Political Philosophies various components

triggered much?

There's no such thing as "philosophically right wing" because "right wing" isn't a definable thing. It's a French revolution meme.

Besides, I could believe in "sprits, souls, transcendence, etc." and still be philosophically "left wing" (using your terms).

Hate to be a wikistorian, but it's the easiest example I could find:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dulcinian

Would you consider these people philosophically right wing? Your answer should be no.

Is the Right in this case just code for Christian?

You don't need to dogmatic hold to every instance of either. So long as a left right distinction exist (which it shouldn't) this is good criteria.

If anything you have to be extremely triggered to be posting the same shit despite being proving wrong time and time again

>left
>individualism

Not at all.

One more time but in English please

No one's proved this wrong. They've only said "muh left right doesn't exist" because it doesn't correspond to their pre-concived notions of what is desired or not when stated in a basic level. Also no one can prove this is biased because it objectively isn't but the thought that the right wing is more than free markets triggers some people.

Well I guess Ron Paul is a left-wing faggot now since a libertarian can have everything on the left checked. Even the wellfare state is preferable for a libertarian before an "ethical state", if it is what I think it is.

What a bunch of idiotic nonsense.
I hope for your sake you're just trolling

...

>lolbertarinism is right wing
Of course Ron Paul is a lefty. Does he believe in separation of church and state? Open borders? immigration? Liberal democracy?

You truly are a master baiter

My favorite part was when you said:

>because it objectively isn't (biased)

Absolutely hilarious.

Sure. And I suppose Christian socialism is right wing since they can check off everything on the right side?

>What is national socialism?
Socialism is more right wing than liberalism in many instances.

It is correct in a very simplistic 15 year old way, yes.

Okay now that I've reread it a couple of times, I understand what you're saying and I disagree. It's simply not a good criteria because many of the stuff you listed is completely arbitrary or blatantly making right-wing theistic and left-wing materialist for whatever reason.

National socialism is a bad example since they have the majority of points on the left side.

>A nazi could easily agree on the left's point 1-3 since they're apolitical
>Change is the result of evolution, a perverted form of social darwinism in this case
>Ethnic warfare
>State is highest authority
>Evil derived from the social institutions known as international banks, run by jews
>Social change is caused by historical factors, a people and country with a destiny
>Huge investments to make sure everyone in the state got what they needed by reducing unemployment and produce products affordable for as many as possible
>Man is free to act on his instinctual urges

National Socialism is socialist. It's just socialist in a non-Marxist way.

True enlightenment on the subject is realization that national socialism and fascism are both centrist ideologies.

Yes and as such a bad example of right-wing socialism.

I don't think anyone on this website knows what "graph" means

>left/right bullshit
>dualism in general

I can see what it is driving at but it stretches too far. It seems to be comparing a postmodern philosophy student with a christian fundamentalist drill instructor. I don't think it provides many insights into the left wing versus right wing thing.

This is more revealing really.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_political_orientation

If we're really going to go down the political spectrum route, Fascism and National Socialism are Third Position. Centrists are often moderates or balance reformers in a Liberal Democracy, and don't let anyone tell you that Radical Centrism is a thing.

Irrelevant to you, perhaps. These are left/right metaphysics so they are the most important of all.

Why reinvent the wheel? Read an introduction book on political philosophy instead of acting like a retard.

So how do you account for political positions that doesn't give a flying fuck about metaphysic?

Not him, but this is a pointless debate to have, because where you think personally on the political spectrum specific ideologies lie, depends wholly on what you actually believe yourself.

The only reason you say Fascism and National Socialism is Third Position is because you probably are right-wing yourself.

For a Leftist, Fascism and National Socialism are expressions of extreme right-wing because they extol the virtues of hierarchy.

Everything concerns itself with metaphysical as metaphysics is simply the nature of being. Even Nihilistic materialism is a form of metaphysics.

>The only reason you say Fascism and National Socialism is Third Position is because you probably are right-wing yourself

Well I consider myself a Fascist, and I just called myself Third Position. Not that I really care about what the fuck anyone calls it. Stronk state + corporatism + Traditionalist (Think Evola without the weird metaphysical shit) social order. That's all I care about.

But I agree that it is a completely pointless debate because political spectrums are memetic in nature.

So you're a child.
Order is disgusting, a 'strong state' is inherently weak, corporatism goes inherently against traditionalism.

>corporatism goes inherently against traditionalism.
Daily reminder corporatism is not corpocracy and that the term is criminally misused in the Anglo-Sphere.

you mean black & white categorical thinking used by autistic manchildren and people who suffer from personality disorders to shuffle people into categories like portions on their plate.

> there exist only two political philosophies

Any corporations at all goes against traditionalism. Learn to read you fucking child.

>Newton
wew. Unless you mean his clockmaker hypothesis which is just deism.

You two don't know what corporatism is, do you?

haha i sure BTFO them THEY DONT KNOW WHAT THING IS

Go fuck a dog, libertarian.

Mass politics concerns the masses and most of the things mentioned are irrelevant to the average person.

They may habitually use certain thought processes without defining it abstractly, but they have no loyalty to it and they are only a little more likely to use those thought processes. It is very flaky to assume you have uncovered deep underlying differences.

For example a left wing oriented person might be more utilitarian, however when confronted with the idea of murdering someone so their organs can be harvested to save 5 people they might change their perspective.