First world leftists simply find using government to control the market a convenient way to assure a predictable return on investment. It keeps those nasty competitors in check. First world leftists, while disavowing violence by any means, somehow manage to starve their populations by by "incompetent central planning," foment wars in the third world, or foist environmental policies (such as banning DDT), all resulting in millions of deaths. Don't think for a minute that it's by accident. It's been done repeatedly since the starvation of the kulaks by Lenin.
I continue to see 180 degrees of difference between the two, if not in the size of government they advocate, then in other aspects of their philosophy.
No First World Leftist regime, however doctrinaire, can bring itself to have a large military establishment or to endorse or encourage patriotism. Third World Leftists have no such hatred for their country/culture and no pacifism. However naked the power of the First World Leftist regime, it is never going to tell its citizens to feel proud but rather seeks to fill them with guilt.
I simply do not classify ideological movements by the amount of government they advocate. There are Leftists who are anarchists (even as they admire Castro) and authoritarians on the Right. In fact, both Left and Right are a spectrum running from total to no government, yet each is bound by something else. Left anarchists love Left totalitarians and hate Right anarchists, and Right anarchists (to whom John Ashcroft was a "jack-booted thug") sing the praises of Pinochet, Franco, Salazar, and Papadopoulos while bitterly opposing Left anarchists. Clearly the "size of government" theory of the political spectrum simply is not adequate.
Again, recall the "Indo-fascism" thread. While militant Inca nationalists and self-hating American and Canadian Leftists may share a belief in a large redistributive government, do you really think the Incan nationalists are flagellating themselves about the "crimes" of their ancestors or clamoring for the disarming of their people, or even calling for the abandonment of the ancestral religion in favor of Marxian atheism?
BTW, I've been following links from the Yockey article I referenced earlier and this stuff just keeps getting weirder and weirder. This notion of organic nationality or race being the be-all and end-all of the universe (aside from being a form of materialist/scientific, specifically biochemical and genetic, determinism) is simply so similar to the Leftist cult of "indigenousness" and the idea of "the West" as alien violater of sacred soil that it isn't even funny! Sheesh!
Somewhere on the Net I read about a bizarre little group whose motto was "Mao and Hitler united in struggle." As time passes, this may become more and more of a reality . . . and perhaps even explicitly so.
As long as they have the United States to pay for it.
Third World Leftists have no such hatred for their country/culture and no pacifism.
But constantly espouse "peace" with the same verbiage as first world leftists.
However naked the power of the First World Leftist regime, it is never going to tell its citizens to feel proud but rather seeks to fill them with guilt.
For not being third world lefitsts. Elitisits of all stripes love downtrodden masses beneath them. No inconsistency there at all given the paradigm I offered.
I simply do not classify ideological movements by the amount of government they advocate.
Given that there is but one movement that espouses limited goverment, what else is there? All socialist movements graduate toward the total state.
There are Leftists who are anarchists (even as they admire Castro) and authoritarians on the Right.
They SAY that they are anarchists, and fancy themselves in total control. There is no such thing as anarchy in practice.
In fact, both Left and Right are a spectrum running from total to no government, yet each is bound by something else.
Nice analogy, but not a fact, unless you consider "Right" to be fascism, which is (in fact) socialism too. The way that the left got away with dubbing fascism a creature of the right wing is one of the great propaganda coups in history.
Left anarchists love Left totalitarians and hate Right anarchists, and Right anarchists (to whom John Ashcroft was a "jack-booted thug") sing the praises of Pinochet, Franco, Salazar, and Papadopoulos while bitterly opposing Left anarchists.
You believe these people?
While militant Inca nationalists and self-hating American and Canadian Leftists may share a belief in a large redistributive government, do you really think the Incan nationalists are flagellating themselves about the "crimes" of their ancestors or clamoring for the disarming of their people, or even calling for the abandonment of the ancestral religion in favor of Marxian atheism?
Of course not. They believe in peace, and will cut the throats of anyone who disagrees with them.
This notion of organic nationality or race being the be-all and end-all of the universe (aside from being a form of materialist/scientific, specifically biochemical and genetic, determinism) is simply so similar to the Leftist cult of "indigenousness" and the idea of "the West" as alien violater of sacred soil that it isn't even funny! Sheesh!
It's just a way of justifying getting rid of (and disarming) their opponents. They really don't give a crap about their heritage. Hell, most of them don't have a clue what it is. Deep ecologists are just as ignorant. It doesn't preclude them from trading in myths that justify their actions.
Think subjective reality. "What I believe is what's good for me."
As time passes, this may become more and more of a reality . . . and perhaps even explicitly so.
Were they ever any different?