are frown upon. Some here have their paragraphs of poorly thought-out opinions they gathered elsewhere, some are only parroting the agenda of their chosen propaganda and some are just being edgy cunts.
You'd unironically find more dignity and intelligence for discussing politics on yahoo answers or the Youtube comment section.

Attached: 1564386426981.jpg (563x555, 51K)

>When the power is in the hands of few, you come closer and closer to authoritarian rule.
yes nigger
cry harder

are you of some asian authoritarian regime you can't even joke about your kings fat ass

whats your beef nigger
Drop the meme flag.
>Now why are people here so far right? Ideas like nationalism and simply preferring your own culture/people have historically been taken for granted, nobody not even the most radical of reformers seriously opposed these things. Now believing in them makes you a far right racist, so we became the far right racists.
This user has already answered the question simply but correctly.

Monarchy, Oligachy, NatSocs, The Church , they all unironically outload supported and maintained the Culture /Values we are all seeing attacked by Globo homo left.

Just fishing. Curious to see what international masses actually believe in right now and how they explain it.

Who said boycotting isn't a choice? Depending on the choice at hand it can be effective or not. For example boycotting elections will do fuck all, but boycotting small businesses can and have in the past destroyed those businesses.

As I said, there can be (and usually are) more options than only two, of which boycotting (essentially choosing to do nothing, of which I spoke earlier) is one.

Attached: 3BE6867F-9D79-443A-8652-2F72CEBECCD8.jpg (570x204, 18K)

That is an interesting observation. However I wonder if that would change with different people coming into power.

>how things are done "traditionally". You get two shitty options that no one wants and are forced to choose one, in fear of the other
That's hardly traditional. First of all, monarchies have a far richer tradition and they don't give much choice at all. Second, even in our republic, for the first 150 or so years it was more common for parties to form and win power. The Republicans for instance only formed like one presidential election before Lincoln won, out of the ashes of a collapsing Whig party and some nativist parties. If anything, political dynamism is more traditional in our country then the contemporary morass we find ourselves in.

>then
than*
Sorry, I'm workposting.

But US has that weird election system, which isn't really that democratic

>But US has that weird election system, which isn't really that democratic
Because the USA is a Constitutional Republic.
Rule of Law
Not of the Mayority.

Could you say more on black progress since 65. Were blacks doing pretty well?

And oh what a surprise, OP won't respond to actual answers.
Yet another shill.

Which is just asking for trouble if you ask me.
"Only few are wise enough to be able to govern themselves. Even fewer are wise enough to govern others" - some useless cunt.

Trying to respond to as many as i can.

Right-wing is easier to deal with because it is more predictable. It's easier to understand what people want if they appeal to traditions that have a history. You can't say the same for leftists. What they consider moral changes every decade and becomes ever more incomprehensible. Even for an individualist, it's easier to survive in a society where you can predict behavior than one where you can't.

>I define progress as healthy growth of economics, technology, health care and most importantly - education. You want society to get smarter, not dumber. For that ideas need to be freely expressed, opinions discussed and systems in place critiqued.

>limiting the influence of brainlets is just asking for trouble
Think about how dumb the average person is, then consider that, since IQ is more or less a normal distribution, half the population is even stupider.
I bet you unironically like the idea of women voting. We need to go back to only landed males getting to vote.

I won't comment on that last part, but as for the first part - yes, average person is semi braindead, this is exactly why it's so dangerous to concentrate power in the hands of select few. Politics is a popularity contest and the one that plays people the best - wins.

>Genuine question - what is the appeal of right wing politics?

At its base, the right vs left isn't about politics. It's about each individual's psychology.

The truth is that the world is always in constant change. Change is the way of things. Lack of change brings on stagnation and extinction. It is only change that brings progress.

Some people are psychologically wired to like change. They look forward to change as an opportunity to progress. We mostly call these people Democrats/Progressives/Left Wingers and so on.

Other people are psychologically wired to fear change. They look at change as something that can hurt them and destroy their way of life. They want to protect the status quo. We mostly call these people Republicans/Conservatives/Regressives/Right Wingers and so on.

That's pretty much the root of it.

>politics is a popularity contest and the one that plays people the best - wins.
Which is why it's better to keep those most likely to be played (the dependent class) out of it.

I disagree. If only the elite votes they won't give a shit about what's best for the collective whole to further the evolution of human race, or the individual's rights. I think we all know they will look only for their own benefit and if it comes at the expense for the poor - they won't care.

I agree, the only constant is change. It's rather foolish to oppose the evolution and shut into your comfort zone. It sounds exactly like SJW and their "safe spaces" to me.

This is chapotraphouse cruising for (You)s stop replying

>Which is just asking for trouble if you ask me.
>"Only few are wise enough to be able to govern themselves. Even fewer are wise enough to govern others" - some useless cunt.
kek
the absolute pettiness from this post is too much.
And Mayority, mob rule is not asking for trouble as well?
USA is a UNION.
States get to give the Votes
Because some states are more numerous than others in pop.
So by giing quasi equal wight of vote to this States you obligate Presidential candidates to target, adress politically issues that affect this States which otherwise would been ignored.

I have no idea what >chapotraphouse cruising for (You)s even means, but if you don't like the thread - don't read it.

We know.

the appeal is that it's what works, like everything that's in line with the natural law

Attached: 1558838647825.png (821x1340, 1.02M)

> you obligate Presidential candidates to target, adress politically issues that affect this States which otherwise would been ignored.
what did you mean by that?