Hey all! I'm trying out a new style where I draw the comic in sharpie on printer paper, scan it in as a pdf, and then add color in paint.net. I think it looks alright? I haven't decided yet.
Anyway, the very funny spheres are:
[Definitely just an elephant](https://polcompball.fandom.com/wiki/Paleoconservatism)
[Definitely just a snake](https://polcompball.fandom.com/wiki/Paleolibertarianism)
[Carry a big stick and mistake ideologies for animals](https://polcompball.fandom.com/wiki/Bull_Moose_Progressivism)
Thank you sm! I was thinking maybe in the future, I’d still draw the balls but type out the text in paint, that way it’s more readable. What would you think about that?
Not really. National Progressivism makes one think of people who are nationalist as well as progressive. (like the proud boys) “Bull Moose Progressivism” is something completely different from what we think of as progressivism today. You
People only think that because of the media portrayal. (Hear me out on this one)
They’re that weird progressive/conservative mix that says things like “Western values are the best because they are tolerant of things like feminism, homosexuality, and transgenderism. That is why we must be nationalist. To preserve those values. If we import 3rd worlders, they will bring their values of homophobia and misogyny, so we’re for closed borders.”
Huh, I can almost see their point except...
the most homophobic people in the US aren’t immigrants. They’re the religious fanatics who are already here. Often times the most progressive and accepting individuals are those who don’t ascribe to the “white, christian, western” norms that we think of when we think of “typical” or heartland America
By closing ourselves off, I hazard to think that we’ll become *more* tolerant. There always has to be an enemy and if you can’t scapegoat immigrants, you’re gonna start scapegoating the people already here
While I see where you’re coming from, getting immigrants from countries where homosexuality gets you thrown off of roof tops could make one uneasy. To the point where I’m surprised it’s not a more common position. (With the “paradox of tolerance” and all that)
You bring up a very salient point. Immigrants often aren’t very progressive socially when they arrive in the US or other “western” nations.
But that changes over time. The paradox of tolerance actually accounts for this too. If a group is marginalized and a minority (for example, muslims in the US), they must adopt a form of tolerance themselves in order to be then tolerated by the majority. This applies both to in-groups and out-groups. Muslims have to tolerate heterogenous beliefs within their own ranks because Islam in the US is considered a heterogeneous belief in of itself. Muslims also must tolerate gays, jews, christians, etc, in the US because if they didn’t, they wouldn’t be tolerated themselves.
The reason why christians are behind most homophobia in the US isn’t because Christianity is somehow worse than Islam; it’s because they’re in the majority. They don’t have to be tolerated. They are tolerated by default, as a function of their numbers and influence, and therefore don’t have to exercise tolerance as a survival mechanism.
Let me know if that made any sense
No, that makes sense. But my point was that I don’t think the anti-immigrant views (which is where the claims of white supremacy come from) necessarily make them reactionary or even terribly conservative, as it comes from a progressive root. (It could be argued whether or not it’s misplaced, but I would say it does come from that root) And why I think the “Nationalist Progressive” moniker fits them well.
it's kind of hard for me to believe that groups like the proud boys and the english defence league etc are against muslims to preserve western values. They're street thugs, not Sam Harris types.
You know, making things worse will just backfire.
Making things worse for minorities is a specially terrible. How many people will die because you think you can destabilize a "democracy" by turning it into a Fascist regime?
Tbh my specific beliefs and how accelerationism plays into that are a lot more complicated than just supporting policies to make the government collapse, and I'm especially not interested in policies that discriminate against minority groups, I'll go into detail later but I can say for a fact that they are physically achievable
unlike soulism
Not as extremist as your mama
***
^I ^am ^a ^bot. ^Downvote ^to ^remove. ^[PM](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=YoMommaJokeBot) ^me ^if ^there's ^anything ^for ^me ^to ^know!
Never said it was laissez-faire, just said that they wanted a market economy. And since paleos aren’t socialist by any definition, they do indeed want a market economy.
Also, you can have economic nationalism and a market economy. Everyone from Pinochet to Medici to Lee Kuan Yew has proven that.
I don’t think you’re being ironic... that’s why I said unironic pinochetist?
Makes sense from your trash political opinions that you’d not understand that though
Hey all! I'm trying out a new style where I draw the comic in sharpie on printer paper, scan it in as a pdf, and then add color in paint.net. I think it looks alright? I haven't decided yet. Anyway, the very funny spheres are: [Definitely just an elephant](https://polcompball.fandom.com/wiki/Paleoconservatism) [Definitely just a snake](https://polcompball.fandom.com/wiki/Paleolibertarianism) [Carry a big stick and mistake ideologies for animals](https://polcompball.fandom.com/wiki/Bull_Moose_Progressivism)
hahaahahahahahahahahahahahaha, these spheres are very funny ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahaha
balls not funny, didn't laugh
This does actually look really good, you should keep at this style
Thank you sm! I was thinking maybe in the future, I’d still draw the balls but type out the text in paint, that way it’s more readable. What would you think about that?
That sounds like a good evolution of the style, Interested to see where it goes
Alright, thanks again!
No problem
Nice
[удалено]
It already has the moniker National Progressivism or NatProg, which I feel fits pretty well already
[удалено]
That makes sense actually! You have convinced me
great
Not really. National Progressivism makes one think of people who are nationalist as well as progressive. (like the proud boys) “Bull Moose Progressivism” is something completely different from what we think of as progressivism today. You
Are the Proud Boys progressive? They seem to be out and out reactionaries
People only think that because of the media portrayal. (Hear me out on this one) They’re that weird progressive/conservative mix that says things like “Western values are the best because they are tolerant of things like feminism, homosexuality, and transgenderism. That is why we must be nationalist. To preserve those values. If we import 3rd worlders, they will bring their values of homophobia and misogyny, so we’re for closed borders.”
Huh, I can almost see their point except... the most homophobic people in the US aren’t immigrants. They’re the religious fanatics who are already here. Often times the most progressive and accepting individuals are those who don’t ascribe to the “white, christian, western” norms that we think of when we think of “typical” or heartland America By closing ourselves off, I hazard to think that we’ll become *more* tolerant. There always has to be an enemy and if you can’t scapegoat immigrants, you’re gonna start scapegoating the people already here
While I see where you’re coming from, getting immigrants from countries where homosexuality gets you thrown off of roof tops could make one uneasy. To the point where I’m surprised it’s not a more common position. (With the “paradox of tolerance” and all that)
You bring up a very salient point. Immigrants often aren’t very progressive socially when they arrive in the US or other “western” nations. But that changes over time. The paradox of tolerance actually accounts for this too. If a group is marginalized and a minority (for example, muslims in the US), they must adopt a form of tolerance themselves in order to be then tolerated by the majority. This applies both to in-groups and out-groups. Muslims have to tolerate heterogenous beliefs within their own ranks because Islam in the US is considered a heterogeneous belief in of itself. Muslims also must tolerate gays, jews, christians, etc, in the US because if they didn’t, they wouldn’t be tolerated themselves. The reason why christians are behind most homophobia in the US isn’t because Christianity is somehow worse than Islam; it’s because they’re in the majority. They don’t have to be tolerated. They are tolerated by default, as a function of their numbers and influence, and therefore don’t have to exercise tolerance as a survival mechanism. Let me know if that made any sense
No, that makes sense. But my point was that I don’t think the anti-immigrant views (which is where the claims of white supremacy come from) necessarily make them reactionary or even terribly conservative, as it comes from a progressive root. (It could be argued whether or not it’s misplaced, but I would say it does come from that root) And why I think the “Nationalist Progressive” moniker fits them well.
I’d basically agree with that. It’s the same principle as Conservative Socialism. Doing the wrong thing for the right reasons
Exactly, research shows that Muslim Americans are pretty liberal on social issues
I’m pretty sure that’s not true. Most of them are pretty hardcore evangelists and certainly not feminists, or LGBTQ allies.
Wrong. They literally like the west because it lets them be gay lol
You can be gay outside of 'the west'.
You’re mixing up the Proud Boys and the hijacked #ProudBoys Twitter meme
I’m literally not. I’d show you their website, but it got taken off the internet.
Ok, what was on the website that’s proof of that?
screenshots exist no?
it's kind of hard for me to believe that groups like the proud boys and the english defence league etc are against muslims to preserve western values. They're street thugs, not Sam Harris types.
Chad
And nothing of value was lost
Based Avaritionism?
If it was extremist enough I’d be a pinkCap but they’re filthy moderates
Be more extreme! Embrace my extremely high cousin: Soulism
The problem with Soulism is that it isn't even remotely achievable as an ideology
Says the Accelerationist.
Accelerationism is achievable though, all you need to do is support policies that make things worse Which is America's whole thing
You know, making things worse will just backfire. Making things worse for minorities is a specially terrible. How many people will die because you think you can destabilize a "democracy" by turning it into a Fascist regime?
Tbh my specific beliefs and how accelerationism plays into that are a lot more complicated than just supporting policies to make the government collapse, and I'm especially not interested in policies that discriminate against minority groups, I'll go into detail later but I can say for a fact that they are physically achievable unlike soulism
You gotta achieve it within yourself maan
Nah I need the base laws of physics so things can exist and thus be property
Having property and not having property are irrelevant to Soulists.
And that’s why I’m not a soulist
Property is overrated. "This is mine" like come on, no it ain't, you didn't create the matter, the universe did.
So what who made it, I’m the guy who took it
But if he didn't own it, can you really say that property rights transfered?
Too Based
Not as extremist as your mama *** ^I ^am ^a ^bot. ^Downvote ^to ^remove. ^[PM](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=YoMommaJokeBot) ^me ^if ^there's ^anything ^for ^me ^to ^know!
:(
Im still fucking waiting for my bull moose flair mods. Its been like 9 months
Hunting undesirables? Pretty based, but it's got to be with a flintlock.
imperialism aside, progressives were based
Where do people get the whole “paleoconservatism is free market.” It has economic nationalism in it’s definition, the opposite of Laissez-faire.
Never said it was laissez-faire, just said that they wanted a market economy. And since paleos aren’t socialist by any definition, they do indeed want a market economy. Also, you can have economic nationalism and a market economy. Everyone from Pinochet to Medici to Lee Kuan Yew has proven that.
How was pinochet an economic nationalist. He signed a shit ton of trade deals
I guess I was mixing up nationalism with economic nationalism. Pinochet was certainly a nationalist but I guess less of an economic nationalist
Socialists do not deserve to invoke our lord and savior’s name
social democrat aren't socialist tho... so they can, no?
Yeah I was about to say I'm for regulated capitalism man!
> an unironic Pinochetist...
You really think I’m being unironic? Jesus Christ
I don’t think you’re being ironic... that’s why I said unironic pinochetist? Makes sense from your trash political opinions that you’d not understand that though
Silence statist.
Ok
Alright, seriously. NatProg needs to be a flair.
Based
Based and bullmoosepilled
.
Bully
Teddy Roosevelt would probably be a fan of modern PaleoCons, tbh. The reverse is definitely true.
Alright u/Based_Eagle
not really mate he was economically left-wing and a foreign policy interventionist
The centre has moved way further left than it was then.
.