RightWing Conference Tells Activists to Get Their Guns Ready for Bloody Battle with Obama the Nazi

I personally argue that all totalitarian and authoritarian regimes regardless of what they call themselves are hard right by nature because despite rhetoric to the contrary true liberalism is the antithesis of such doctrines. Also liberals are almost always among the first groups such regimes come down on.

Originally posted by grover

Originally posted by johnny2127
First of all, Hitler was far far left, not right.
[edit on 29-9-2009 by johnny2127]

That is a common mispreception but not true. Hitler and the Nazi party despite the socialist in their name were hyper right wing and were vehemently against both the real socialists and communists in both Germany and the countries they invaded.

Not true. In no way am I comparing the Nazi version of extreme liberalism to liberals in America. But if you examine the platform of Hitler's socialist party and what he was campaigning on, it was a flat or far left socialist agenda. The only thing that I could think of that was right or far right was the extreme nationalist aspect to the party.

The Nazi party stressed the failure of capitalism and Russian style Communism. Their view was that govt needed to have a large hand in controlling private companies.

reply to post by johnny2127

Please reread my post immediately above yours.

You are mistaking what they ran on to get the votes for their true agenda.

I am not interested in their rhetoric I am interested in what they did...that is the true telling.

Just because the Nazi's (heavily funded by Krupp's and the like) turned around and bit the hand that fed them and took over big business; does not mean they were liberal or far left...rather it means they wanted to control every aspect of society...which they did.

they were totalitarians and like I said the antithesis to true liberalism.


[edit on 29-9-2009 by grover]

Originally posted by grover
reply to post by johnny2127

 

Please reread my post immediately above yours.

You are mistaking what they ran on to get the votes for their true agenda.

I am not interested in their rhetoric I am interested in what they did...that is the true telling.

Just because the Nazi's (heavily funded by Krupp's and the like) turned around and bit the hand that fed them and took over big business; does not mean they were liberal or far left...rather it means they wanted to control every aspect of society...which they did.

they were totalitarians and like I said the antithesis to true liberalism.


[edit on 29-9-2009 by grover]

Well that is kind of an absurd statement because any conservative would tell you that is also the antithesis of conservatism. Conservatives want small govt that is out of people's lives. Conservatives don't want large govt with govt programs controlling various aspects of the private sector or peoples' lives. Big govt is a flat out liberal concept. Govt's with large powerful central govt's and overarching govt programs in all facets of life is a liberal policy, not conservative. Totalitarianism is the furthest left, BY DEFINITION

The spectrum follows from left to right – the extreme left is absolute control by the state and the extreme right is absolutely no law or government. Totalitarianism is as extreme left as government gets and anarchy is as extreme right. All other governments fall between those two.

Political Spectrum

Sorry buddy, but you misunderstand the political spectrum.....

reply to post by johnny2127

You forget the most right wing conservative here would be considered fairly liberal in many nations...even in Europe today and what we consider far left would be considered moderate there...

The differences between the extremes here is really very small despite rhetoric to the contrary...

In Europe and many other places the differences can be vast and our American ideas of what constitutes left and right breaks down all together.

It's like when people complain how the moderate Muslims are silent and the violent fundamentalists get all of the bad press. We know that the sane, devout Muslims outnumber the crazies, but they're afraid to speak out and their voices get drowned out. As a result, ALL Muslims get tarred with the same brush.

It's the same with the Republicans. Intelligent and rational conservative voices are being drowned out by the crazies. The smart ones know that Obama isn't a Secret-Muslim-Communist-Nazi-Anti-Christ, and probably have proposed rational alternatives to Obama's legislative plans, but you wouldn't know it by watching t.v. or reading the papers.

Once in a while, someone like Peggy Noonan will make an unguarded remark off-mic and let her true feelings show, but when further pressed, will keep her mouth shut and fall in line with the herd.

I'll give a pass to William F. Buckley, since he's DEAD. George Will, David Brooks? Meh. Ron Paul? He's gaining traction, but he doesn't have the charisma or "star power" of someone like Sarah Palin. If only he was a 40 year old MILF and wore red stilettos!


Consequently, Rush Limbaugh declares himself the leader of the Republican party, and no one says a peep. If I were a Republican, I'd be ashamed that such a drug-addled buffoon would claim to speak on my behalf.

THINK FOR YOURSELF. Don't act like gullible sheep. Get your information from reputable news outlets and not trash like the New York Post. Turn off the t.v. Mainstream media is all propaganda in some form or fashion. Question people's motives. Follow the money. Ask yourself whether the people on in the media who are telling you to do this and that, whether they are willing to back up their own rhetoric with action. If not, ask yourself WHY.

Originally posted by Kaploink

Originally posted by lpowell0627
I am so sick and tired of hearing about evil republicans, conservative nutjobs, right-wing extremists, etc.

The labels would go away if the more extreme part of the Republican party would tone it down a bit. When they are running around with questionable signs, screaming at town meetings about evil socialism, and making statements about armed revolutions, people are going to think they are nuts. They appear to mainstream America just like the guy who screams at everyone on the street corner that they are going to hell.

[edit on 29-9-2009 by diabolique]

[edit on 29-9-2009 by diabolique]

Originally posted by johnny2127

Originally posted by grover

Originally posted by johnny2127
First of all, Hitler was far far left, not right.
[edit on 29-9-2009 by johnny2127]

That is a common mispreception but not true. Hitler and the Nazi party despite the socialist in their name were hyper right wing and were vehemently against both the real socialists and communists in both Germany and the countries they invaded.

Not true. In no way am I comparing the Nazi version of extreme liberalism to liberals in America. But if you examine the platform of Hitler's socialist party and what he was campaigning on, it was a flat or far left socialist agenda. The only thing that I could think of that was right or far right was the extreme nationalist aspect to the party.

The Nazi party stressed the failure of capitalism and Russian style Communism. Their view was that govt needed to have a large hand in controlling private companies.

OK! I am going to take this slow if someone is dense?!

What you don't understand is that FASCISM has several socio-economic traits in common with what you Americans call Socialism - But that is how European Fascism is constructed with corporatism and socioeconomics.

And from an American point of view if you are only analyzing the economical part on the economic scale it may seem and look that way, but it's not true!

But a political compass and the political spectrum doesn't work that way!

You have to count in the total of both TWO axles to get a result. (don't you guys learn how to read these things in school nowadays?)

Let me explain:

You have two axles:

- one: Authoritarian and Libertarian - that's the social scale.

- two: Left and right - that's the economic scale.

Hitler and National Socialism were in top of the Authoritarian scale and slightly right of the center on the economic scale, but since they were so high up on the Authoritarian social scale on the right side of the center - the result is called the far-right.

When you look at these scales you can not just look at the economic scale and disregard the rest, because the result would be flawed - what you do is that you count all this together in a total to get a result!

That's why the Intellectuals are calling National Socialism far-right!

How hard can that be? - can't you read diagrams?

This lady is German who probably survived WWII to tell you how it was in Germany.

I cant figure how a German becomes a right wing Republican extremist just because she is calling it like she sees it. You Liberals will twist anything to your favor to save your Anti-Christ wont you?

Just like the socialist-communist who put Hitler in power.

reply to post by Chevalerous

I understand exactly what you are saying and that is how I understand it even if I cannot articulate it as clearly as you did.

Originally posted by grover
reply to post by johnny2127

 

You forget the most right wing conservative here would be considered fairly liberal in many nations...even in Europe today and what we consider far left would be considered moderate there...

The differences between the extremes here is really very small despite rhetoric to the contrary...

In Europe and many other places the differences can be vast and our American ideas of what constitutes left and right breaks down all together.

The political spectrum is the political spectrum. Totalitarianism is the furthest left, and flat out control by the govt.

I also have no clue how you could make the assertion that conservatives in America would be liberal in Europe. That would mean the US is more liberal than Europe, which any logical person would tell you is not the case. If anything, liberals in the US would come across more conservative to liberals in Europe.

My whole point in this was that you were trying to say that Totalitarianism is an example of the extreme right. I have shown you that by definition they are the most extreme left. All forms of liberalism have a fundamental belief in the need for powerful central govts. The extreme of this is Totalitarianism. Conservatives no matter where in the world, want smaller govts with less power. Hence the extreme of that being Anarchy. Neither extreme is safe or productive.

If you read your history, it was the BANKERS and CORPORATIONS like IBM who helped Hitler rise to power, and maintain it. Hitler persecuted Communists.

Originally posted by Sky watcher
This lady is German who probably survived WWII to tell you how it was in Germany.

I cant figure how a German becomes a right wing Republican extremist just because she is calling it like she sees it. You Liberals will twist anything to your favor to save your Anti-Christ wont you?

Just like the socialist-communist who put Hitler in power.

reply to post by johnny2127

Actually the whole American ideal is radical and is very liberal even at its most conservative...remember the American ideal was so revolutionary it sparked a whole wave of them starting with France.

For example there are hard right parties in France that agitate for the return of the Monarchy...also true in Russia.

The remments of Franco's fascists are the hard right in Spain.

Examples like that abound.

Originally posted by Chevalerous


OK! I am going to take this slow if someone is dense?!

What you don't understand is that FASCISM has several socio-economic traits in common with what you Americans call Socialism - But that is how European Fascism is constructed with corporatism and socioeconomics.

And from an American point of view if you are only analyzing the economical part on the economic scale it may seem and look that way, but it's not true!

But a political compass and the political spectrum doesn't work that way!

You have to count in the total of both TWO axles to get a result. (don't you guys learn how to read these things in school nowadays?)

Let me explain:

You have two axles:

- one: Authoritarian and Libertarian - that's the social scale.

- two: Left and right - that's the economic scale.

Hitler and National Socialism were in top of the Authoritarian scale and slightly right of the center on the economic scale, but since they were so high up on the Authoritarian social scale on the right side of the center - the result is called the far-right.

When you look at these scales you can not just look at the economic scale and disregard the rest, because the result would be flawed - what you do is that you count all this together in a total to get a result!

That's why the Intellectuals are calling National Socialism far-right!

How hard can that be? - can't you read diagrams?

No offense, but don't call me slow or dense because I don't agree with you. I have two degrees, one in political science and the other in economics, so yes I understand these things very well.

Calling me dense because I don't agree with you is absurd. If you want to disagree academically, fine. But don't resort to name name calling. Some progressive liberal academics (or Intellectuals as you call them) have argued for a reordering of the political spectrum that would support more of what you have stated. However, the most widely accepted political spectrum places Totalitarianism at the furthest left.



Just think about it...... if totalitarianism is complete control of the state...... which political movement wants more govt, and more powerful govt?

By the way, I am shocked, Grover, that you would support this guy calling me dense and applauding his effort.

I don't applaud calling you dense...he could have easily been talking about both of us...since I have been known to be pretty dense at times...

I was applauding what he was saying about the political spectrum.

I'm going to make this real easy for you to understand why you have been brainwashed into believing this in America.

The reason is that the Right in America didn't want to be associated with Hitler and National Socialism so they invented a flawed phoney way to describe these things for you! only for the reason to be able to manipulate you!


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/89da342cdb7a.jpg[/atsimg]


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4c405014cd31.jpg[/atsimg]

And here we can see exactly how the Americans did to make it look as Hitler was to the left.

If you tilt this spectrum like this it looks like Hitler and National Socialism is to the left, but if you read the axles and where the 0 is on the economic scale you see that you can not do like this and tilt the picture because the result would be flawed with the axles if you did this.

The guy I'm arguing with here linked a square like this to get hitler on the left, that has been tilted and is without the axles and the 0 - but then they show it to you as a square again! - this is how they have been lying & manipulated the people for political reasons!

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e5b68f3ee202.jpg[/atsimg]



[edit on 29-9-2009 by Chevalerous]

reply to post by johnny2127


The compass you are showing is a false political tool constructed only for manipulating you!

I'm soo sorry for you guys being victims of the corporated agenda in the USA

Read the Interview i linked to and read Hitlers own words and definition if you want to call yourself an educated man!

I'm through arguing this with people who's having a skewed world picture and knows nada of European politics.

And mind you that European politics is the foundation of the system that is existing in the US as well - so you can not just start to invent new definitions to fit some aganda as you please!


[edit on 29-9-2009 by Chevalerous]

I really don't rely on charts or established political spectrum's.

I am not interested in all of that.

What I mean when I say that authoritarian and total totalitarian regimes are far right is this...when an ideology...no matter what its ideal, left or right is gains power it automatically begins consolidating that power into a hold fast...or a rigid aspiring permanent hold of power and the longer it stays in power the more conservative it becomes...

Can anyone seriously argue for example that the Soviet Union under Stalin was liberal?

Of course not and the longer that system held onto power the more conservative and repressive it became until it ended up the very type of authoritarian system it despised under the Czars.

This is what I mean.

Originally posted by grover
If these people...like the once calling Obama a n----- are not racists like they try to insist...then why use the n word at all? And if her listeners are not racist themselves why tolerate it.

I always make a point of objecting when I hear someone else use it.

You can listen to someone use those type of words, not be racist and not object.

Obama did it for 20 years and you seem not to have any problems what so ever with him.

Originally posted by Chevalerous
reply to post by johnny2127

 

The compass you are showing is a false political tool constructed only for manipulating you!

I'm soo sorry for you guys being victims of the corporated agenda in the USA

Read the Interview i linked to and read Hitlers own words and definition if you want to call yourself an educated man!

I'm through arguing this with people who has skewed world picture and knows nada of European politics.

And mind you that European politics is the foundation of the system that is existing in the US as well - so you can not just start to invent new definitions to fit some aganda as you please!

Look, if anything this has shown that a political spectrum is not concrete. You posted political spectrum putting Hitler on the right, and I have shown you ones putting him on the left.

I am not arguing the Obama is another Hitler. I am not arguing that democrats are Nazis. I am not ripping on liberals or saying they are trying to usher in a new Totalitarian regime.

But your posturing and tone are quite sad. You make comments and talk down to people, not to them. You have your opinion and now say things about who you will or will not argue about them with. You don't have any idea what I do or do not know about European History or politics. But as any logical person will tell you, just because you believe it doesn't make it so. Same goes for what I believe. But for you to call names, talk down to people, and then speak as though you won't speak to those below you, is very telling about your nature. I sincerely hope you stop the elitism, and arrogance. There is a big difference between debating and arguing. Arguing is punctuated by emotion, insults and name calling. I encourage you to stop arguing and start debating instead.



[edit on 29-9-2009 by johnny2127]

Originally posted by johnny2127
Look, if anything this has shown that a political spectrum is not concrete. You posted political spectrum putting Hitler on the right, and I have shown you ones putting him on the left.

Actually both of you are correct. The chart is flawed because it is drawn in a 2-dimensional axis. The chart is actually 3-dimensional, which is hard to wrap one's brain around.

If you chart on the far-extreme to the right, you actually end up on the extreme-left. The inverse is also true. Hitler was extreme left and right at the same time.

The political spectrum is oversimplified.