Idiosyncratic
Expert Member
You're talking about neo-cons, a group rejected by other parts of the right wing as not being truly right wing. To generalize and talk about "the right" as loving x y z when it goes against the creed of the right itself isn't a great idea. Just like labeling all left-wingers as oversensitive libtard SJWs is an ignorant generalization.
As another example, it's like saying all followers of Islam are terrorists... Get the idea?
The spectrum is based on function, rather than side. What you're talking about above is acts by people who identify as right wing doing things the right wing is inherently against. That's dysfunction, and we see this in both camps.
Nationalism can be both right and left so when it comes to moving banks from the private sector to the public sector, well, based on the above spectrum, that idea sits squarely on the left. That's where my argument with regards to populism comes in. Political leaders are telling people what they want to hear in an effort to get maximum support from all sides, as opposed to proposing solid policy ideas and implementing and sticking to their viewpoints. First we had the ignorant use of the "far-left" label and now "far-right". Laissez faire capitalism is far right by definition, not this confused political mixture. You can't reconcile, as an example, laissez faire capitalism and fascism - at all. They're essentially opposite. So what does far-right mean when someone uses the label? Who the hell knows....
