Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Ditto
"Ever since then everyone who has advocated genocide has called himself a socialist, without exception. "

Political demonizing at work. Guess the right(bad) or left(good) depends on who is doing and who is the victim of the genocide. OK for the left but not OK for the right. Then there is the human genocide of birth control and abortion - now is that left or right?

Merry Christmas

12 posted on 12/10/2001 11:01:20 AM PST by ex-snook
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: ex-snook
"Guess the right(bad) or left(good) depends on who is doing and who is the victim of the genocide."

Well, yes, most of the time. The right usually refers to the party that has enjoyed the longest running popularity, and/or is the current regime. In fact, you could consider the Taliban to be "on the right" because they are the outgoing regime.

The United States is unique in that "the right" has traditionally meant "people who believe in the values and intentions of our founding fathers". "The left" are traditionally "those who think the founding fathers were a little short sighted and that they can improve on the Constitution."

Unfortunately, I found this site, called "Free Congress", which claims to be right wing oreinted, while spouting Socialist/Communist dogma at us. You have to scroll down to their "NEW! Traditionalism Project", because the site is in frames. In other words, they're following Hitler's playbook in order to make Socialism/Communism more palatable. And don't forget, Hitler was in Germany's "right".

If you need any more convincing of my assessment, think about the political agenda of our previous administration, and compare their anti-gun, jack-booted Justice Department style to Hitler's agenda.

FYI, Their "Support of an Elite More Valuable than Support of the Masses" section says, in part:

"We will initially operate according to the belief that it is more important to win over the elites (or create a new, better one) than to build up a mass movement. Furthermore, it is more important to have a few impassioned members than a large number of largely indifferent members. The amount of energy, élan, and self-assurance that we are able to inculcate in the leaders of our movement will ultimately determine its success or failure.

"The new movement must be, in part, exclusive and elite. It must not be afraid to pass along a body of knowledge that is not readily accessible to and understandable by everyone. The strong appeal of a feeling of exclusivity and superiority will give our members a reason to endure the slings and arrows of popular disapproval.

"The New Traditionalist movement will appeal to the masses, but not immediately. The ideas of the masses never come from the masses. [ can you say Nanny Culture and Big Brother? Nice folk.] To the extent that the masses are more conservative than the elites, this is primarily because the masses have a long collective memory, and they still value the beliefs articulated by a long-lost elite. The conservative instincts of the American people will continue to erode unless a new elite is formed to refresh that memory."

I found this yesterday, and have been scared ever since. Now, I log off and bid you a very frightend good day.

162 posted on 12/13/2001 9:02:40 AM PST by cake_crumb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson