[001]
IdumeanPatriot
Current Version
Changed line(s) 7 from:
n
Victoria has been called \\\
to:
Victoria \\\'\\\'has been called \\\\\\\"the Paleocon Turner Diaries\\\\\\\" by at least one reviewer, referring to the infamous far-right novel by neo-Nazi William Luther Pierce, based on a shared core plot of revolution against a liberally corrupt government \\\'\\\'\\\'and its intent to present the political views of its author\\\'\\\'\\\' \\\'\\\'
--?
Here, he says that the book\\\'s politics are \\\'\\\'the same\\\'\\\' as those of the author in real life. There is no evidence for that. I agree entirely with you that it seems very much as though those two are \\\'\\\'related\\\'\\\', but neither Terrie nor anyone else has shown any evidence that they are \\\'\\\'the one and the same\\\'\\\'. The politics of the characters in the fictional novel are much more extreme than anything Lind is on the record as supporting in real life.
As for Lind and libertarianism, that single line on Wikipedia is unsourced, and notes even there that he often writes on libertarian sites, so clearly he feels he has many things in common with them. Most of his policy positions otherwise would likewise be consistent with libertarianism (for example, being both libertarian and tough on crime is not a contradiction). But that is a rather minor point. There is great overlap between paleoconservatives and libertarians in real life as well, with both groups being usually anti-war, anti-big government, anti-taxes, anti-immigration, and so on. Even monarchism is a somewhat less than fringe position among libertarians--for example, I believe it was advocated by one of their chief philosophers, Eirik von Kuhnelt-Lediehn (sp?).
For clarity though, I will agree to call Lind a paleoconservative here in this discussion. We could also change my proposed version to reflect that, if you prefer, like so:
\\\'\\\'Victoria\\\'\\\' has been called \\\"the Paleocon Turner Diaries\\\" by at least one reviewer, referring to the infamous far-right novel by neo-Nazi William Luther Pierce, based on a shared core plot of revolution against a liberally corrupt government, as well as its generally right-wing political themes. While \\\'\\\'Victoria\\\'\\\' does not endorse Nazism or genocide of non-white peoples, and instead advocates \\\'\\\'\\\'paleoconservative\\\'\\\'\\\' direct democracy, Lind\\\'s novel is nonetheless generally recognized as polarizing and extreme, and often considered part of the \\\"Alt-Right\\\" milieu (though Lind himself has never described the book, or his own politics, that way).
(Changed bit presented in \\\'\\\'\\\'bold\\\'\\\'\\\' type for emphasis. It would of course not be bolded in the finished article.)
--?
Here, he says that the book\\\'s politics are \\\'\\\'the same\\\'\\\' as those of the author in real life. There is no evidence for that. I agree entirely with you that it seems very much as though those two are \\\'\\\'related\\\'\\\', but neither Terrie nor anyone else has shown any evidence that they are \\\'\\\'the one and the same\\\'\\\'. The politics of the characters in the fictional novel are much more extreme than anything Lind is on the record as supporting in real life.
As for Lind and libertarianism, that single line on Wikipedia is unsourced, and notes even there that he often writes on libertarian sites, so clearly he feels he has many things in common with them. Most of his policy positions otherwise would likewise be consistent with libertarianism (for example, being both libertarian and tough on crime is not a contradiction). But that is a rather minor point. There is great overlap between paleoconservatives and libertarians in real life as well, with both groups being usually anti-war, anti-big government, anti-taxes, anti-immigration, and so on. Even monarchism is a somewhat less than fringe position among libertarians--for example, I believe it was advocated by one of their chief philosophers, Eirik von Kuhnelt-Lediehn (sp?).
For clarity though, I will agree to call Lind a paleoconservative here in this discussion. We could also change my proposed version to reflect that, if you prefer, like so:
\\\'\\\'Victoria\\\'\\\' has been called \\\"the Paleocon Turner Diaries\\\" by at least one reviewer, referring to the infamous far-right novel by neo-Nazi William Luther Pierce, based on a shared core plot of revolution against a liberally corrupt government, as well as its generally right-wing political themes. While \\\'\\\'Victoria\\\'\\\' does not endorse Nazism or genocide of non-white peoples, and instead advocates \\\'\\\'\\\'paleoconservative\\\'\\\'\\\' direct democracy, Lind\\\'s novel is nonetheless generally recognized as polarizing and extreme, and often considered part of the \\\"Alt-Right\\\" milieu (though Lind himself has never described the book, or his own politics, that way).
(Changed bit presented in \\\'\\\'\\\'bold\\\'\\\'\\\' type for emphasis. It would of course not be bolded in the finished article.)
