4 ms·

> there is no coherent rightist opposition ... A common tactic of any populist group is to paint itself as a persecuted outsider. The far right and right have

> there is no coherent rightist opposition ... A common tactic of any populist group is to paint itself as a persecuted outsider. The far right and right have possibly never been stronger in the West, in fact. Throughout Europe, right-wing parties run government and far right parties have never had more power since perhaps WWII (and run government themselves in some countries). In the U.S., there is a large, coherent rightist power structure that dominates government and politics, not an opposition. The rightists control the White House (and thus all regulatory agencies and the rest of the executive branch), both houses of Congress, the Supreme Court, 70% of governorships, and a large majority of state houses. Most police are right-wing (AFAIK). The most popular cable news channel (Fox) and the most popular newspaper among the business elite (WSJ) both serve right-wing propaganda as a modus operendi (the WSJ on its editorial page). There are a vast number of other popular right and far-right publications. There are many major funders (Kochs, Adelson, Mercers, etc.); there are major think tanks, such as Heritage, dedicated to generating intellectual cover for the right and far-right agenda. And the power structure works together to a surprising degree; you can see read Heritage talking points in many places, often without realizing the source. Here's an article I just read talking about the coherent rightist power structure, including a chief advisor to the President: https://www.buzzfeed.com/josephbernstein/heres-how-breitbart-and-milo-smuggled-white-nationalism https://www.buzzfeed.com/josephbernstein/heres-how-breitbart... > national religion of progressivism There is no such thing. Again, see the actual state of affairs, described above (and in this religiously progressive country, Donald Trump won). The far right again tries to portray itself as persecuted and also tries to portray anyone who disagrees as mindless followers of "religion", like the right-wing ideologues, not reasoned supporters of human rights, democracy and freedom.

microcolonel 9y ago
> There are a vast number of other popular right and far-right publications. There are many major funders (Kochs, Adelson, Mercers, etc.); The Kochs fund far-right publications? Which ones? They seem explicitly not far right, or even really right at all.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- jhbadger 9y ago
  "Reason" is a far right-wing publication funded by the Kochs. Yes, I know people will claim that it is "libertarian" but in practice there is little difference. The magazine recently published an article entitled "The Climate Alarmists Are Wrong", basically parroting Republican talking points claiming that the science is unclear on the issue (it isn't).
  - microcolonel 9y ago
    > "Reason" is a far right-wing publication funded by the Kochs. I'm going to need you to substantiate your claim that Reason is a far-right publication, because it really seems like a centrist libertarian publication. They predictably project a pro-individual and pro-business (in that order) message, I've seen them argue for NAFTA (not popular with the right these days, which is more protectionist), they consistently argue against restrictions on social taboos (social controls being the primary distinguishing factor of the right).
    - jhbadger 9y ago
      I already did. Sowing the seeds of doubt that climate change isn't a problem and/or not caused by fossil fuel use, as in the article I mentioned is pretty clearly far-right, not centrist at all.
      - microcolonel 9y ago
        Firstly: debating the specifics of the impact of climate change, and the efficacy of proposed solutions is not a "far-right" position. The presentations given to the public on climate change are obviously intended to be more motivating (by being alarming) than accurate. The predictions are rarely born out by the observations, the crises are constantly averted through no human action. The main point of this article is that there is no clear correlation between global mean temperature and the severity of hurricanes. If that's a far-right position, then where do the centrist positions start? Licking Al Gore's boot? http://reason.com/archives/2017/09/13/thr-climate-alarmists-are-wrong http://reason.com/archives/2017/09/13/thr-climate-alarmists-...

microcolonel 9y ago

> There are a vast number of other popular right and far-right publications. There are many major funders (Kochs, Adelson, Mercers, etc.); The Kochs fund far-right publications? Which ones? They seem explicitly not far right, or even really right at all.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
jhbadger 9y ago
"Reason" is a far right-wing publication funded by the Kochs. Yes, I know people will claim that it is "libertarian" but in practice there is little difference. The magazine recently published an article entitled "The Climate Alarmists Are Wrong", basically parroting Republican talking points claiming that the science is unclear on the issue (it isn't).
- microcolonel 9y ago
  > "Reason" is a far right-wing publication funded by the Kochs. I'm going to need you to substantiate your claim that Reason is a far-right publication, because it really seems like a centrist libertarian publication. They predictably project a pro-individual and pro-business (in that order) message, I've seen them argue for NAFTA (not popular with the right these days, which is more protectionist), they consistently argue against restrictions on social taboos (social controls being the primary distinguishing factor of the right).
  - jhbadger 9y ago
    I already did. Sowing the seeds of doubt that climate change isn't a problem and/or not caused by fossil fuel use, as in the article I mentioned is pretty clearly far-right, not centrist at all.
    - microcolonel 9y ago
      Firstly: debating the specifics of the impact of climate change, and the efficacy of proposed solutions is not a "far-right" position. The presentations given to the public on climate change are obviously intended to be more motivating (by being alarming) than accurate. The predictions are rarely born out by the observations, the crises are constantly averted through no human action. The main point of this article is that there is no clear correlation between global mean temperature and the severity of hurricanes. If that's a far-right position, then where do the centrist positions start? Licking Al Gore's boot? http://reason.com/archives/2017/09/13/thr-climate-alarmists-are-wrong http://reason.com/archives/2017/09/13/thr-climate-alarmists-...