CDZ A Moderate Maifesto

[JimBowie1958]

I'm not sure what you are thinking of as "Identity Politics." What I'm thinking of is the criticism that liberals are using "Identity Politics" when they point out areas where there are inequalities between one group and the dominant group. Such as BLM. That isn't valid, though, since no one can point out inequalities without mentioning the identify of the group.

Identity Politics labels people by their group characteristics and demands they behave by stereotypes associated with them.

 

[JimBowie1958]

You appear to be defining "free thinkers" as "people who agree with you", and "ideologues" as "people who don't agree with you".
Jordan Peterson is an ideologue. He is an adherent to his ideology - an ideology that he may have come to on his own, but an ideology none the less.
Apparently, an ideology that you share with him - which is why you read his work to reinforce your own views.

Yes, classic rational thought and its cousin freedom of speech is just an ideology...nothing more.

No better than totalitarianism and theocracy.

Sure.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

You appear to be defining "free thinkers" as "people who agree with you", and "ideologues" as "people who don't agree with you".
Jordan Peterson is an ideologue. He is an adherent to his ideology - an ideology that he may have come to on his own, but an ideology none the less.
Apparently, an ideology that you share with him - which is why you read his work to reinforce your own views.

Yes, classic rational thought and its cousin freedom of speech is just an ideology...nothing more.

No better than totalitarianism and theocracy.

Sure.

An ideology is a system of conscious and unconscious normative beliefs that inform how you view the world and society.

It doesn't just mean bad things.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Okay? So, then, collectivism is not the concept of viewing humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals?

Why not? Explain, please. Thanks!

"Collectivism" is a rhetorical insult. It's something that you, and others, assign to people when you don't agree with them.

That's all it is. It doesn't reflect any sort of real ideology.

It does refer to an ideology but the propensity to conform to a certain point of view that is shared with others and reinforced by the group.

No, that's the human condition. That is shared by all, regardless of ideology.

No, it is not shared by all. Free thinkers are rare, but history is replete with them.

They are almost universally despised by ideologues and other conformists

If say that Jordan Peterson is a good modern example of one.

You appear to be defining "free thinkers" as "people who agree with you", and "ideologues" as "people who don't agree with you".

Jordan Peterson is an ideologue. He is an adherent to his ideology - an ideology that he may have come to on his own, but an ideology none the less.

Apparently, an ideology that you share with him - which is why you read his work to reinforce your own views.

Thus confirming my statement regarding the reaction to free thinkers.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

"Collectivism" is a rhetorical insult. It's something that you, and others, assign to people when you don't agree with them.

That's all it is. It doesn't reflect any sort of real ideology.

It does refer to an ideology but the propensity to conform to a certain point of view that is shared with others and reinforced by the group.

No, that's the human condition. That is shared by all, regardless of ideology.

No, it is not shared by all. Free thinkers are rare, but history is replete with them.

They are almost universally despised by ideologues and other conformists

If say that Jordan Peterson is a good modern example of one.

You appear to be defining "free thinkers" as "people who agree with you", and "ideologues" as "people who don't agree with you".

Jordan Peterson is an ideologue. He is an adherent to his ideology - an ideology that he may have come to on his own, but an ideology none the less.

Apparently, an ideology that you share with him - which is why you read his work to reinforce your own views.

Thus confirming my statement regarding the reaction to free thinkers.

I'm glad you were able to reinforce your ideology. Carry on.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

It does refer to an ideology but the propensity to conform to a certain point of view that is shared with others and reinforced by the group.

No, that's the human condition. That is shared by all, regardless of ideology.

No, it is not shared by all. Free thinkers are rare, but history is replete with them.

They are almost universally despised by ideologues and other conformists

If say that Jordan Peterson is a good modern example of one.

You appear to be defining "free thinkers" as "people who agree with you", and "ideologues" as "people who don't agree with you".

Jordan Peterson is an ideologue. He is an adherent to his ideology - an ideology that he may have come to on his own, but an ideology none the less.

Apparently, an ideology that you share with him - which is why you read his work to reinforce your own views.

Thus confirming my statement regarding the reaction to free thinkers.

I'm glad you were able to reinforce your ideology. Carry on.

I haven't reinforced anything, but I'm glad to have had this opportunity to elicit your sneering condescension.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Terms like "centrist" and "moderate" imply a "middle" ground that doesn't exist.

Sure it exists among reasonable people. 'Moderate' simply means you are not so arrogant as to think they model you have of the world in your head is the same thing as the actual world you live in, and so we should take everything with a grain of salt as it were.

So of course it exists.

The "manifesto" in the OP - as the author states - is a modern rehashing of Burkean conservatism - which, while significantly better than what modern conservatism has turned into, is not a "middle ground" between any other ideologies.

Lol, no it is not Burkean conservatism.

Do you even know what that is?

Burkean conservatism says that we should not destroy age old institutions in order to adapt to changes in the world, while the Centrist Manifesto says we should consider ending unjust or unfavorable institutions that cannot be redeemed as institutions, but keep what can be salvaged as worthwhile from it.

What is entertaining about some of the responses in this thread is that Burkean conservatism (or just "Conservatism", if you're a political science major) is a rebellion against the "individualism" of Locke's liberalism.

Burkean conservatism is English monarchist at its root, while American conservatives, though borrowing heavily from Burke, began with axioms that Burke would question to say the least, like egalitarianism (for white property owning males anyway) etc, a liberal notion of their time period.

American conservatism is very different from Burkean conservatism.

You can't doubt the inherent good of individuals and call yourself an individualist at the same time.

Sure you can, if you have different experiences and connotations for those same phrases.

 

[JimBowie1958]

There is no one alive who "views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals".

Yeah, just imagine if any of our college proffessors were to question if their nonwhite children could be friends with white children due to their race.....oh, wait.

 

[JimBowie1958]

...And the value of shifting from one extreme to another is... You prefer one extreme and others prefer a different one, yet a central point of the rubric is that neither extreme holds more merit than does the center.

​

Why do you hate freedom? Why is the concept of Individual Liberty over collectivism extreme to you?

Are you going to give me your Mussolini speech about the Individual being multiplied for the purpose of empowering the state again? It didn't work out for you the last time. What makes you think it will this time? Hm?




Let us revisit so that we may all understand your interest in discussion such as this...

Xelor said: Newsflash: humans are social animals. An ant will do the best it can to succeed at performing tasks appropriate to it as an individual ant; however, when it joins the rest of its colony, the single ant's success becomes subordinate to the that of the colony as a whole. Sometimes "it's all about the individual" and sometimes "it's all about the colony." It's essential that every individual understand and aptly recognize for what matters and when the colony is the greater priority and for what matters that is not the case. For humans, the "colony," encompasses the citizenry of one's country; however, racial inequities create "sub-colonies" within the "colony," and that is not good for the country.


Mussolini in his Doctrine of Fascism (1932) said: In the Fascist State the individual is not suppressed, but rather multiplied, just as in a regiment a soldier is not weakened but multiplied by the number of his comrades. The Fascist State organizes the nation, but it leaves sufficient scope to individuals; it has limited useless or harmful liberties and has preserved those that are essential. It cannot be the individual who decides in this matter, but only the State.


Does everyone see this? Xelor is precisely echoing Mussolini's Doctrine of Fascism. This is what you're up against. That you as the Individual do not matter. That only the collective matters. But in reality there is no collective. There is only the state.

There's your newsflash.

But look on the bright side - you elicited some of his usual haughty eye rolling and condescending little graphics.

Taking Xelors comments out of context to look similar to Mussolini's comment is dishonesty at best.

I am sure Mussollini also believed 2+2=4, does that me a fascist for aqreeing with him?

We are a community, like it or not and what we do as a community helps and hurts us all. you are not a rock or an island; you are an American citizen and that implies duties as well as freedom and rights.

I dont mean to sound like I am lecturing you or anyone else, but please, lets be more fair and objective when we respond to each other, OK?

Calling Xelor a fascist with a mischaracterization of what he has said is not helpful to advancing the goal of understanding and empathizing with each other.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Terms like "centrist" and "moderate" imply a "middle" ground that doesn't exist.

Sure it exists among reasonable people. 'Moderate' simply means you are not so arrogant as to think they model you have of the world in your head is the same thing as the actual world you live in, and so we should take everything with a grain of salt as it were.

So of course it exists.

That's not what "moderate" means.

I agree with that statement, yet I would never call myself a "moderate".

The "manifesto" in the OP - as the author states - is a modern rehashing of Burkean conservatism - which, while significantly better than what modern conservatism has turned into, is not a "middle ground" between any other ideologies.

Lol, no it is not Burkean conservatism.

Do you even know what that is?

Burkean conservatism says that we should not destroy age old institutions in order to adapt to changes in the world, while the Centrist Manifesto says we should consider ending unjust or unfavorable institutions that cannot be redeemed as institutions, but keep what can be salvaged as worthwhile from it.

Nonsense. Burkeans do not call for an entirely unchanging society, they just think change should be staggeringly slow and incremental. Perhaps the "manifesto" suggests more leeway, but it's not a big enough distinction to separate the too.

What is entertaining about some of the responses in this thread is that Burkean conservatism (or just "Conservatism", if you're a political science major) is a rebellion against the "individualism" of Locke's liberalism.

Burkean conservatism is English monarchist at its root, while American conservatives, though borrowing heavily from Burke, began with axioms that Burke would question to say the least, like egalitarianism (for white property owning males anyway) etc, a liberal notion of their time period.

American conservatism is very different from Burkean conservatism.

No shit.

You can't doubt the inherent good of individuals and call yourself an individualist at the same time.

Sure you can, if you have different experiences and connotations for those same phrases.

I'd appreciate if you elaborated on this, I'm not sure I understand what you're saying.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

There is no one alive who "views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals".

Yeah, just imagine if any of our college proffessors were to question if their nonwhite children could be friends with white children due to their race.....oh, wait.

Do you think that particular college professor disbelieves that he himself is an individual?

 

[JimBowie1958]

You appear to be defining "free thinkers" as "people who agree with you", and "ideologues" as "people who don't agree with you".
Jordan Peterson is an ideologue. He is an adherent to his ideology - an ideology that he may have come to on his own, but an ideology none the less.
Apparently, an ideology that you share with him - which is why you read his work to reinforce your own views.

Yes, classic rational thought and its cousin freedom of speech is just an ideology...nothing more.

No better than totalitarianism and theocracy.

Sure.

An ideology is a system of conscious and unconscious normative beliefs that inform how you view the world and society.

It doesn't just mean bad things.

So if Peterson disagrees with your ideology, he must be an ideologue as he copmmits to the antithesis of your ideology?

lol, Advocating free rational thought is not an ideology and that is what Peterson is most noted for.

I dont care if he is a light weight Fabian, Nordic Socialist, anarchist or Distributist or pill popping populist.

The man can think and respects the right of others to do the same.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

There is no one alive who "views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals".

Yeah, just imagine if any of our college proffessors were to question if their nonwhite children could be friends with white children due to their race.....oh, wait.

C

There is no one alive who "views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals".

Yeah, just imagine if any of our college proffessors were to question if their nonwhite children could be friends with white children due to their race.....oh, wait.

...And the value of shifting from one extreme to another is... You prefer one extreme and others prefer a different one, yet a central point of the rubric is that neither extreme holds more merit than does the center.

​

Why do you hate freedom? Why is the concept of Individual Liberty over collectivism extreme to you?

Are you going to give me your Mussolini speech about the Individual being multiplied for the purpose of empowering the state again? It didn't work out for you the last time. What makes you think it will this time? Hm?




Let us revisit so that we may all understand your interest in discussion such as this...

Xelor said: Newsflash: humans are social animals. An ant will do the best it can to succeed at performing tasks appropriate to it as an individual ant; however, when it joins the rest of its colony, the single ant's success becomes subordinate to the that of the colony as a whole. Sometimes "it's all about the individual" and sometimes "it's all about the colony." It's essential that every individual understand and aptly recognize for what matters and when the colony is the greater priority and for what matters that is not the case. For humans, the "colony," encompasses the citizenry of one's country; however, racial inequities create "sub-colonies" within the "colony," and that is not good for the country.


Mussolini in his Doctrine of Fascism (1932) said: In the Fascist State the individual is not suppressed, but rather multiplied, just as in a regiment a soldier is not weakened but multiplied by the number of his comrades. The Fascist State organizes the nation, but it leaves sufficient scope to individuals; it has limited useless or harmful liberties and has preserved those that are essential. It cannot be the individual who decides in this matter, but only the State.


Does everyone see this? Xelor is precisely echoing Mussolini's Doctrine of Fascism. This is what you're up against. That you as the Individual do not matter. That only the collective matters. But in reality there is no collective. There is only the state.

There's your newsflash.

But look on the bright side - you elicited some of his usual haughty eye rolling and condescending little graphics.

Taking Xelors comments out of context to look similar to Mussolini's comment is dishonesty at best.

I am sure Mussollini also believed 2+2=4, does that me a fascist for aqreeing with him?

We are a community, like it or not and what we do as a community helps and hurts us all. you are not a rock or an island; you are an American citizen and that implies duties as well as freedom and rights.

I dont mean to sound like I am lecturing you or anyone else, but please, lets be more fair and objective when we respond to each other, OK?

Calling Xelor a fascist with a mischaracterization of what he has said is not helpful to advancing the goal of understanding and empathizing with each other.

ummmmm, I didn't call him a fascist, Jim.

 

[JimBowie1958]

There is no one alive who "views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals".

Yeah, just imagine if any of our college proffessors were to question if their nonwhite children could be friends with white children due to their race.....oh, wait.

Do you think that particular college professor disbelieves that he himself is an individual?

Of course he thinks he is an individual, but I doubt that he sees his individuality as more important than his group identity.

If one of my kids had told me he thought he couldnt associate with black kids I would have grounded him for life.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

You appear to be defining "free thinkers" as "people who agree with you", and "ideologues" as "people who don't agree with you".
Jordan Peterson is an ideologue. He is an adherent to his ideology - an ideology that he may have come to on his own, but an ideology none the less.
Apparently, an ideology that you share with him - which is why you read his work to reinforce your own views.

Yes, classic rational thought and its cousin freedom of speech is just an ideology...nothing more.

No better than totalitarianism and theocracy.

Sure.

An ideology is a system of conscious and unconscious normative beliefs that inform how you view the world and society.

It doesn't just mean bad things.

So if Peterson disagrees with your ideology, he must be an ideologue as he copmmits to the antithesis of your ideology?

lol, Advocating free rational thought is not an ideology and that is what Peterson is most noted for.

I dont care if he is a light weight Fabian, Nordic Socialist, anarchist or Distributist or pill popping populist.

The man can think and respects the right of others to do the same.

Peterson is far from the "antithesis" of my ideology. I disagree with him on many things, but likely agree on more.

You appear to think that ideology is a bad word. It's not.

And yes, advocating for "free rational thought" (whatever the fuck that is) is an ideology.

 

[MPS777]

Would my neighbor not have the right to release their own privately produced benzene on their own private property?

No. Because your neighbor should act strictly within the limits of his own equal rights.

Well yeah he should act responsibly, but some people just don’t. In fact that irresponsibility my neighbor (let's call him Bob) might just see as efficiency in producing a product that he sells for quite a decent profit. Indeed all my neighbors might live a few miles away, and go and work for Bob, so they’re making a good living off Bob’s irresponsibility too. And when I complain to them about my water they say, “well maybe you should just sell your property to Bob and move away.. he’ll give you a good price for it”. So let’s say I do this, and he expands his little operation on to my property; and now he’s making even more money off his irresponsible but efficient production techniques. It seems Bob has quite a little private empire now and a lot of money to throw around to smooth over any little “inconveniences”.

I guess it’s all good now, everything worked out in the end.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Taking Xelors comments out of context to look similar to Mussolini's comment is dishonesty at best.

I am sure Mussollini also believed 2+2=4, does that me a fascist for aqreeing with him?

We are a community, like it or not and what we do as a community helps and hurts us all. you are not a rock or an island; you are an American citizen and that implies duties as well as freedom and rights.

I dont mean to sound like I am lecturing you or anyone else, but please, lets be more fair and objective when we respond to each other, OK?

Calling Xelor a fascist with a mischaracterization of what he has said is not helpful to advancing the goal of understanding and empathizing with each other.

His words were effectively a mirror image of those of Mussolini. To pretend otherwise when it's right there in black and white amounts to nothing more than intellectual dishonesty.

 

[JimBowie1958]

ummmmm, I didn't call him a fascist, Jim.

I didnt say you did, or at least I didnt mean to. There was a comparison made to Mussolinni, which you eggedon, and technically that is not calling him a fascist, true.

Why cant we listen to what the Other person is saying before we fire off with what we think he meant to say?

 

[Dogmaphobe]

There is no one alive who "views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals".

Yeah, just imagine if any of our college proffessors were to question if their nonwhite children could be friends with white children due to their race.....oh, wait.

Do you think that particular college professor disbelieves that he himself is an individual?

Of course he thinks he is an individual, but I doubt that he sees his individuality as more important than his group identity.

If one of my kids had told me he thought he couldnt associate with black kids I would have grounded him for life.

Identity politics is little more than institutionalized double standards when it gets right down to it.

 

[JimBowie1958]

His words were effectivly a mirror image of those of Mussolini. To pretend otherwise when it's right there in black and white amounts to nothing more than intellectual dishonesty.

Were Mussolinni to say "I think mathematics is great and science the foundation of modern life.' to which I isaid something similar, then I guess I am mirroring Mussolinit as well?


Just because Mussolini says something does not make it wrong or fascist ipso facto.

Mussolini was right about MOST of the things he believed in, the critical errors he believed in were all the critical difference that made him a deeply flawed leader and totalitarian.