i doesn’t really matter if he supported those things individually. look at Reagan proclaiming he is fighting for everyone (including the black community), yet then behind closed doors he refers to black people as “monkeys” (that famous call with Nixon) [1]. so it doesn’t matter if Pim held those beliefs, it matters what policies the party overall pursues, with whom they ally themselves, and what actions come after their stated political aims/programs. when we take a look at similar political parties that came before it does not look good.
my point is: pursuing certain xenophobic ideas and pushing for far-right change nearly always ultimately means you end up forfeiting these ‘smaller’ standpoints when push comes to shove.
e.g. from Pim’s wikipedia page (under 'Political career') it is well-described how he had already journeyed from being a marxist to becoming a free-market neo-liberal. if he hadn’t been killed i’m sure he would’ve further completed this arc and becoming a far-right neo-conservative populist politician like the Trumps, Baudets and Wilders of today.
> I'm arguing that "right" and "left" are a linear one-dimensional approximation of complex multi-dimensional beliefs.
did you mean “aren’t” instead of “are”? i’ll assume so, because it seems to make the most sense to me from your other arguments (if not then i am not following you at all)
you are trying to redefine the right to left political spectrum to a ‘both sides’ centrist view. this is a dangerous right-wing strategy that aims to reframe a debate on it's own terms; a deflection and distraction away from important systemic critiques (which ultimately leads to a continuation of a systemically violent status quo).
i doesn’t really matter if he supported those things individually. look at Reagan proclaiming he is fighting for everyone (including the black community), yet then behind closed doors he refers to black people as “monkeys” (that famous call with Nixon) [1]. so it doesn’t matter if Pim held those beliefs, it matters what policies the party overall pursues, with whom they ally themselves, and what actions come after their stated political aims/programs. when we take a look at similar political parties that came before it does not look good.
my point is: pursuing certain xenophobic ideas and pushing for far-right change nearly always ultimately means you end up forfeiting these ‘smaller’ standpoints when push comes to shove.
e.g. from Pim’s wikipedia page (under 'Political career') it is well-described how he had already journeyed from being a marxist to becoming a free-market neo-liberal. if he hadn’t been killed i’m sure he would’ve further completed this arc and becoming a far-right neo-conservative populist politician like the Trumps, Baudets and Wilders of today.
> I'm arguing that "right" and "left" are a linear one-dimensional approximation of complex multi-dimensional beliefs.
did you mean “aren’t” instead of “are”? i’ll assume so, because it seems to make the most sense to me from your other arguments (if not then i am not following you at all)
you are trying to redefine the right to left political spectrum to a ‘both sides’ centrist view. this is a dangerous right-wing strategy that aims to reframe a debate on it's own terms; a deflection and distraction away from important systemic critiques (which ultimately leads to a continuation of a systemically violent status quo).
[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/07/ronald-rea... (archive version - https://archive.md/OdpeR), direct link to call audio https://soundcloud.com/user-154380542/nixon-013-008-630-650/...