Posted on 12/10/2013 5:46:13 AM PST by Kaslin
I believe your assertion is incorrect. The reason the reference to political positions is left and right and not degrees in a circle is that the left never meets the right. Once the left reaches 100% government control they can’t go any further left. Once the right reaches 0% government control they can’t go any further right.
A more accurate political spectrum will show government having zero power on the far right to having 100% power on the far left. At the extreme right, there is no government. The extreme left features total government under such labels as Communism, Socialism, Nazism, Fascism, Princes, Potentates, Dictators, Kings, any form of total government.
Towards the middle of the political spectrum is the type of government limited to its proper role of protecting the rights of the people. That’s where the Constitution of the United States is. Those who advocate such a form of government are constitutional moderates.
“The left IS Nazism.”
100%
“And they did learn something from Hitler. How to intimidate voters using thugs.”
Yep.
You don’t need to worry Dennis, the left did learn their lesson from the Nazis.
It’s new.
It’s exciting.
No more radical left.
No more radical right.
It’s moderate.
It’s compromise.
It’s “The Third Way”.
Vote for Hillary.
Perhaps he needs to look further back to understand that Nazis and Communists are two sides of the same coin.
Nazism developed from many threads, including German militarism and 19th century anti-Semitism, a major dread of Bolshevism (which they saw as a more or less Jewish phenomenon), the political/economic loss of WWI before a complete defeat in the field (which Nazis blamed on leftists/communists), the very real efforts of the USSR-directed communist Internationale to spread revolution; the Great Depression and economic consequences of the peace, etc. Operationally, much of the Nazi program was lifted from Stalin: concentration camps (modelled on the GULAG); mass propaganda; suppression of national groups; internal colonization and Russification; State capitalism; massive public works projects; large para-military and secret police forces; locus of power in a single Party rather than the government; genocide; militarism; expansionism; pervasive police supervision of society; brutal suppression of internal political enemies; etc. Somehow our contemporary lefties omit all that.
Totally disagree! That's like saying abortion and slavery is not right or left. Racism has always been associated with the left.
The left didn’t “learn the wrong lessons” from Nazism...
They are USING Nazism, as they use “slavery” and “racism”,
as a way of associating those who oppose their advancement of Marxism
as “evil”.
It is a mistake to view Islam as a "religion," when in fact it's a political system (like Capitalism or Communism) masquerading as a religion. Calling it a religion allows them to continue their war against the rest of us as a right protected by the First Amendment.
The left isn’t going for Marxism, the left is going for Nazism.
That’s exactly where Prager gets it wrong.
The is nothing “right wing” about reducing government.
If you’re looking for where American conservatives fit in — we are on the opposite side of the circle from where Nazism and communism meet
And I agree with you
I believe he is trying to be diplomatic, that does no one good
>>Nazism also taught social liberalism, for instance that the physically and mentally weak should be euthanized. That included sickly babies and old folks.
“Social liberalism” or “classical British liberalism” was nothing more than a scientific overlay upon latifundist gentry animal breeder initiatives and the aristocracy’s arrogant caste exclusion boundaries. It has less to do with leftism than with aristocratic conservatism’s stupid resistance to ACTUAL science and the inherently democratizing effect of invention and technology. Deep down in its yarbles, the aristocracy hates science, and in this aspect is in alliance with (and a foundation of) contemporary radical environmentalism. www.ecofascism.com.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< GOVERNMENT CONTROL >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Communist->Fascist->Liberal->Democrat->Moderate->Republican->Conservative->Libertarian->Anarchist
>>Well he’s pretty much dead wrong. Nazisim was a left wing movement through and through.
Yah, right. And 6 million Jews died of cholera. This is revisionist sanitizing claptrap. Needless to say, your assertion explains why capitalists massively funded fascism in Germany and elsewhere and why fascist thugs beat the crap out of leftists since time began. Apparently you didn’t live through the ‘60’s or under the tin horn right wing dictators we supported around the world. Read Anthony Sutton’s “Wall St. and the Rise of Hitler” for starters and Carrol Quigley’s “Tragedy and Hope” for finishers.
Conservatives absolutely must begin to understand the dynamic of why capitalism intrinsically evolves towards MONOPOLISM, i.e., “too big to fail”. That is exactly what happens when you gobble up the competition. Apparently capitalists, just like marxists, DON’T LIKE COMPETITION, which is the only thing that keeps them honest. Why there isn’t an ANTI-MONOPOLIST faction within conservatism is beyond me.
Conservatives trying to erect a barrier between themselves and the far right is a disingenuous attempt at spin doctoring their history that demonstrates the same level of intellectual rigor as we find behind “global warming”.
A good starting point in this discussion, which has gone on for years, is the “25 point program” written by Hitler and party founder Anton Drexler in 1920. It can be found here:
http://schoolshistory.org.uk/ASLevel_History/25pointnsdapprogramme.htm
Take a sheet of paper and keep score as to which points are championed by today’s left, and which points may more commonly be associated with the right. It’s an interesting exercise and my guess is people will be surprised at what they find.
But the biggest part of "Jewish problems to the Nazis" was that a large number were pro communists. Oops, I was not supposed to say that lest I be called an anti-Semite. No, it was just a fact that was whitewashed by the ultimate victors in this struggle.
Europe was all in for socialism, but it was just a matter of what kind of socialism that would be settled upon. In pre-Nazi Germany, the two biggest rivals were the International Socialist (commies, pro-Soviet) and the National Socialists (Nazis). The Nazi party set out to distinguish their brand as particular to Germany, thus the "national" as part of their party name.
Everything you say here is spot on. There was a quote posted a while back here on FR written in the New York Times circa 1925-ish. I want to say it was Goebbels, yes the Nazi, who stated (paraphrase) that there was not a dimes worth of difference between the Commies and the Nazis.
Interesting, you have to slam me as espousing revisionist history instead of actually making a point. Nobody has ever denied that the Nazis slaughtered jews. This is pretty similar to the communists in the U.S.S.R. slaughtering kulaks, etc in their period. You pick a scape goat and use them as a disposable tool for generating terror and deflecting blame.
I find it interesting that a party which avows clearly in their platform and stated objectives all the platitudes of the Left, is somehow not leftist. The whole justification for Nazis being right wing is that they opposed communists (and other softer socialist leftists). It doesn’t, however, happen to be valid. Yes, some capitalists did line up with the Nazis (as did much of the Left, as I mentioned and you ignored) but that was clearly because of the opposition to Communism. The other thing which complicates matters is that the concepts of ‘right’ and ‘left’ with respect to politics is very different in Europe. While it is true that industrialists in Germany backed up behind the Nazis, they came out of it being mere lackeys of the party. They also did it out of a choice between lesser evils. I’m not going to excuse them, but I can recognize their lack of good options.
Your understanding of capitalism is fairly minimal. Monopolies generally don’t prosper without government intervention. They fall because of their own issues and market pressures. There’s plenty of studies on this subject.
Of course I do find the comment ‘you didn’t live through the 60s’ as being particularly amusing. Does this imply that the U.S. was fascist in the 60s? Was Goldwater a fascist? Was Nixon a Fascist? (I’m hoping you consider these questions rhetorical, if not I’m left wondering the color of the sky in your world). How are the 60s relevant at all?
Since you’re convinced that the far right and conservatives have some sort of link, why don’t you explain it? I mean it must be self evident (heck with all those caps, it must be).
I mean sure the U.S. conservative wants a minimal government, just like the ‘far right’. Oh wait, that’s not true. The American conservative is dedicated to the rule of law, just like the ‘far right’, oh wait, that’s not true either. We conservatives like crony capitalism. Hmm, nope don’t like that either. Ok, I think I finally found one, we don’t like communism. Well the ‘far right’ doesn’t either but for a different reason. The ‘far right’ doesn’t like it because it’s a rival not an opposite.
There is no “circle” that’s just a sales gimmick to promote moderate European Socialism. It’s taught by communist professors like Obama.
Where American Conservatives fit in is only here...in the USA, on a straight line graph where; on the extreme left are all forms of totalitarianism, in the center are the compromised unprincipled RINOs, and over there on the right, just before and right next to REAL Anarchists (hermits) are the American Conservatives.
Even a broken clock is right twice a day. In this case a part right rating, only part because if I’m reading it correctly it would abolish investment income. That is not acceptable.
10. It must be the first duty of every citizen to perform physical or mental work. The activities of the individual must not clash with the general interest, but must proceed within the framework of the community and be for the general good.
We demand therefore:
11. The abolition of incomes unearned by work.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.