|
Your continuous donations keep RPGWatch running!
RPGWatch Forums » General Forums » Politics & Religion » Texas Republican Party = Ultra Nationalists

Default Texas Republican Party = Ultra Nationalists

August 27th, 2012, 18:09
The precious metal standard stuff really makes me shake my head. If you want a currency pegged to or backed by something with an intrinsic value you need to do two things to make it a worthwhile experiment at least as opposed to just plain self-destructive idiocy

1) You have to peg it to or back with with a unit of work - say kwhr.
2) You need a sufficiently advanced and interconnected energy infrastructure so that a generic quantity of energy (probably determined based on some tiny fraction of average per capita consumption) roughly interchangeable between forms as fuel and electricity.

That's at least a metric that grows somewhat well with population and the economy as opposed to something rather a bit more inflexible and horribly limiting like a precious metal standard.
jhwisner is offline

jhwisner

Keeper of the Watch

#21

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,472

Default 

August 27th, 2012, 18:25
Originally Posted by JemyM View Post
TFN's page's first link is "Click here for the full 2012 platform as adopted by Texas Republicans." and this is the same PDF that you linked to, same formatting and everything. I try to understand peoples position and I seldom buy hyperbole or alarmism so I usually doublecheck this stuff. This leaves us at null, I do not draw my conclusions from TFN but by analyzing the PDF you linked to.
I'm aware it was linked there, but you draw your conclusions from the analysis they provided, not from the document itself.

Have you ever read the national-socialist partys platform?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Program

The things to look for is obsession with identity, reformation of the educational system, reduction of rights for minorities and pseudoscientific threats.
Just because two things have something in common does not make them the same thing. You are taking the worst case scenario of one part of the Texas GOP platform and extrapolating that into Ultra-Nationalism. To say that is a reach doesn't do it justice.

————————————————-

"Ya'll can go to HELL! I'm-a-goin' to TEXAS!"

- Davy Crockett
blatantninja is online now

blatantninja

blatantninja's Avatar
Resident Redneck Facist

#22

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 3,944

Default 

August 27th, 2012, 18:44
Originally Posted by blatantninja View Post
I'm aware it was linked there, but you draw your conclusions from the analysis they provided, not from the document itself.
Statements I repeated here are direct quotes from the document. I have not quoted statements I haven't been able to find directly.

Originally Posted by blatantninja View Post
Just because two things have something in common does not make them the same thing. You are taking the worst case scenario of one part of the Texas GOP platform and extrapolating that into Ultra-Nationalism. To say that is a reach doesn't do it justice.
It's like comparing cars. The color may vary and some of it's details, but in general they are based on a fairly similar setup. Extreme movements often have several of these in common, a strong identity, a perceived enemy of that identity, the wish to control the school system and the rejection of unwanted science. Communism under the Soviet Union had all of these, so did the Swedish state-feminism.

I know I make a stretch when I call it nationalism because nation is usually perceived as an ethnic group with shared history. I do this based on the book The Holy Reich: Nazi Conceptions of Christianity, 1919-1945 which is unfortunately a highly academic and difficult to read analysis of the blend between nationalism and Christianity as well as the development of a branch of Christianity tailored to fit the nazi-partys beliefs. Like I said, the US do not have a long history but this is one of the best examples of "our nation owns this land and we decide what our nation consists of" I have seen.

Mankind must put an end to war or war will put an end to mankind. - John F Kennedy
An eye for an eye, and soon the whole world is blind. - Mahatma Gandhi
The world is my country. To do good is my religion. My mind is my own church. This simple creed is all we need to enjoy peace on earth. - Thomas Paine
JemyM is offline

JemyM

JemyM's Avatar
Okay, now roll sanity.

#23

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 6,017
Send a message via ICQ to JemyM Send a message via MSN to JemyM

Default 

August 27th, 2012, 18:52
And who should set the policies of a land but the people that live there?

————————————————-

"Ya'll can go to HELL! I'm-a-goin' to TEXAS!"

- Davy Crockett
blatantninja is online now

blatantninja

blatantninja's Avatar
Resident Redneck Facist

#24

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 3,944

Default 

August 27th, 2012, 19:41
Originally Posted by blatantninja View Post
And who should set the policies of a land but the people that live there?
Nationalism isn't based on who lives there but the idea that a subset of the population have inherit rights to the land, due to shared history, birthright, religion and language. This is usually blended with the idea that there are different "peoples" in the world that are essentially different from one another. Nationalist movements also tend believe that these peoples are in a struggle or competition for privileges and rights and usually points at scapegoats that came in and destroyed the nation.

Most western nations have an open citizenship and allow citizens to vote and participate in everyday lives regardless of ethnicity, religion or origin allowing the chance to those who wants it to get there, get a job and earn a living. In this scenario policies are set by those who live there based on their shared interests. This isn't nationalism.

Mankind must put an end to war or war will put an end to mankind. - John F Kennedy
An eye for an eye, and soon the whole world is blind. - Mahatma Gandhi
The world is my country. To do good is my religion. My mind is my own church. This simple creed is all we need to enjoy peace on earth. - Thomas Paine
JemyM is offline

JemyM

JemyM's Avatar
Okay, now roll sanity.

#25

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 6,017
Send a message via ICQ to JemyM Send a message via MSN to JemyM

Default 

August 27th, 2012, 20:02
I fail to see where anything the Texas GOP is using as a platform fits into your definition of a Nationalist movement.

————————————————-

"Ya'll can go to HELL! I'm-a-goin' to TEXAS!"

- Davy Crockett
blatantninja is online now

blatantninja

blatantninja's Avatar
Resident Redneck Facist

#26

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 3,944

Default 

August 27th, 2012, 20:18
He can't even be troubled to comprehend the actual text of the 1st Amendment before making sweeping pronouncements about how we're doing it wrong, bn. He's clearly got no interest in looking beyond the slanted crap of his original post. Even if he took the time to read the actual platform, his opinion was already set.

And really, there is some stupid shit in that platform (just like every other party platform in the world) which makes it easy for him to cherrypick reinforcement for his preconceived notions.

Sorry. No pearls of wisdom in this oyster.
Dallas Cowboys: *sigh* / / Detroit Red Wings: Took injuries to see them, but how about them youngsters!
dteowner is offline

dteowner

dteowner's Avatar
Shoegazer

#27

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Indiana, USA
Posts: 11,197

Default 

August 27th, 2012, 20:22
Originally Posted by JemyM View Post
Blah blah blah
Why would any of us want to be lectured by a nitwit? Going around proclaiming you know better because you are so well studied does not actually mean you know any better. In fact, you often blabber on about things like how you are studied and how it is important to study rather than actually making any points regarding the topic of conversation. I have seen you proven wrong in a thread before, and when you finally realized it you tried the hardest you could to spin what you said into meaning something completely different. Yet all anyone had to do to know better was actually read what had already been posted, by you!

One thing you certainly don't understand is that you are not better than anyone else.
rossrjensen is offline

rossrjensen

Sentinel

#28

Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 585

Default 

August 29th, 2012, 01:11
Originally Posted by dteowner View Post
And really, there is some stupid shit in that platform (just like every other party platform in the world) which makes it easy for him to cherrypick reinforcement for his preconceived notions.
True and truer still in a system that somewhat assures no more than two viable parties persisting over multiple elections. If this particular platform document demonstrates anything notably well its that a two party system fought at the national level over relatively slim majorities puts more pressure on enticing single-issue or fringe groups than it does creating a cohesive and consistent platform.

The reason I can see for this perhaps being more obvious in the texas republican platform is that they are the party mostly in opposition at the national level and that texas is a safe enough state for them that they can put some of the stranger enticements in writing without much worry. The party in opposition always has more incentive to cobble its way to/above 50% by enticing groups whose ideology may not be so compatible with their own but who may be agreeable because of either a single issue or because they two disagree more with the party in power.

In the Bush years you saw broadly scenarios where ideas that might seem incompatible or even crazy to the wider membership of the Democratic party were used to entice those in opposition to Bush and Republicans to vote Democratic. I won't argue about whose platforms (official platforms or less formal adoption of rhetoric) have included the craziest incongruities over the years; I'm sure opinions on that run high though.

I would rather suggest that the phenomenon is about the political dynamics of our system moreso than the character of either party. It is an effect of a system which determines that no more than two parties can remain viable in the long run and artificially forces a much more complex and diverse set of ideologies to fall under either category A or B. If the character of the parties has anything to do with it, it would be that survival in our politics favors flexible cynicism over a cohesive, consistent, and well-defined plan/philosophy.
jhwisner is offline

jhwisner

Keeper of the Watch

#29

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,472

Default 

August 29th, 2012, 03:43
Originally Posted by dteowner View Post
If your studies have any basis in the real world, where do you think your precious data comes from? You sure as hell couldn't find a factory floor with a compass, let alone have any comprehension of what you might see, so where does your data come from? People like me, that's who. And, perfesser, let's take it one step further. In your enlightened opinion, which person will be better able to understand and interpret your precious data: the one that lives with it day in and day out, or the ivory tower academic that makes broad statements based on someone else's information? First hand or second hand, perfesser?
How does that saying go? Those who can - do. Those who can't - teach.
Impregnator is offline

Impregnator

Watcher

#30

Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 41

Default 

August 29th, 2012, 08:06
Originally Posted by Impregnator View Post
How does that saying go? Those who can - do. Those who can't - teach.
Another quote from the ressentiment I mentioned in post #4;
http://www.rpgwatch.com/forums/showp…86&postcount=4

There are many many other "pearls of wisdom" rooted in that identity built on convincing oneself that despite not knowing much, one is still ok. The ressentiment comes from going one step further and build a morality that attempts to stigmatize the source of ones frustrations rather than being humble about them.

Mankind must put an end to war or war will put an end to mankind. - John F Kennedy
An eye for an eye, and soon the whole world is blind. - Mahatma Gandhi
The world is my country. To do good is my religion. My mind is my own church. This simple creed is all we need to enjoy peace on earth. - Thomas Paine
Last edited by JemyM; August 29th, 2012 at 08:19.
JemyM is offline

JemyM

JemyM's Avatar
Okay, now roll sanity.

#31

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 6,017
Send a message via ICQ to JemyM Send a message via MSN to JemyM

Default 

August 29th, 2012, 08:14
Originally Posted by dteowner View Post
And really, there is some stupid shit in that platform (just like every other party platform in the world) which makes it easy for him to cherrypick reinforcement for his preconceived notions.
No, this isn't like every other party platform in the world. The only place I hear stuff on this level is in the middle east.

Even the Swedish nationalist party doesn't come close and neither of the two largest parties promotes an identity, nor do they make any effort to regulate the personal life of it's citizens such as their sexuality. jhwisner may be right that it's the product of a 2 party system, but if it was the British parties would be just as extreme and they are not.

The collapsed school system is probably a very strong factor.

Mankind must put an end to war or war will put an end to mankind. - John F Kennedy
An eye for an eye, and soon the whole world is blind. - Mahatma Gandhi
The world is my country. To do good is my religion. My mind is my own church. This simple creed is all we need to enjoy peace on earth. - Thomas Paine
JemyM is offline

JemyM

JemyM's Avatar
Okay, now roll sanity.

#32

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 6,017
Send a message via ICQ to JemyM Send a message via MSN to JemyM

Default 

August 29th, 2012, 19:38
Ressentiment (French pronunciation: [rəsɑ̃tiˈmɑ̃]), in philosophy and psychology, is one of the forms of resentment or hostility. It is the French word for "resentment" (fr. Latin intensive prefix 're', and 'sentir' "to feel"). Ressentiment is a sense of hostility directed at that which one identifies as the cause of one's frustration, that is, an assignment of blame for one's frustration. The sense of weakness or inferiority and perhaps jealousy in the face of the "cause" generates a rejecting/justifying value system, or morality, which attacks or denies the perceived source of one's frustration. The ego creates an enemy in order to insulate itself from culpability.
Jemy, it looks like you are the one with ressentiment. Going by this definition and your past statements we are left with your ego created enemies.

1. Catholics or just Christians in general if I may be so bold.
2. Uneducated people(however you have never given a definition just how much education one needs to escape this category) We just know from your past statements that you feel any degree over five years old is rendered useless by newer data.
3.Lower class people. Again, how do you define who or where these people are? Upward or downward mobility rarely happens in today's world but at least in the USA there is a bit of a chance of improving your situation or we wouldn't be flooded with immigrants.
4. Working class people duly noted again in this post. Saying people shouldn't feel they are ok unless they meet your criteria is hogwash by any argument.

I admit I don't know much about the Texas situation but as far as the Sharia law making people feel threatened, why wouldn't it? We Americans have a constitution, bill of rights, laws that we are all supposed to follow. We pay taxes. As far as I know, the only group outside these laws are American Indian tribes who are their own nation within our nation. Any other group does not have the right to come into our country and do what ever they please according to the laws of their old country if it is in conflict with our laws both state and federal.
redman5427 is offline

redman5427

redman5427's Avatar
Keeper of the Watch

#33

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 726

Default 

August 29th, 2012, 20:00
Originally Posted by JemyM View Post
Another quote from the ressentiment I mentioned in post #4;
http://www.rpgwatch.com/forums/showp…86&postcount=4

There are many many other "pearls of wisdom" rooted in that identity built on convincing oneself that despite not knowing much, one is still ok. The ressentiment comes from going one step further and build a morality that attempts to stigmatize the source of ones frustrations rather than being humble about them.
Well then, I have been most soundly chastised. *sob* You managed to figure out all that about me and didn't even ask me about my mother. I thought sure you had to ask about my mother.

I bow to the awesome powers of your superior knowledge, perfesser.

Sorry. No pearls of wisdom in this oyster.
Dallas Cowboys: *sigh* / / Detroit Red Wings: Took injuries to see them, but how about them youngsters!
dteowner is offline

dteowner

dteowner's Avatar
Shoegazer

#34

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Indiana, USA
Posts: 11,197

Default 

August 29th, 2012, 21:31
Well this is a very interesting discussion, but a few corrections are in order.

Originally Posted by dteowner View Post
If you actually review the First Amendment, there is no actual statement about separation of church and state. The amendment bans the establishment of a state religion. The Supreme Court over the years has INTERPRETED that to imply a separation since any government action in the religious realm could be seen by the people as "choosing sides".
From da wiki:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The "Establishment Clause," stating that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," is generally read to prohibit the Federal government from establishing a national church ("religion") or excessively involving itself in religion, particularly to the benefit of one religion over another. Following the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and through the doctrine of incorporation, this restriction is held to be applicable to state governments as well.
Read the bolded parts for clarification. It's held to be MORE than just a prohibition against establishing a national religion. Although that's what some Republican wackos are trying to do.
Thrasher is offline

Thrasher

Thrasher's Avatar
Wheeee!
RPGWatch Donor

#35

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Studio City, CA
Posts: 9,645

Default 

August 29th, 2012, 21:51
Originally Posted by Thrasher View Post
Well this is a very interesting discussion, but a few corrections are in order.



From da wiki:



Read the bolded parts for clarification. It's held to be MORE than just a prohibition against establishing a national religion. Although that's what some Republican wackos are trying to do.
Everything is in the interpretation. (though I do agree on the whackos part to an extent). It doesn't say that the government can't be involved at all in any religion, but as you quote 'excessively'. We've seen in recent years the separation of church and state get pushed to a point where Boy Scout troops have been kicked out of using school facilities, during non-school hours when no one else was, simply because the BSA doesn't allow atheists as members.

Do you really think that is consistent with the view of our founding fathers? The same guys, largely, that allowed christian services to be held in the House of Representatives?

————————————————-

"Ya'll can go to HELL! I'm-a-goin' to TEXAS!"

- Davy Crockett
blatantninja is online now

blatantninja

blatantninja's Avatar
Resident Redneck Facist

#36

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 3,944

Default 

August 29th, 2012, 21:58
I certainly don't think politicians should be finding new ways to put their religious views into laws, such as bans on gay marriage, banning sharia law, teaching creationism in school, and other wastes of time and money.

Do you think this is something Republicans should be doing?
Thrasher is offline

Thrasher

Thrasher's Avatar
Wheeee!
RPGWatch Donor

#37

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Studio City, CA
Posts: 9,645

Default 

August 29th, 2012, 22:23
Originally Posted by Thrasher View Post
I certainly don't think politicians should be finding new ways to put their religious views into laws, such as bans on gay marriage, banning sharia law, teaching creationism in school, and other wastes of time and money.

Do you think this is something Republicans should be doing?
Ohh I agree that a lot of that is too far, but my point is that the separation of Church and State is held up as some draconian absolute with no room to wiggle by a lot of the left when it was never intended, nor has it been for most of our history, that way.

————————————————-

"Ya'll can go to HELL! I'm-a-goin' to TEXAS!"

- Davy Crockett
blatantninja is online now

blatantninja

blatantninja's Avatar
Resident Redneck Facist

#38

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 3,944

Default 

August 29th, 2012, 22:54
Originally Posted by redman5427 View Post
I admit I don't know much about the Texas situation but as far as the Sharia law making people feel threatened, why wouldn't it? We Americans have a constitution, bill of rights, laws that we are all supposed to follow. We pay taxes. As far as I know, the only group outside these laws are American Indian tribes who are their own nation within our nation. Any other group does not have the right to come into our country and do what ever they please according to the laws of their old country if it is in conflict with our laws both state and federal.
Most Muslims don't want to impose Sharia law on everyone, just on themselves. And they don't want to replace common law with Sharia law, they want to extend common law with Sharia law. So, for most Muslims, what they want is to personally be subjected to the same laws that everyone are subjected to plus Sharia laws.

If we let them, will that really destroy American society?

Originally Posted by dteowner View Post
And the real key of it all, is that for all the accolades and accomplishments, I'm absolutely no better than anyone on the factory floor, or even certain puffed-up ivory tower pricks. I have certain skills, knowledge, and training that aren't widely available that make me better suited to certain tasks than others, but simply having lambskins and trophies on the wall doesn't give me some magical elevation in stature, supposedly allowing me to dismiss the opinions of others simply because I know better.
Originally Posted by dteowner View Post
Well then, I have been most soundly chastised. *sob* You managed to figure out all that about me and didn't even ask me about my mother. I thought sure you had to ask about my mother.

I bow to the awesome powers of your superior knowledge, perfesser.
So we can't dismiss your opinions simply because we know better (due to having an education relevant to the discussion at hand) but you can dismiss our opinions because you know better (due to having experience of a field that's irellevant to the discussion at hand)?

Übereil

For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.

H. L. Mencken

The Chaos Cascade
Ubereil is offline

Ubereil

Ubereil's Avatar
Keeper of the Watch

#39

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 1,263

Default 

August 29th, 2012, 23:10
Originally Posted by redman5427 View Post
Jemy, it looks like you are the one with ressentiment.
A ressentiment builds a morality system against ones frustrations. Describing class culture based on social sciences is descriptive, not normative. I have no problem with a person who have limited education. I have problems with an on average poor education which I consider a bad situation, similar to high crimerate or poverty. I am concerned about the Dunning Kruger effect which is often a strong factor behind extreme groups and that's science, not ego.

I study political extremism with psychology. In a days work I deal with nationalists, communists, radical feminists, the male movement, race realists and various religious groups. I have no coherent definition of Christianity anymore. What I am interested in is what people see themselves as and how they interpret that label.

Originally Posted by redman5427 View Post
I admit I don't know much about the Texas situation but as far as the Sharia law making people feel threatened, why wouldn't it? We Americans have a constitution, bill of rights, laws that we are all supposed to follow. We pay taxes. As far as I know, the only group outside these laws are American Indian tribes who are their own nation within our nation. Any other group does not have the right to come into our country and do what ever they please according to the laws of their old country if it is in conflict with our laws both state and federal.
It's easy; because the threat is non-existent. Sharia have no chance in US at this time. Extreme movements sow and reap fear, usually for a threat that doesn't exist.

Mankind must put an end to war or war will put an end to mankind. - John F Kennedy
An eye for an eye, and soon the whole world is blind. - Mahatma Gandhi
The world is my country. To do good is my religion. My mind is my own church. This simple creed is all we need to enjoy peace on earth. - Thomas Paine
JemyM is offline

JemyM

JemyM's Avatar
Okay, now roll sanity.

#40

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 6,017
Send a message via ICQ to JemyM Send a message via MSN to JemyM
RPGWatch Forums » General Forums » Politics & Religion » Texas Republican Party = Ultra Nationalists
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT +2. The time now is 16:11.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright by RPGWatch