"...We demand the ruthless prosecution of those whose activities are injurious to the common interest. Murderers, rapists, pedophiles, common criminals, drug dealers, usurers, profiteers, race traitors, etc. must be punished with death, whatever their creed or race."
"...The curricula of all educational establishments must be brought into line with the requirements of practical life."
"...The state must ensure that the nation?s health standards are raised by protecting mothers, infants, and the unborn. By prohibiting abortion and euthanasia, except in cases of rape, incest, race-mixing, or mental retardation."
"...By creating conditions to make possible the reestablishment of the nuclear family in which the father works while the mother stays at home and takes care of the children..."
"...We demand the right to bear arms for law-abiding citizens."
NOTE - No, they are not taking a liberal stand by establishing gun control for certain citizens. They want every citizen to own guns, just as you do. They don't consider nonwhites to be citizens.
"...We demand the abolition of the mercenary army, the end to the over-use of our military as a ?Meals-on-Wheels? program in foreign lands of no vital interest to our nation."
"...We demand legal warfare on deliberate political mendacity and its dissemination in the press..."
"... We demand the legal prosecution of all those tendencies in art and literature which corrupt our national life, and the suppression of cultural events which violate this demand."
Because Liberals believe in fairness and in reporting the truth, I'm going to do something that you haven't been able to do so far: I'm going to acknowledge that the weight of evidence suggests that the National Socialist Movement has more leftist than rightist positions (see, it's not so hard to do). But we are talking about one organizaition, one which clearly does not represent the views of the other white supremacist groups I catalogued.
Re: the anti-Clinton blurb, let's be a bit realistic here - the tone of that piece is far more likely to be matched on this website than on any liberal website. And you know that. And Ramsey Clark would not have agreed with the post about the liberal social scientist, nor the anti-multiculturalism rant, would he?
Speaking of multiculturalism, I'm glad that you acknowledged, however sarcastically, that Farrakhan's position on that subject coincides in every way with the standard conservative rhetoric. We liberals, on the other hand, distance ourselves from that goofball, because we recognize that America is multicultural, always has been and always will be, and that's one of the beautiful things about the melting pot. It's ironic that conservatives, who claim to respect the past, have forgotten about the multicultural aspects of their own ancestors who brought with them to this great country different customs, different holiday traditions, and different economic models, and, speaking in Gaelic, Italian, German and Zulu, infused them into this country's heritage from their ethnically diverse neighborhoods.
You left out the conservative positions:Considering that the liberals want federal control of schools and "school-to-work" programs, that is not a conservative position but a liberal one.[snip]
"...The curricula of all educational establishments must be brought into line with the requirements of practical life."
"...The state must ensure that the nation?s health standards are raised by protecting mothers, infants, and the unborn. By prohibiting abortion and euthanasia, except in cases of rape, incest, race-mixing, or mental retardation."Other than believing the right to life, the rest of these are liberal positions.
[snip]Yes, and why do they want these non-citizens to not have guns? Because it is easier to deny fundemental rights to a disarmed person. Liberals want to do that to all people- except the government. Talk about a recipie for tryany!"...We demand the right to bear arms for law-abiding citizens."
NOTE - No, they are not taking a liberal stand by establishing gun control for certain citizens. They want every citizen to own guns, just as you do. They don't consider nonwhites to be citizens.
"...We demand the abolition of the mercenary army, the end to the over-use of our military as a ?Meals-on-Wheels? program in foreign lands of no vital interest to our nation."I thought the left was the anti-military side? I will agree, however, that the military should not be involved in meals-on-wheels programs.
"...We demand legal warfare on deliberate political mendacity and its dissemination in the press..."This is a conservative position, exactly how?
"... We demand the legal prosecution of all those tendencies in art and literature which corrupt our national life, and the suppression of cultural events which violate this demand."Sounds like they want PC enforced at the point of a gun. This one could go either way- conservative or liberal.
Because Liberals believe in fairness and in reporting the truth, I'm going to do something that you haven't been able to do so far: I'm going to acknowledge that the weight of evidence suggests that the National Socialist Movement has more leftist than rightist positions (see, it's not so hard to do). But we are talking about one organizaition, one which clearly does not represent the views of the other white supremacist groups I catalogued.Well, let's see. You cataloged a handful. I took one at random. I had already pointed you to another, which came before your examples, so that makes two. I will go and look at the others at some point in the future, just to see. I don't like going to those sites, because these people make me ill. They make almost everyone on this forum ill, except for some pesky sorts who get banned and then sign up again under a new name. Why they do this, who knows. They certainly are not welcome. People like me would suspect that they are doing it to intentionally discredit conservatives. People like you might suspect that they are what conservatives really think.
Re: the anti-Clinton blurb, let's be a bit realistic here - the tone of that piece is far more likely to be matched on this website than on any liberal website.Yes, and no.
Yes, you are right, when the context is comparing this website with typical liberal websites.
No, when you lump this website (and conservatives) in with the lunatic fringe. The left has a lunatic fringe as well (check out any of Ramsey Clark's umbrella groups). You go to those websites, and you will find that the hatred for Clinton was just as palpable. There is a reason that those leftist groups trashed Seattle- they were protesting Clinton policies.
And you know that. And Ramsey Clark would not have agreed with the post about the liberal social scientist, nor the anti-multiculturalism rant, would he?Ramsey Clark would have agreed with whatever he felt was the most destabilizing for this country. But that is a whole other ball of wax.
Speaking of multiculturalism, I'm glad that you acknowledged, however sarcastically, that Farrakhan's position on that subject coincides in every way with the standard conservative rhetoric.I did not acknowledge that. I acknowledged that Farrakhan's position shows that on the left, there is not unanimity about multiculturalism.
We liberals, on the other hand, distance ourselves from that goofball,As well you should.
because we recognize that America is multicultural, always has been and always will be, and that's one of the beautiful things about the melting pot.Agreed!
It always has been, and always will be. And it has worked, because the cultures assimilate into the United States. Recent multiculturalism efforts have hindered this process, and have led to an erosion of what has been to where many wonder if it will always be.
This country worked because the industrious in other lands, who strove to be free and to work to better their lot in life, would come to America and bring their unique culture and a spirit of individualism and entrepreuerism. Now, with all the freebies the government hands out, we are getting immigrants who come to America to get the benefits of our increasingly socialistic infrastructure. They don't have to assimilate, so they don't. They don't have to have an industrious spirit, so they don't. It is a recipie for disaster.
It's ironic that conservatives, who claim to respect the past, have forgotten about the multicultural aspects of their own ancestors who brought with them to this great country different customs,And a conservative would argue that liberals, who claim to respect freedom and progres, have forgotten about the industrious and self-sufficiency aspects of their own ancestors who brought with them to this great country a desire for the freedom to work hard to improve their lot in life by becoming Americans.
different holiday traditions, and different economic models, and, speaking in Gaelic, Italian, German and Zulu, infused them into this country's heritage from their ethnically diverse neighborhoods.Yet, back then, English was taught in all schools. Prayers were allowed and even required in schools. There was all this diversity that you just pointed to, without there being some federal agency mandating it, without diversity training, without a hypersensitive political correctness culture.
There is a lot that made America great. Conservatives fight hard to make sure that these things are not lost, as we work towards correcting what was wrong in this country.
We are good people.
Let me tell you a little history about me. It might explain to you why I was so hostile in my first few responses to you. I am going to focus on two events; one from my childhood and one from this past election cycle.
When I was a young teen, one day I was in an arcade in the next town over from mine. I had gone there by myself to play some videogames. While I was playing some machine, a black guy came up, told me that he did not like white kids coming into the place, and he punched me in the jaw (I wasn't even looking at him as he ranted at me, so it really caught me). I realized right then, there are people out there who hate me, and hate me for things I had no part in. Someone was teaching these people to hate, and to hate people like me.
This past year, I worked hard locally towards Bush's election. I put up yard signs on the major roadways. Each week, I would have to do it again, because the signs were being stolen or defaced. It wasn't a case of both sides doing it either. I put some tape on the Gore/Lieberman signs nearby to see if the same signs were staying up. They were. This was aggravating, but not too bad. Then came election day. As I was driving my kids to school, I passed by where I had put up some Bush/Cheney signs. They were gone, but in their place were new Bush/Cheney signs. Only these signs were done with a confederate flag as the backdrop. These were not homemade signs either. They were signs made up professionally, and done to do nothing but incite racial acrimony.
That guy that punched me in the face as a kid? He was taught to hate me not by his own experience soley, but also by liberals who use race baiting to win elections, to apply political pressure, to advance their agenda.
Maybe you are a good guy. But my experience has taught me that in general, politically active liberals are a machiavellian crew, who lie constantly about conservatives.
Conservatives oppose the welfare state, not because we hate seeing our tax dollars go to the poor, but because we realize that the welfare state encourages the need for welfare, and it traps the poor in an endless cycle of dependency. We hate the ravages of drugs, not because we want to control people's lives, but because we see what it does to the inner cities. We want to keep people having the right to bear arms, because we want the families that can't escape from the slums to be able to defend themselves, and because we want the families that live in rural areas where police can't be there within moments to be able to defend themselves. We want to lower the punishing tax rates in this country to allow single income families again, not to keep women in the kitchen but because we know what studies show continually- children raised without involved parenting face greater risk of unproductive, troubled lives.
And conservatives hate Nazis with a passion.
The fact is that we need a strong, centralized government spanning several continents to coordinate many important tasks...That does not sound very conservative.
It might not be too much to say that the most important single institution in the government we want will be the one which selects, trains, and tests the people who will be the judges and the legislators and the executives in that government people who will be more like secular priests...Again, this hardly sounds conservative.
What do they think about capitalism?
Without a unifying principle, however, a capitalist society easily can fall prey to certain inherent weaknesses. One of these weaknesses is the instability which leads the rich to become richer and the poor to become poorer, not solely because of differences in ability but because the possession of capital gives the possessor an enormous advantage in the competition for more capital. When personal gain is the only motivation in a society, those who already are rich can arrange things to favor themselves: they can buy the legislation they want, and they can block threats to their power in ways that may be destructive to the welfare of the society as a whole. They can hold down the price of labor, limit healthy competition within the society, and exploit the environment without regard for the long-range consequences.Does that sound conservative to you? Now, to be fair, they also do rail against Marxism, and they do acknowledge there is some good in stressing values in education (although I want nothing to do with their values) and some good in the competitive nature of capitalism. Are they conservative or liberal? I don't think a strong case can be made either way. They are, simply, lunatics.
Another example you gave was a group I have never heard of, the National Association for the Advancement of White People. Having never heard of them, I am less confident in what I say about them, so I am only going off their website here. Are you sure they are a white supremecy group? Here is what I see at their site:
We don't condemn minorities - we want the best for them, both from a compassionate Christian-point-of-view, and because if they escape from the cycle of poverty, drugs, and crime - then we too will be better off...Are they white supremecists? If so, they have a strange way of showing it, calling for equal rights for all and calling discrimination against blacks, hispanics, asians and anyone else morally wrong. Are they racist? It sounds like they may be to me, since it does seem as if they blame a lot of America's problems on non-whites. Yet, their stated goals are equal rights for all. It doesn't surprise me to find that of the groups you pointed me to, this would end up being the most conservative sounding, since conservatism is for equal rights for all. It is a liberal myth to believe otherwise.Discriminating against whites is as morally wrong as it is against blacks, Hispanics, Asians, or anyone else...
The National Association for the Advancement of White People is a non-violent civil rights organization demanding: "Equal Rights for All Special Privileges for None"
So out of the four groups I have looked at as a result of our discussion, we have Aryan Action which is clearly socialist, we have the Nazi party which by your admission leans more to the left than right (although parts of their "platform" are conservative), we have the National Alliance which seems to hate both liberalism and conservatism, and we have the NAAWP which calls for equal rights for all. Yet, your original position was that clearly white supremecists find kinship with conservatism. I think I have shown that to be a misperception.
I just noticed that a few days ago I missed a few of your replies. I will go back and get to them as time allows.