Liberals aren't racist, no indeed...
POSTED BY: piratenews
UPDATED: Sunday, February 26, 2017 22:57
VIEWED: 11019
PAGE 1 of 2
Quote:
"We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don't want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."
-- Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, December 19, 1939 letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble, 255 Adams Street, Milton, Massachusetts
"I think you must agree that the campaign for birth control is not merely of eugenic value, but is practically identical with the final aims of eugenics. Birth control propaganda is thus the entering wedge for the eugenic educator. "As an advocate of birth control I wish ... to point out that the unbalance between the birth rate of the 'unfit' and the 'fit,' admittedly the greatest present menace to civilization, can never be rectified by the inauguration of a cradle competition between these two classes. In this matter, the example of the inferior classes, the fertility of the feebleminded, the mentally defective, the poverty-stricken classes, should not be held up for emulation."
-Margaret Sanger, "The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda", Birth Control Review , October 1921, page 5
"Blacks, soldiers, and Jews are a menace to the race. Eugenic sterilization is an urgent need. We must prevent multiplication of this bad stock."
-Margaret Sanger, April 1933 Birth Control Review
http://www.blackinformant.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/quotes.pdf
"Several years ago, when 17,000 aborted babies were found in a dumpster outside a pathology laboratory in Los, Angeles, California, some 12-15,000 were observed to be black."
-Erma Clardy Craven, Social Worker and Civil Rights Leade
"Between 1882 and 1968, 3,446 Blacks were lynched in the U.S. That number is surpassed in less than 3 days by abortion. 1,784 African-American children are killed each day by the heinous act of abortion. 3 out of 5 pregnant African-American women will abort their child. Since 1973 there has been over 13 million Black children killed and their precious mothers victimized by the U.S. abortion industry."
www.blackgenocide.org
Anti-abortionists Accuse Knoxville Planned Parenthood of 'Black Genocide'
The Pro-LIfe Coalition of East Tenn. cites DVD documentary 'Maafa 21' as evidence of a conspiracy to eradicate African-Americans
Clark seemed an old hand at this routine. Around him were hallmarks of the cause—a banner showing a fetus at various stages of development, placards that read “Women Do Regret Abortion” on one side, and on the other side, “Men Regret Lost Fatherhood.” Signs in Spanish read “Planned Parenthood Roba Almas”—Planned Parenthood robs souls. As it turned out, though, Clark was a recent convert. “I never paid any attention to abortion or pro-life or pro-choice,” he said. “As a matter of fact, I wouldn’t have never known the difference. But when I sit down and look at ‘Amaafa 21,’ that changed my life completely.”
www.maafa21.com
What Clark was referring to is Maafa 21, a DVD documentary given to him by Lisa Morris, spokeswoman for the Pro-Life Coalition of East Tennessee. Released about a year ago, this two-and a half-hour production posits that, rather than being a center for reproductive and women’s health, Planned Parenthood is actually an organization dedicated to the eradication of the black race. It’s a theory Morris and others say is evidenced by Planned Parenthood’s history, and by the fact that so many of its clinics, including this new one on Cherry Street, are found in minority neighborhoods.
Clark was confident it was true, even if murky on the details. “How abortion got started was to kill off all the black babies—that’s to get rid of the black race,” Clark explained. “Then that’s where Hitl
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
AND here we have OBAMACARE...
YAY! Government control of the Healthcare you recieve and for the purposes they design.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quotes from 1929, 1921, 1933??? Didn't need to read further than that. Waste of time.
Aside from which, none of that has anything to do with Liberals as a whole; I posted specific things said by HEADS of the Tea Party movement, which reflects the Tea Party movement itself; you posted things about Planned Parenthood, which reflects nothing but Planned Parenthood, not Liberals.
Title accusation 
No proof shown.
Hippie Operative Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
signing off
To our President: “Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar. Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.... oh, go fuck yourself, Mr. President” ...Raptor
To Anthony, unquestionably the most civil person on this forum: “Go fuck yourself. On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you. ...Raptor
To Frem: “You miserable piece of shit.” ...Raptor
To Niki: “My guess is it won't just be your ugly face you dislike.....Well, it's true......if you had a soul.” ...Raptor
...Remember, remember, the ugliest member...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Uh-huh....
Pretty pink shades you are wearing there, Nix.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Aw gee guys, liberals don't hate minorities. They only hate unborn babies, and your freedoms. And also your mom. Apple pie, too.
However, when white folk are minorities (shall be soon!) then liberals will hate minorities.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Dr Ron Paul MD OBGYN delivered 4,000 babies, with zero abortions. Operative Nikovich12, how many of your babies and grandbabies did you kill?
World dictators at Bilderburg Global Government is meeting in secret this week, with 100% censorship blackout by the multinational "news" cartel, to order Dictator Saddam Hussein Obama Bin Laden Soetoro Black Knight of the British Empire to nuke Iran and genocide millions, which is a tiny fraction of the genocide carried out and planned for USA.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=bilderburg+2010&aq=f&aqi
=g-s1g-sx9&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai= 
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Where's a sockpuppet when you need one?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
well... What's the name of that one crazy planned parenthood/abortion/eugenics lady from ye old times? Was it Margaret Sanger?
Anyway, whatever her name was, um, yeah. There's some FREAKY people out there, and some of them do back abortion.
I'm not quite convinced that its a giant conspiracy, as I consider MYSELF for equal rights for both genders, and personally I struggle both directions with the issue of abortion on an ethical level. But if you look into it, PN actually has a basis of a kernel of truth here.
Whether they're actually genociding black people, I'm not sure either. When they talk about more planned parenthood offices being in poor neighborhoods, which do tend to be ethnic minority demographics... Well, it's a poor neighborhood. Abortions cost money and require insurance, as far as I'm aware. Those are two things a poor neighborhood isn't likely to have.
But it does raise a valid question: why put them there in the first place? Perceived problem of overpopulation leading to poverty? The line between whether its racial or whether its poverty becomes blurred, because there's a big demographics overlap.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
John,
Great post, an interesting read.
Byte
John's point here is that they created abortion, and they did it for eugenics. He's right of course. Whether it's race related I'm not sure, but certainly it was initially, with planned parenthood texts like "the Negro great." as for pay, it's a graduated scale, you pay if you can, you pay more if you have morel, less if you have less. These scales are beneficial to the poor, but alas seem to surface when here's something that someone wants to give to the poor, such as abortions, or drugs. No graduated scale for houses. Maybe projects ;)
The thing is that Margret Sanger isn't a random person from the thirties, she's really the godmother of the whole ZPG movement which is pretty well anchored in the american left. Darling of the new left, Gail Collins, was singing her praises just a couple weeks ago.
But it's not just the left. Neocons are also down with eugenics. I was just reading about the eugenics foundation funding the drafting of the Arizona immigration law. Of course, the neocons themselves are admitted socialists.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"John's point here is that they created abortion"
Hello,
Abortion was created by these folk in the same way that they invented the internet.
What they did do was take the process mainstream as part of a Eugenics program.
A Eugenics program that, to my knowledge, was abandoned in the wake of WWII. By the time the 60's rolled around, Eugenics was becoming a dirty concept. In 1973, when abortion rights were asserted, you couldn't have filled a thimble with the amount of talk the justices and lawyers did on 'Eugenics.'
I don't know anyone who has ever expressed 'eugenics' as one of their reasons for backing abortion rights. I haven't even seen anyone in the media talk about Eugenics outside of Nazi documentaries, Star Trek, and X-man comics. And, I suppose, Pirate's 'news.'
When my second son's head was inflating like a water-filled balloon, and his brain was pressed into a thin paste, I don't remember 'eugenics' coming up in my discussions with the doctor. Health and welfare of the mother were discussed, along with the consequences of going to term with a baby who would be born dead or born to die within hours or days. I use 'born' euphamistically. He'd have to be cut out of the womb due to that endlessly inflating cranium.
I'm going to guess that Renaissance women in Europe who rooted out unwanted babies had also never heard of Eugenics. They'd probably be surprised to learn that abortion was created by someone in the 20th century.
People do stuff for all kinds of reasons. No one I ever met did anything because of Eugenics.
--Anthony
"On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you." --Auraptor
"This vile and revolting malice - this is their true colors, always has been, you're just seeing it without the mask of justifications and excuses they hide it behind, is all. Make sure to remember it once they put the mask back on." --Fremdfirma
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Anyone whose spent 5 minutes researching the abortion movement knows it was started by racist eugenics types, who wanted to rid humanity of " undesirables " and keep minorities from breeding like rats.
** ANYONE ** who thinks the Fed Gov't has done " all it possibly can " in response the Gulf Coast oil disaster, or who thinks Obama isn't lying to us all - I have no use for you. You deserve all the animosity and any vulgar "tone" directed your way. ( Anthony , that includes you, buddy. Sorry )
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello Dreamtrove,
I supplement my earlier statement with this data. A brief history of abortion. It took less than 5 minutes to research this. Anyone who researches the history of the abortion 'movement' will learn that abortion was practiced widely long before America was a twinkle in Amerigo Vespucci's eye. If someone wants to argue that Eugenicists took an existing technology or practice and applied it to forward their dark philosophy, I agree. But to credit them with abortion or the abortion 'movement' is misleading. They participated in the 'movement' briefly and fleetingly. What preceded them also survived them. Suggesting that abortion happens because of early 20th century Eugenics personalities is like saying driver's licenses came into being because of John DeLorean.
--Anthony
Excerpts from wikipedia's "Before 5th Century" article, though feel free to perform counter-research if you don't like wikipedia:
"The first recorded evidence of induced abortion, is from the Egyptian Ebers Papyrus in 1550 BC.[3] A Chinese record documents the number of royal concubines who had abortions in China between the years 500 and 515 BC.[4] According to Chinese folklore, the legendary Emperor Shennong prescribed the use of mercury to induce abortions nearly 5000 years ago.[5] Many of the methods employed in early and primitive cultures were non-surgical. Physical activities like strenuous labor, climbing, paddling, weightlifting, or diving were a common technique. Others included the use of irritant leaves, fasting, bloodletting, pouring hot water onto the abdomen, and lying on a heated coconut shell.[6] In primitive cultures, techniques developed through observation, adaptation of obstetrical methods, and transculturation.[7] Archaeological discoveries indicate early surgical attempts at the extraction of a fetus; however, such methods are not believed to have been common, given the infrequency with which they are mentioned in ancient medical texts.[8]
Soranus, a 2nd century Greek physician, recommended abortion in cases involving health complications as well as emotional immaturity, and provided detailed suggestions in his work Gynecology. Diuretics, emmenagogues, enemas, fasting, and bloodletting were prescribed as safe abortion methods, although Soranus advised against the use of sharp instruments to induce miscarriage, due to the risk of organ perforation.
Soranus offered a number of recipes for herbal bathes, rubs, and pessaries.[14] In De Materia Medica Libri Quinque, the Greek pharmacologist Dioscorides listed the ingredients of a draught called "abortion wine"– hellebore, squirting cucumber, and scammony– but failed to provide the precise manner in which it was to be prepared.[12] Hellebore, in particular, is known to be abortifacient.[17]
Pliny the Elder cited the refined oil of common rue as a potent abortifacient. Serenus Sammonicus wrote of a concoction which consisted of rue, egg, and dill. Soranus, Dioscorides, Oribasius also detailed this application of the plant. Modern scientific studies have confirmed that rue indeed contains three abortive compounds.[18]
Birthwort, an herb used to ease childbirth, was also used to induce abortion. Galen included it in a potion formula in de Antidotis, while Dioscorides said it could be administered by mouth, or in the form of a vaginal pessary also containing pepper and myrrh.[19]
The seeds of Queen Anne's Lace (Daucus carota), also known as wild carrot, have been in use as a post-coital agent for centuries.
Tertullian, a 2nd and 3rd century Christian theologian, also described surgical implements which were used in a procedure similar to the modern dilation and evacuation. One tool had a "nicely-adjusted flexible frame" used for dilation, an "annular blade" used to curette, and a "blunted or covered hook" used for extraction. The other was a "copper needle or spike". He attributed ownership of such items to Hippocrates, Asclepiades, Erasistratus, Herophilus, and Soranus.[20]
Tertullian's description is prefaced as being u
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Oh, true enough, abortion did exist. It wasn't particularly safe back then, so what was promoted was safer and more reliable versions of abortion and birthcontrol and legislative work to "allow" womenn to have abortions (before then, they did anyway, but in secret. I'm sure it was taboo).
The methods of abortion used THEN are not the same thing as the modern methods, at all. They created 20th century abortion in the form we know it.
The problem is, that people who liked eugenics back when abortions and birth control were being modernized and the groundwork was paved, it wasn't for the good of the people having them, but other motivations.
The question remains if SOME of those motivations are still around, but never talked about, based on the source of modern techniques and targeted demographics. This isn't even necessarily a large number thinking this way, but maybe one or two people, but in key positions.
I don't deny that abortion is an important medical procedure, especially when there's an issue of the pregnancy endangering the health of the mother, and no, eugenics probably didn't enter the equation in your wife's case at all.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
As long as people are free to choose, then the possible motivations of a secret theoretical cabal of eugenics advocates claimed to exist in the upper echelons of a discount clinic interest me not at all.
If people become no longer free to choose, I'll be moved to take political action against whoever stole their freedom. Either those that tell them they must Not, or those that tell them they Must.
--Anthony
"On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you." --Auraptor
"This vile and revolting malice - this is their true colors, always has been, you're just seeing it without the mask of justifications and excuses they hide it behind, is all. Make sure to remember it once they put the mask back on." --Fremdfirma
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Thanks Anthony, for some sensible discussion on the matter.
Women have abortions for all sorts of reasons, and have done so since there has been some sort of medical capacity to end a pregnancy. In more recent history, women have been able to procure abortions through doctors if their reason was considered worthy and if they could pay, or through non professional interventions which often resulted in death for the woman involved.
The idea behind the abortion on demand movement is that the person who should make the choice about whether or not to bring a baby to term is the pregnant woman. She may choose to do so because she is 15 and unmarried, or because she has been raped, or because she feels too old to have another child, or she already has too many children, or she is too poor or there is something wrong with the fetus, or her health is at stake or......
we all may have opinions on when it is right, if ever to abort a fetus, but in the end WE don't walk in her shoes, so it's her that has to live with the decision and the consequence.
Eugenics is a dead movement. WW2 pretty much killed those arguments, thankfully
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Anthony,
Sorry to hear. Also, I apologize for my vagary, I meant to say the movement, or modern abortion. It takes no technology to terminate a pregnancy. The invention of the first clock in Prague in 1347 was not the first clock, yet few clocks today are based on the Egyptian water clock, in fact, our modern mechanics comes out of the revolution which created that clock in Prague. I could cite a thousand other examples, but you get the point.
Abortion, as we know it today, was and is a part of an ongoing stronger than ever eugenics movement, and idea which soared in popularity because of the successes of genocidal tactics in WWII. The word lost popular appeal, particularly with the masses, but not the concept, especially in halls of power. The women's rights movement, alas, was largely guided by eugenicists with the intention of taking away women's most powerful right of all: to have and raise children. A right so powerful, it dwarfs any other.... The hand that rocks the cradle truly is the hand that rules the world. Why do you think the powers that be took over parenting in it's automated megalith of the public school and television? And simultaneously, sent mothers back to work, manipulating the economic system it owns in it's entirety to force two parents to work?
The corps is mother, the corps is father. Eugenics is far from dead, it's the guiding policy in the world today.
I like to think that this is the sort of thought that governs the logic of conservatives with brains, and I understand that it crosses paths with a set of very humanitarian minded liberal ideas, but I believe in the power of the individual, and the collective power of people in random chaotic interaction, and I feel certain that this is a part of that program,
You may have been away when I posted my story of my mothers visit from Sanger's Goon Squad, after the birth of my older sister, who was born with neurofibromatosis, a condition which leaves have her body deprived of bones, and has left her unable to walk. They did not want measures to be taken to save her life, and urged my mother not to have more children, as they would also suffer, and be a burden on society, the birth had labelled my mother, and all related to her, as "undesirables." I am here today because Sangers eugenicists did not have the power they seek, and will soon have.
But given that this an emotional subject for both of us, I suggest we not get into a heated debate about it, feel free to shoot me down.
Auraptor,
Thanks for that, I think that's spot on and more concise than I could have put it.
John
Also thanks, I really agree. At some point we should have a thad about Jones' movie, hopefully we can avoid yet another pointless abortion debate and discuss the NWO or eugenics itself.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Sangers eugenicists did not have the power they seek, and will soon have."
Hello,
No one will have that power within the scope of my voice, the range of my pen, or the swing of my arms.
Free to Choose.
If you believe that Eugenicists helped develop more modern, more safe abortion procedures, then I guess they gave the world a gift by accident.
I do not believe the world is going where you think it is. But if it did, I'd speak, write, and fight just as hard for those who would choose to be mothers as those who would choose not to be.
--Anthony
"On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you." --Auraptor
"This vile and revolting malice - this is their true colors, always has been, you're just seeing it without the mask of justifications and excuses they hide it behind, is all. Make sure to remember it once they put the mask back on." --Fremdfirma
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
No one I ever met did anything because of Eugenics.
I take you weren't invited to Bilderburg Group in fascist Spain this year? Bill Gates is there, "donating" billion$ for "vaccines" to covertly sterilize billions of sheeple. Bill Gate's daddy ran Planned Parenthood.
Quote:
"First we got population. The world today has 6.8 billion people. That's headed up to about 9 billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent."
-Bill Gates, Technology, Entertainment and Design 2010 Conference in Long Beach CA 2010
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=127346
Bill Gates wants to cut into your brain
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=42727&m=770801#770801
"Billionaire club in bid to curb overpopulation: SOME of America’s leading billionaires have met secretly to consider how their wealth could be used to slow the growth of the world’s population. Described as the Good Club by one insider it included David Rockefeller Jr, the patriarch of America’s wealthiest dynasty, Warren Buffett and George Soros, the financiers, Michael Bloomberg, the mayor of New York, and the media moguls Ted Turner and Oprah Winfrey. They gathered at the home of Sir Paul Nurse, a British Nobel prize biochemist and president of the private Rockefeller University, in Manhattan on May 5 2009. Why all the secrecy? “They wanted to speak rich to rich without worrying anything they said would end up in the newspapers, painting them as an alternative world government,” he said."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article635
0303.ece
"Nick Rockefeller told Russo of two primary reasons why the elite bankrolled women's lib, one because before women's lib the bankers couldn't tax half the population and two because it allowed them to get children in school at an earlier age, enabling them to be indoctrinated into accepting the state as the primary family, breaking up the traditional family model. Rockefeller was often keen to stress his idea that "the people have to be ruled" by an elite and that one of the tools of such power was population reduction, that there were "too many people in the world," and world population numbers should be reduced by at least half. Rockefeller said the aim was to supply every one with a (brain) "chip" in order to have the bankers lead them. He means this video on the "Age of Transition, Transhumanim and Posthumanism," of which eugenics is an integrating element. The elite want to create a totally new man without a free will - designed to be their slave - by means of a chip. The Rockefellers were behind the Eugenic Movement long before Hitler – even helped Hitler shape his eugenecist paranoia – and made big money on Hitler¨s Holocaust :
1925. The Rockefeller Foundation funded the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Psychiatry in Munic, directed by Dr. Ernst Rüdin. It continued to sponsor the Institute and its Nazi leader throughout the devastating holocaust of World Ward II. 1934 (February). A Rockefeller "progress report" (by one of the division heads) asks, "Can we develop so sound and extensive a genetics that we can hope to breed, in the future, superior men?
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?noframes;read=147610
What Sanger et al did was mass-produce abortion via factory production lines, with an expert sales force with PhDs in Propaganda, and stealing EVERYONE'S tax dollars at gunpoint to pay for it.
Quote:
"In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation."
-British Petroleum owner/director Nazi Prince Philip King of the 53-nation British Empire in charge of bioweapons labs, and husband of Queen Elizabeth Sax Coberg Gotha Queen of Babylon at Bohemian Grove, If I Were an Animal; United Kingdom, Robin Clark Ltd., 1986
Bottom line, for every baby killed, a child or adult must be killed, to balance the bank accounts of Social Se
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
ironically, our Liberal Party is the conservative party, so that statement directly applies.
"Always look on the bright side of life." Eric Idle
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Arthur C. Clarke
"A learning experience is one of those things that say, 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that.'" Douglas Adams
"I really am ruggedly handsome, aren't I?" Nathan Fillion
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Magonsdaughter: It might surprise you to find I pretty much agree. My struggles with it are that I don't LIKE it (Killing any life, even parasitic, is an iffy thing for me), but I must grudgingly accept the necessity of it, and women who want one should be allowed it. Who really does like abortion, anyway? It's a horrible thing for someone to go through. No one LIKES it. The procedure itself is disturbing and if the foetus(es?) in question were more advanced, the methods might even be considered cruel.
Anyway. So this conversation is not about "sensible," this is talking about the very ugly origins of modern abortion, not the ethicality. This is the actual history of the movement.
The most that has been supposed is that this history may still shadow modern abortion, and color the motivations of some of the people offering it.
Eugenics is not a dead topic. I believe there was quite a scandal in your very Australia, WELL after WW2, where it was found out many aboriginal women were rendered infertile without their consent, and their children, also, were being taken away.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_sterilization#Other_countries
It's still around, its just gone underground. Sometimes you'll see it crop up when America, Canda, Britain, and Australia decide to declare war on someone. Right now, TPTB really seem to hate Arabs (and particularly Muslims), and have done a remarkable job of stirring up anger and hatred for the target groups. You might argue some of the blockades and sanctions we do serve a similar purpose.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I don't get it.
Who cares about the decade-old origins of the particular medical procedures at work today ("gift by accident", beautifully put by Anthony) or the alleged motivations of those offering them? (Offering being the key-word, not forcing.)
It's the woman's choice to have an abortion, not the choice of those offering a safe procedure - which is really the only thing that matters.
If you feel that women are pressured to have abortions - adress those pressures, not the offer of abortion. Because as has been clearly shown by the references to ancient abortions, women have always had them. Eugenics have not induced that need in women.
And what is this about the hallowed "right to have children"? It wasn't taken away by the offer of safe abortions. Women still have babies today even in averse economic, psychological or medical conditions. The difference is that those women probably actually want to, because those who don't have access to abortions. And if they choose abortion against their will, adress what pressures them instead of targetting the procedure.
I find this whole discussion somewhat absurd.
ETA: The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world, eh? I'm sure that's what motivated all those suffragettes to campaign for women voting, or what motivated feminists to try and actually gain some positions of political influence and secure basic equal rights for women, or what abused wives and uneducated childbrides throughout history have been celebrating... the fact that mothers rule the world. Uh huh.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I find this discussion absurd as well, with a whole lot of different topics mashed into one, including quite unrelated issues around the Stolen Generation, which I am quite aware of, Bytemite.
I support women's right to abortion as vehemently as I would oppose forced sterilisation of any particular racial group or anyone being forced to abort a fetus or having their children taken away from them.
It's all about the right of people choosing when and whether to have children.
I see the whole eugenics argument as a desperate pitch by the anti abortion lobby, and not a very rational one either. Surely you can condemn forced abortions, if they take place, without condemning the right to choose to have one?
Who the hell supports eugenics these days apart from some loony fringes?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Byte,
TPTB hate Islam because of their birth rate, thatR's why they feed the hate into Judaism and christanity, groups that should have no serious problem with Islam. But if you push the right buttons you can create the hate. I think they actually wa t the israel Palestine conflict because it breeds hatred. Theyalso want Muslim immigration to Europe for the same reason, but I do take the point that eugenics has at its heart, white supremacy, so Muslim births aren't just numerical to these goons, they're qualitative, as in "monkey people."
I also think that people who support the other side of this argument are well meaning and are unaware that they're supporting this mentality. I think they've been bombarded with the same sort of manipulation on this issue, leading them to the erroneous conclusion that pro abortion is the women's rights side of the equation. I'm convinced that it's not. Without parenthood, women will become factory slaves in the NWO. If someone convinced you to have an abortion, they most likely saved you nothing, and just killed your child because they didn't want you to reproduce, and they didn't want you having social influence. It is as John says, the hidden holocaust, and these people are victims of it, more to be pit tied than censured. It's much like the gays in the military issue. They're not giving you guys anything but a bullet in your head, don't fight for that right.
ETA: yes, someone likes it, TPTB like it.
Magons,
Who the eugenicists are right now are the powers that be. That would mean international think tanks like count on foreign relations, the bilderberg group, probably heritage foundation, etc. These guys aren't obscure, they are the king makers.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
I find this argument bizarre. "Women of the world, throw off the shackles of the workforce where all your men are slaves. Turn to true freedom: Become your slave men's babymakers at home. Escape the new world order by detaching yourself from the wide world. Only by breeding can you truly be free!"
I don't think the slogan will catch on. You folks could use some PHD's in marketing yourselves.
Free to Choose. That's my slogan. Don't think it can be beat.
--Anthony
"On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you." --Auraptor
"This vile and revolting malice - this is their true colors, always has been, you're just seeing it without the mask of justifications and excuses they hide it behind, is all. Make sure to remember it once they put the mask back on." --Fremdfirma
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
DT: I considered the possibility of it being the birth-rate, but the problem is they also have a disportionate deathrate.
Hmm, but not enough to make the population growth rate of their countries low. Despite all the problems, population in Africa is exploding.
AR, Magons: Only PN probably really thinks no one should have abortions. although when I've talked to DT his claim about the "right to have children" has annoyed me also.
There seem to be very few women who abort all their children or decide to not have children at all. I should know, because I'm one of the ones who have made the choice to not date, have sex, or have children, and I feel a constant pressure from those around me to stop living an alternative life, and get married, and have babies. Abortion doesn't stop women from actually HAVING children.
That doesn't mean that there aren't dark motivations, just that the conspiracy, if there is one, hasn't been pushed and is not really well thought through. I find a lot of these sort of authoritarian conspiracies/policy decisions/ wars are very poorly thought through. I mean, look at other conspiracy gems, like the CIA trying to kill goats with their minds. Of course it's ridiculous. Tell THEM that.
You are right in that OFFERING doesn't change anything, but I still care about the motivations, and so this conversation really can't be dismissed.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
I find this argument bizarre. "Women of the world, throw off the shackles of the workforce where all your men are slaves. Turn to true freedom: Become your slave men's babymakers at home. Escape the new world order by detaching yourself from the wide world. Only by breeding can you truly be free!"
I don't think the slogan will catch on. You folks could use some PHD's in marketing yourselves.
Free to Choose. That's my slogan. Don't think it can be beat.
I assume this was directed at DT, because that's NOT what I was saying. At all.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:Quote:
I find this argument bizarre. "Women of the world, throw off the shackles of the workforce where all your men are slaves. Turn to true freedom: Become your slave men's babymakers at home. Escape the new world order by detaching yourself from the wide world. Only by breeding can you truly be free!"
I don't think the slogan will catch on. You folks could use some PHD's in marketing yourselves.
Free to Choose. That's my slogan. Don't think it can be beat.
I assume this was directed at DT, because that's NOT what I was saying. At all.
Hello,
Dream and Pirate seem especially to promote this view of the world, and I find it Bizarre.
--Anthony
"On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you." --Auraptor
"This vile and revolting malice - this is their true colors, always has been, you're just seeing it without the mask of justifications and excuses they hide it behind, is all. Make sure to remember it once they put the mask back on." --Fremdfirma
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Okay.
I'm still not sure DT is entirely against all abortions, that's more PN's side.
One thing were I might concede a little of DT's right to children idea is that I do feel women are being chewed up and spit out by the modern workforce; of course, I think the same thing about men. But with custody tending to go to women in the court systems, they get hit a lot harder. Plus maternity leave is only like, what, a couple of weeks?
But I would not ever dispute a woman's right to decide whether or not to have children, any more than I would dispute her right to decide whether or not to have sex. Since children are the biological result of sex, forcing a woman to have children is forever tied in my mind as being similar to rape. In any case, both are a violation of the woman's sovereignty of her own body.
But I still think the people building abortion clinics in poor neighborhoods might have shady reasons for it.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world, eh?
It ought to, even if the hand belongs to someone other than the biological parent, being a parent is more than poppin em out, obviously.
I do find the topic itself somewhat absurd as well, and agree with Anthony's take on it - especially watching this week as yet another pointless waste of time happens in Detroit, as the "Educational" event that some group is sponsoring over there supposedly aimed at reducing Teen Pregnancy does what these dumb fuckheads always do...
Lemme throw you a hint, the main topic of their pathetic little diatribes ?
"abstinence and you."
Fuckin morons.
Sure, the kids pushed into it know all the right words to make the adults feel like their getting somewhere, but it's not going to ACCOMPLISH a goddamn thing, it never does, especially when bangin the abstinence drum gets backed up by lies, distortions, and some groups religion, side order of fire, brimstone and threats of eternal damnation - in for a penny, in for a pound, and if you're gonna burn for not holding to an impossible standard anyway...
Solving THIS problem happens at the other end, pennies at the door saves dollars at the window, but everyone using it as a political wedge knows it, they don't wanna solve the problem, just bash the other guy over the head with it, and solving it would disarm them of that weapon.
Anyways, your comment reminded me of a very inspiring turn of words, especially in light of another recent conversation.
He's right, after a fashion - and folks have a responsibility to not fuck that up.
-Frem
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
But I still think the people building abortion clinics in poor neighborhoods might have shady reasons for it.
Of course they do, some of em.
But again, as I am so fond of saying, your REASONS for doing a thing don't mean very much to those who benefit from your actions, you know ?
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Who cares about the decade-old origins of the particular medical procedures at work today ("gift by accident", beautifully put by Anthony) or the alleged motivations of those offering them? (Offering being the key-word, not forcing.)
It's the woman's choice to have an abortion, not the choice of those offering a safe procedure - which is really the only thing that matters.Quote:
That says it all for me. This was a stupid discussion from the start, only reflective of PN's desire to put up conspiracies and ugliness.
I support women's right to abortion as vehemently as I would oppose forced sterilisation of any particular racial group or anyone being forced to abort a fetus or having their children taken away from them.
It's all about the right of people choosing when and whether to have children.
Abortion was around since the dawn of man practically. If some "eugenics" people made it technologically better, good for them. Nobody is being "forced" to have one...in case anyone's interested, being ABLE to have one is virtually impossible these days for anyone WITHOUT money, thanx to the anti-choice faction. You can't encourage/push/whatever women into having abortions when they're NOT AVAILABLE.
The push is in precisely the opposite direction as put forth by those here. Poor families can't GET the damned things, only those with money can.
Hippie Operative Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
signing off
To our President: “Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar. Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.... oh, go fuck yourself, Mr. President” ...Raptor
To Anthony, unquestionably the most civil person on this forum: “Go fuck yourself. On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you. ...Raptor
To Frem: “You miserable piece of shit.” ...Raptor
To Niki: “My guess is it won't just be your ugly face you dislike.....Well, it's true......if you had a soul.” ...Raptor
...Remember, remember, the ugliest member...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
AND I said that. Most of them really can't afford it, though if you scroll up DT mentions something about a scaled payment plan.
That still doesn't mean there isn't something nefarious behind all this, it only means that the people who are working for this agenda are doing it in a really dumb way.
And it WASN'T ridiculous about 20 years or so ago, when forced sterilization was still happening.
So the question you have to ask yourself, is if this element is still around. Twenty years ago is not near long enough that we can assume all of the people pushing that agenda are dead. So if they're still at it, then WHERE are their efforts being channeled? And if THIS isn't working (and it's not), then what might they try next?
That's what concerns me. That's what I'm trying to find out through research and talking about it. If they're being successful somewhere, I want to screw up the eugenics side of it, while if possible keeping any valuable services that come on the side.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
If you want to imagine hypothetical Eugenics plots in a comic book master-villain sort of way, I'll participate.
1) Identify a chemical that sterilizes the user after long-term use.
2) Make sure you bury any reports about this chemical's deleterious effects, and make sure no new studies are funded.
3) Put the chemical in a product popular with the target population. Preferably a product popular with children.
That's what I would do if I was a Eugenics evil mastermind.
But two-pronged approaches are best. You can't just decrease one population. You have to ensure the desired population prospers.
So,
1) Put out propaganda to the target population advising them of the joys and benefits of motherhood, large families, and traditional unions.
2) Provide legal and financial disincentives for deviating from this ideal. Perhaps tax laws that give compensation for children and marriage.
With this two-pronged approach, the evil Eugenics mastermind can increase one target population and decrease another. Look for these insidious tactics amongst your local neighborhood comic book villains.
--Anthony
"On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you." --Auraptor
"This vile and revolting malice - this is their true colors, always has been, you're just seeing it without the mask of justifications and excuses they hide it behind, is all. Make sure to remember it once they put the mask back on." --Fremdfirma
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Maybe they are building abortion clinics in poor neighborhoods because there is a demand for them????
One of the things that didn't happen well here for a long time, was pregnancy counselling. Different organisations advertised themselves as offering counselling for unwanted pregnancy and they basically fell into two camps
1. Pro choice - counselling consisted of 'do you want to do this, sign the form'
2. Anti choice - 'let's show you pictures of aborted fetuses and guilt you into keeping the baby'
Neither really offered counselling, which is about talking through options and letting a woman make up her own mind after thinking it through carefully. The anti abortion league were dispicable in their tactics, as usual.
I think they've attempted to make it all a bit more transparent, but lets face it, if you go to 'counselling' through the Catholic Happy Families Agency - you're not likely to be provided with information on termination that will let you choose that course of action as an option.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Byte,
TPTB hate Islam because of their birth rate, thatR's why they feed the hate into Judaism and christanity, groups that should have no serious problem with Islam. But if you push the right buttons you can create the hate. I think they actually wa t the israel Palestine conflict because it breeds hatred. Theyalso want Muslim immigration to Europe for the same reason, but I do take the point that eugenics has at its heart, white supremacy, so Muslim births aren't just numerical to these goons, they're qualitative, as in "monkey people."
I also think that people who support the other side of this argument are well meaning and are unaware that they're supporting this mentality. I think they've been bombarded with the same sort of manipulation on this issue, leading them to the erroneous conclusion that pro abortion is the women's rights side of the equation. I'm convinced that it's not. Without parenthood, women will become factory slaves in the NWO. If someone convinced you to have an abortion, they most likely saved you nothing, and just killed your child because they didn't want you to reproduce, and they didn't want you having social influence. It is as John says, the hidden holocaust, and these people are victims of it, more to be pit tied than censured. It's much like the gays in the military issue. They're not giving you guys anything but a bullet in your head, don't fight for that right.
ETA: yes, someone likes it, TPTB like it.
Magons,
Who the eugenicists are right now are the powers that be. That would mean international think tanks like count on foreign relations, the bilderberg group, probably heritage foundation, etc. These guys aren't obscure, they are the king makers.
Just to put this in a different perspective, to get a little bit of a different view of it, let's look at the idea of Prohibition. It was championed by conservatives, by the bible-thumpers who wanted to clear out the saloons and the prostitutes. This gave rise to organized crime - organized crime EXISTED before Prohibition, but it was during this time that it gained its greatest power and influence. So by this logic - the EXACT SAME logic being used in this thread - Conservatives support and favor organized crime.
Mike
On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you. --Auraptor
This vile and revolting malice - this is their true colors, always has been, you're just seeing it without the mask of justifications and excuses they hide it behind, is all. Make sure to remember it once they put the mask back on. --Fremdfirma
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You got me curious, so I checked on the internet. I found things by people describing how they'd been "counselled" by anti-abortion services which disgusted me. I found many, many "post-abortion counseling" websites for person-to-person counseling. I found numerous articles decrying the use of specific "information" given to women seeking an abortion is wrong, unnecessary and/or deliberately chosen to scare the woman out of the abortion.
I've found nothing to indicate pro-choice "counseling" consists of "counselling consisted of 'do you want to do this, sign the form' ".
If anyone thinks "they are building abortion clinics in poor neighborhoods", they need to educate on the matter. There are fewer and fewer clinics who provide abortions, and they vary enormously by state. For example, in Mississippi, there is only one provider of abortions. Arkansas, two; Oklahoma, three; Wisconsin, six. That's for the entires states. Numerous other states have many.
There is far, FAR more pressure to make abortion difficult, expensive and/or impossible than there is ANY attempt to "build" abortion clinics anywhere.
I find much on the internet about Planned Parenthood and it's supposedly racist beginnings. However it began, the fact is that NOW, abortions are more easily available to white, middle class people than it is to minority, poor people. Whatever their original aim, that is how it has worked out.
The battle to make abortion available will continue for a long time to come, especially given the tactics anti-abortion groups have increasingly found useful to further their agenda. So what difference it makes how Planned Parenthood started OUT eludes me. What is, is.
By the bye, my mother had an abortion when they were still illegal, early in the last century. It screwed her up, with the result that she had (according to her) four miscarriages afterwards before she was able to have me via cesarean, and afterwards was told she couldn't bear any more children.
So I have a rather personal feeling about a woman's right to choose.
Hippie Operative Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
signing off
To our President: “Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar. Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.... oh, go fuck yourself, Mr. President” ...Raptor
To Anthony, unquestionably the most civil person on this forum: “Go fuck yourself. On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you. ...Raptor
To Frem: “You miserable piece of shit.” ...Raptor
To Niki: “My guess is it won't just be your ugly face you dislike.....Well, it's true......if you had a soul.” ...Raptor
...Remember, remember, the ugliest member...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I think I asked before, but how does Planned Parenthood, whatever their motives or beginning were, prove liberals are racist? To the best of my knowledge not all liberals embrace Planned Parenthood, and it's not a tenant of being liberal to believe in that specific organization, but a tenant that a woman's choice should be her OWN. So I'm not sure how, aside from PN's mindset, this thread is anything about how "liberals are racist". Just curious.
Hippie Operative Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
signing off
To our President: “Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar. Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.... oh, go fuck yourself, Mr. President” ...Raptor
To Anthony, unquestionably the most civil person on this forum: “Go fuck yourself. On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you. ...Raptor
To Frem: “You miserable piece of shit.” ...Raptor
To Niki: “My guess is it won't just be your ugly face you dislike.....Well, it's true......if you had a soul.” ...Raptor
...Remember, remember, the ugliest member...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
I have been hoping that such is exclusively Pirate's opinion.
His 'Everything equals Everything' logic, where anything he doesn't like gets put into the large 'equals' tank.
Don't like liberals? Throw them in the tank. Then they equal everything bad.
--Anthony
"On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you." --Auraptor
"This vile and revolting malice - this is their true colors, always has been, you're just seeing it without the mask of justifications and excuses they hide it behind, is all. Make sure to remember it once they put the mask back on." --Fremdfirma
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
My position is religious, so its not not going to be logically something I can debate outside of an overall respect for life and nature, and abortion appears to oppose both, also, it does creep me out that it has such strong connections to eugenics, especially as the point is killing folk, particularly the poor, and I got plenty of my own reasons for opposing it from that angle.
All that said, I apply the spirit of the law to the idea, so, sure, the health of the mother is obviously going to take precedence. While I find abortions of convenience a pretty appalling behavior, I find "genetic related" abortions and economically driven abortions nothing short of pure eugenics. I don't know if you guys have been following this, but the eugenics crowd is now promoting genetic tests and ultrasounds to look for flaws, and then abort the "flawed" children, or as they used to call them "the undesirables."
Our difference are what make us as humans greater together than the sum of our individual selves.
Magon,
Not guessing as ton the origins of the policy, anyone can look this up, the history of p,annex parenthood. But, as em said, your view on it's usefulness need not be connected to the motives of those that started it. Still, I think it would be wise to know who did it and why.
Mike,
Prohibition was the pet project of mrs Wilson, a democrat, through her husband, the democratic president, but all in all I still don't see that it applies here.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Anthony:
Yeah, it's PN's POV. Racism occurs on an individual level, not on an ideological level.
I'll think over your ideas, thanks for giving it a go. :) You've got some good ones here. In regards to comic book villains comments, there are some things that SOUND ridiculous on the surface, but are real and unspeakably evil.
I note that perhaps TPTB consider the white middle class "poor" and "undesirable" as well. Certainly they get us into jobs where we're treated like shit and they work us to death. If they've moved away from racism, they may have moved towards social darwinism.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Prohibition was the pet project of mrs Wilson, a democrat, through her husband, the democratic president, but all in all I still don't see that it applies here.
Yes, a pet project beloved of conservatives as well. Similarly, Margaret Sanger speaking at Klan rallies doesn't really strike me as very "liberal", so I guess her activities don't support the original claim in the thread title.
Mike
On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you. --Auraptor
This vile and revolting malice - this is their true colors, always has been, you're just seeing it without the mask of justifications and excuses they hide it behind, is all. Make sure to remember it once they put the mask back on. --Fremdfirma
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Not guessing as ton the origins of the policy, anyone can look this up, the history of p,annex parenthood. But, as em said, your view on it's usefulness need not be connected to the motives of those that started it. Still, I think it would be wise to know who did it and why.
Do you feel the same way towards other things as well? The interstate highway system, for instance? The space program? Public transit and its decline?
Mike
On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you. --Auraptor
This vile and revolting malice - this is their true colors, always has been, you're just seeing it without the mask of justifications and excuses they hide it behind, is all. Make sure to remember it once they put the mask back on. --Fremdfirma
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I've ever found that the best way to muck up one of TPTBs nefarious plans is to let them try, they're NO good at it, and part of the why is because there isn't one great, grand conspiracy - and the little ones hate each other as much or more than the target, so it bogs down into cat herding and a disaster...
And sometimes, they wind up doin somethin decent by accident - which is always fun to watch.
If you want it done right, hire a professional.
-Frem
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hee, hee, hee, I LIKE IT!
Hippie Operative Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
signing off
To our President: “Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar. Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.... oh, go fuck yourself, Mr. President” ...Raptor
To Anthony, unquestionably the most civil person on this forum: “Go fuck yourself. On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you. ...Raptor
To Frem: “You miserable piece of shit.” ...Raptor
To Niki: “My guess is it won't just be your ugly face you dislike.....Well, it's true......if you had a soul.” ...Raptor
...Remember, remember, the ugliest member...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Byte
They were always at social Darwinism, and they also always viewed certain whites as undesirable. Its been the Irish, Jews, slavs and nurmerous other groups.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Mike
Margaret Sanger was a lefty socialist, and the klan was a branch of the democratic party, revolting against the policies of the republican north, the klan is still democratic leftist, but the democrats have disowned them. And yes, I do worry that they will show up on the right and start supporting candidates, but the last I checked they were still dreaming of president Hillary.
Just because you don't like it doesn't make it right wing. Curious how despite the obvious fact that, hitler ran on the left wing ticket against the right wing Junkers, who supported hindenberg, and that hindenberg won that election, the left to this day largely believes that hitler was the right wing candidate and that he won. Not to say that the right doesn't have an overdose of illusions itself, not to mention we have some really unappealing spokesmen, and a at least a moron or two, just saying that your enemies are not automatically our friends.
The interstate highway was done to replace the railroads, for the benefit of the fuel and trucking industries, like the Internet, I think it was pushing into the defense budget by clever pele, but had few practical military applications.
Dismantling public transit was done for the same reason, overall, it was a Moroni thing to do,
The space program was probably started as a clever diversion of the cold war knot some more
Productive ends by more useful insiders, and occasionally the real goons attempt some military application, but it is never practical. Doesn't mean it never will be, satellites have come in very useful, but it was the private sector work that they're co-opting, not their own.
If your questions are driving where I think they are, as in, do I believe in a grand conspiracy. I already made this very clear:no I do not. Little conspiracies? Sure, they're all over the place. If there were no conspiracies, the holocaust would be impossible. If there were only one conspiracy, the holocaust would also be impossible. The simple fact that all over the world random groups can be on the receiving and also on the dealing end of any massive organized campaign indicates both conspiracies and the lack of a grand conspiracy. Usually I think when you find a little conspiracy that there is not a larger hand guiding it, and that it is not a ouzel piece in a larger plot,
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Just to put this in a different perspective, to get a little bit of a different view of it, let's look at the idea of Prohibition. It was championed by conservatives, by the bible-thumpers who wanted to clear out the saloons and the prostitutes. This gave rise to organized crime - organized crime EXISTED before Prohibition, but it was during this time that it gained its greatest power and influence. So by this logic - the EXACT SAME logic being used in this thread - Conservatives support and favor organized crime.
Mike
Please do not make any claims to kwicko logic, you have repeatedly and endlessly proven you have no grasp of logic, probalby never have, and would not recognize logic if it crawled up your hiney.
As you have yet again proven here.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Margaret Sanger was a lefty socialist, and the klan was a branch of the democratic party, revolting against the policies of the republican north, the klan is still democratic leftist, but the democrats have disowned them. And yes, I do worry that they will show up on the right and start supporting candidates, but the last I checked they were still dreaming of president Hillary.
You must be talking about some other Klan, then, if you think they want Hillary as Prez. But thank you for making the point for me that whatever Sanger or Planned Parenthood or the Klan or even the Democratic Party STARTED OUT as, that's a long, long way from where they are today. The Democrats of today are almost 180º from the Old South Democrats and the "Dixiecrats". Similarly, the Republican Party of today would be utterly unrecognizable to Lincoln.
Quote:
Just because you don't like it doesn't make it right wing. Curious how despite the obvious fact that, hitler ran on the left wing ticket against the right wing Junkers, who supported hindenberg, and that hindenberg won that election, the left to this day largely believes that hitler was the right wing candidate and that he won. Not to say that the right doesn't have an overdose of illusions itself, not to mention we have some really unappealing spokesmen, and a at least a moron or two, just saying that your enemies are not automatically our friends.
Also, just because YOU don't like it, doesn't automatically make it a Democratic party position. Hitler ran on the left, but didn't govern from the left. To say otherwise would be to say that you actually BELIEVE that Reagan and Bush were "conservatives", or that Rand and Ron Paul are "Republicans". They DID run on those tickets, did they not? Surprise of surprises: politicians lie. Try to contain yourself.
Quote:
The interstate highway was done to replace the railroads, for the benefit of the fuel and trucking industries, like the Internet, I think it was pushing into the defense budget by clever pele, but had few practical military applications.
The interstate highway system was a direct descendant of Germany's autobahn system, which was specifically designed to move military materiel around the country quickly and efficiently. It could be said that if you like the interstate system, you support eugenics and Nazism, because that was the climate out of which the limited-access express highway grew.
Quote:
Dismantling public transit was done for the same reason, overall, it was a Moroni thing to do,
Bingo - it was done largely at the behest of the tire, auto, and oil companies, who wanted people forced to buy cars, use more gas, need tires on a regular basis, etc.
Quote:
The space program was probably started as a clever diversion of the cold war knot some more
Productive ends by more useful insiders, and occasionally the real goons attempt some military application, but it is never practical. Doesn't mean it never will be, satellites have come in very useful, but it was the private sector work that they're co-opting, not their own.
Once again, the first applications of weapons in space and ICBMs track back to Nazi Germany and the "V" weapons. The V2 was terribly inaccurate, but it was the first ICBM, and it set the stage for the U.S. and Russian space programs that followed - in fact, there was a mad scramble by both sides to get to Berlin first, in order to grab up as many top scientists as they could. The Soviets arguably got most of them, but the U.S. may have gotten some of the best, Werner Von Braun included.
Our entire NASA program is a direct outgrowth of Hitler's secret weapons programs. Does that make satellite TV evil?
Quote:
If your questions are driving where I think they are, as in, do I believe in a grand conspiracy...
Actually, not at all - but it seems very conspiracy-minded of you to think so. ;) No, my point was that MANY things we have today and use regularly grew out of nefarious beginn
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by jewelstaitefan:Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Just to put this in a different perspective, to get a little bit of a different view of it, let's look at the idea of Prohibition. It was championed by conservatives, by the bible-thumpers who wanted to clear out the saloons and the prostitutes. This gave rise to organized crime - organized crime EXISTED before Prohibition, but it was during this time that it gained its greatest power and influence. So by this logic - the EXACT SAME logic being used in this thread - Conservatives support and favor organized crime.
Mike
Please do not make any claims to kwicko logic, you have repeatedly and endlessly proven you have no grasp of logic, probalby never have, and would not recognize logic if it crawled up your hiney.
As you have yet again proven here.
I see you failed the section of the SATs where you had to complete the comparisons ( "X is to Y, as A is to ___).
You're right about one thing, though: There is no "logic" in the claims of the original post. That was my point. Again, I see how you missed it; I didn't make it simple enough.
Mike
On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you. --Auraptor
This vile and revolting malice - this is their true colors, always has been, you're just seeing it without the mask of justifications and excuses they hide it behind, is all. Make sure to remember it once they put the mask back on. --Fremdfirma
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
JSF = 
Nothing to contribute, only to snark...
Hippie Operative Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
signing off
To our President: “Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar. Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.... oh, go fuck yourself, Mr. President” ...Raptor
To Anthony, unquestionably the most civil person on this forum: “Go fuck yourself. On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you. ...Raptor
To Frem: “You miserable piece of shit.” ...Raptor
To Niki: “My guess is it won't just be your ugly face you dislike.....Well, it's true......if you had a soul.” ...Raptor
...Remember, remember, the ugliest member...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Mike,
not 180. Lots of dixiecrats are still with us. Bill Clinton is a first class racist motherfucker. He's let it slip a few times, and killed a lot of africans, so yes, i'll grant the *party* has moved, but... ever go to hillaryis44.com? Itsrun by a guy named alex rodiguez, a shadow campaign manager, for all the funny money operations, laundering corporate cash through random poor people. It's pretty wretched, and was more so in 2008 against Obama. So yeah, today's klan has a little stealth, but not much.
Quote:
Similarly, the Republican Party of today would be utterly unrecognizable to Lincoln.
not sure. i mean, the GOP is not my favorite political party in the world, but objectively, i think i'd rather have michael steele in charge than lincoln, and i hope abe would agree. I actually worry that he might not because Steele is black, so, it's complicated.
Quote:
Hitler ran on the left, but didn't govern from the left.
He certainly didn't run from the right. I don't think fascism and dictatorship actually have a side. But no, i never called the fuhrer a democrat.
Ron Paul is a fairly loyal republican, thats what the big tent is all about. I dont know what rand paul is, but i think he might be a sell out
Quote:
It could be said that if you like the interstate system, you support eugenics and Nazism
Interesting. Could be. I don't think it has anything to do with eugenics, Alex Jones seems to think so, he could be right. But hey, the VW Bug is a great car.
I meant to say that dismantling public transit was moronic, not "a Moroni thing" I didn't mean to blame the mormon church.
I'm not buying the german V2 as the start of the space program. I'm pretty sure it was Sputnik. I think that this was largely based on Sci-Fi, but we definitely based ours on the Russian.
I get what you're getting at, but Eugenicists set out to do evil, are still in charge, including Rockefeller et al o, I don't think the people who run the local planned parenthood are even aware what their overlords have planned, much less that they are evil.
See, here's the way I see it: Evil begins life as good. It finds a good to do, which is perhaps alwyas defeating some evil which has been identified. Then it decides that this good is of more importance than anything else. The consequence of not doing the good then becomes absolute destruction, even in their own minds. This justifies any action towards that goal in a pure Machiavellian fashion. Next, now evil, it tries to convince the common people of the importance of its task. This is an important step, because it happens every time. It's the out in the open phase where evil has not recognized itself as evil, or at least "against the will of the people" and just thinks that the people don't understand the important of the task. Then it begins to accept that it is against the popular will, either because the public is too weak to do what is necessary, or too dumb to see that it has to be done. Next, evil dresses itself up as good so the people will accept it. Impositions become "rights", poverty becomes prosperity, enslavement becomes freedom, war becomes peace, death becomes life and black becomes white.
The problem with this logic is that once you identify the evil...
you see where this logic leads. That's why I said in the other thread that I thought Taoism was a rational religion, ie, based on reason.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Since when did Hitler run from the left? Just because it has the word socialism in its name doesn not make it left winged. Hitler was loudly and vocally against the communists whom he despised.
A lot of popular views held 100, 200 or 1000 years ago don't have a lot of traction these days - so unless you have evidence that family planning organisations support forced abortions and sterilisations, I'm not interested. And that doesn't include opening clinics whereever - unless you're being pulled through the door, it's about choice. I know the anti abortion prosthelysers hate the idea of choice, but it's at the heart of the current pro abortion movement.
Dragging up people's dubious mix of beliefs from the past is not useful or relevant.
Fir examoke - Christianity has a shocking past legacy, religious wars, persecution, torture, burning people at the stake, the legacy of the missionaries throughout the world..... I'd say a lot of organised religions continue these 'sins' one way or another, let's talk about what they do now, not what has happened in the past?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Magons
Wasn't saying he did. Mike was implying he was right wing, I was rejecting that notion, as the NSDAP was the center left party. Though it's true that the pre-kristallnacht Germany govt was pretty solidly socialist/corporatist, whereas post-kristallnacht Germany was pure lunacy by any stretch of the imagination.
Basically, everyone grants the left the right to disown the Nazis, but the left should at least grant the right a say so if someone implies that the Nazis were right wing, because they were emphatically not, and never claimed to be so. I had some ancestors who were Junkers, who were the right wing party, as vie mentioned before, and also Jewish, and so it did not surprisingly not turn out well for them. Point being that, yes, the Nazis killed communists, they also killed Junkers. They killed everyone who wasn't them.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Just me, but I think "left" and "right" have one meaning in the US and different meanings elsewhere. Given the difference between Libs and Conservatives and "Democrats" in England, I think it might just be possible.
We label things awfully easily...
Hippie Operative Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
signing off
To our President: “Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar. Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.... oh, go fuck yourself, Mr. President” ...Raptor
To Anthony, unquestionably the most civil person on this forum: “Go fuck yourself. On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you. ...Raptor
To Frem: “You miserable piece of shit.” ...Raptor
To Niki: “My guess is it won't just be your ugly face you dislike.....Well, it's true......if you had a soul.” ...Raptor
...Remember, remember, the ugliest member...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Niki
Thanks, I'd forgotten about that. This wouldn't make the Nazis any more conservative, using the commonwealth definitions, but it would certainly make them a lot less liberal.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
actually the National Socialtist German Workers' Party (the Nazi Party's full name) belived that liberalism, communism (both left-wing) and even democracy were failures. the party was a far-right party and, before out-lawing all other political parties, governed in a coalition with the German National People's Party, the right-wing party, who were also anti-semitic.
the left-wing parties in the Weimar Republic were the Social-Democrat Party and the Communist Party who were the first outlawed by the Nazis.
"Junkers" was an aeroplane manufacturer taken over by the Luftwaffe.
that's from what i found on the internet and from my history teachers.
"I really am ruggedly handsome, aren't I?"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by dmaanlileiltt:
actually the National Socialtist German Workers' Party (the Nazi Party's full name) belived that liberalism, communism (both left-wing) and even democracy were failures. the party was a far-right party and, before out-lawing all other political parties, governed in a coalition with the German National People's Party, the right-wing party, who were also anti-semitic.
the left-wing parties in the Weimar Republic were the Social-Democrat Party and the Communist Party who were the first outlawed by the Nazis.
What ^ said.
There is no ambiguity about it and it's not about difference in perceptions between countries. Nazism, being fascism is on the far right of the political spectrum.
Jeez, you've got some distorted world views if you think nazis are left winged
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Junker were, by the early 20th century mainly Prussian landowners, often with an aristocratic background. Politically very conservative at the time we're discussing. Their politically favored party DNVP cooperated pretty well with the Nazi's in the early 30's, what with their many common interests. Antisemitism, nationalism, anti-democracy, anti-communism...
There were jewish Junker, too, as has been pointed out here, though their political view would obviously have excluded the anti-semitism prevalent among many non-jewish Junker.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I had some ancestors who were Junkers, who were the right wing party, as vie mentioned before, and also Jewish, and so it did not surprisingly not turn out well for them. Point being that, yes, the Nazis killed communists, they also killed Junkers. They killed everyone who wasn't them.
Without wnting to be insensitive, the fact that they were Jewish likely had a lot more to do with what was done to them than being Junkers did.
Junkers in the DNVP and national socialists in the NSDAP had enough in common to cooperate pretty well, even though they were political rivals for a not too dissimilar constituency.
They didn't kill Junkers on principle like they did they political opposites. They had no reason to.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
If you consider members of the Nazi party the "nation" of Germany, they were given a lot of socialized programs by the Nazi government. Healthcare, the autobahn.
The opposite end of this is that the the major industries weren't technically controlled by the government, but rather friends of Hitler (or at least sycophants). The success or failure of these industries was dependent upon the relationship with the fuhrer. Also, if you weren't a Nazi, or even particularly high up on the Nazi totem pole...
Cannon fodder.
The Nazis also did hate Communists (and Socialists!) with a passion, putting them in concentration camps as political dissentors, and they allied themselves with Fascist Italy and Fascist Spain.
So they weren't QUITE fascist, and not QUITE socialist, but there were some elements of a state-controlled economy, and they took some practices from the far left for preferred members.
Quote:
The Nazis denounced both capitalism and communism, accusing both of being associated with Jewish influences and interests.[16] They claimed that capitalism damages nations due to international finance, the economic dominance of big business, and Jewish influences within it.[17] They claimed that communism was dangerous to the well-being of nations because of its intention to dissolve private property, its support of class conflict and its aggression against the middle class, its hostility to small businessmen, and its atheism.[17] In response, Nazis declared support for a form of socialism that is to provide for the nation: economic security, social welfare programs for workers, a just wage, honour for workers' importance to the nation, and protection from capitalist exploitation.[18] Nazism, however, rejected class conflict-based socialism and economic egalitarianism, favouring instead a stratified economy with classes based on merit and talent, retaining private property, and the creation of national solidarity that transcends class distinction.[18] To rescue Germany from the effects of the Great Depression, Nazism promoted an economic “third position”; a managed economy that was neither capitalist nor communist.
-From the wikipedia entry on Nazis, which does call them fascist. I suppose it could be said the elite Nazis who were businessmen, military leaders, and Hitler's friends could technically be considered the government. And because they owned and controlled all of the industry, it could be considered a state-controlled economy.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Also, in regards to the Nazis and the conservatives:
Quote:
The Nazis sought to distinguish and separate themselves from conservative nationalist competitors such as the German National People's Party (DNVP) by officially denouncing conservatism, and attacking conservative nationalists for being reactionary, bourgeois enemies of the German nation who were equal in blame alongside Marxism for Germany's downfall in 1918.[13] The Nazis made alliances with the DNVP, but they claimed that these were tactical in nature and that the two parties had significant ideological differences.
Also also:
Quote:
Among the most significant ideological influence on the Nazis came from German nationalist figure Johann Gottlieb Fichte, whose works Hitler read, and who was recognized by other Nazi members including Dietrich Eckart and Arnold Fanck.[26] In Speeches to the German Nation (1808), written amid Napoleonic France's occupation of Berlin, Fichte called for a German national revolution against the French occupiers, making passionate public speeches, arming his students for battle against the French, and stressed the need of the deed of action by the German nation to free itself.[27]
Fichte's nationalism was populist and opposed to traditional elites and spoke of the need of a "People's War" (Volkskrieg), concepts much like those the Nazis adopted.[27] Fichte promoted German exceptionalism and stressed the need for the German nation to be purified, such as purging the German language of French words, a policy that the Nazis undertook upon rising to power.[27] Fichte was anti-Semitic and accused Jews in Germany of having been, and inevitably continuing to be a "state within a state" in Germany that Fichte claimed was a threat to German national unity.[27] Fichte promoted two options to address the Jewish problem, the first was creation of a Jewish state in Palestine to push the Jews to leave Europe.[28] The other option was violence against Jews, saying that this goal would be "To cut off all their heads in one night, and set new ones on their shoulders, which should not contain a single Jewish idea".
It's likely the idea from Israel came from outside, as the Allies went ahead and did just that after the war anyway. What a mess.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,
If you want to imagine hypothetical Eugenics plots in a comic book master-villain sort of way, I'll participate.
1) Identify a chemical that sterilizes the user after long-term use.
2) Make sure you bury any reports about this chemical's deleterious effects, and make sure no new studies are funded.
3) Put the chemical in a product popular with the target population. Preferably a product popular with children.
That's what I would do if I was a Eugenics evil mastermind.
But two-pronged approaches are best. You can't just decrease one population. You have to ensure the desired population prospers.
So,
1) Put out propaganda to the target population advising them of the joys and benefits of motherhood, large families, and traditional unions.
2) Provide legal and financial disincentives for deviating from this ideal. Perhaps tax laws that give compensation for children and marriage.
With this two-pronged approach, the evil Eugenics mastermind can increase one target population and decrease another. Look for these insidious tactics amongst your local neighborhood comic book villains.
--Anthony
"On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you." --Auraptor
"This vile and revolting malice - this is their true colors, always has been, you're just seeing it without the mask of justifications and excuses they hide it behind, is all. Make sure to remember it once they put the mask back on." --Fremdfirma
So, thinking.
For the first approach, there are a number of chemicals that I can think of that are intentionally put in food that children like that ARE NOT HEALTHY. High fructose corn syrup is one. I don't know that any of these out and out sterilize people, but the health problems they cause (diabetes etc.) can significantly contribute to the chance of death. If you make the target population sick enough, or kill them off before they come of age, you can drastically cut the reproduction rate.
The problem is, of course, that there's no real selection for target populations. However, organic and green foods without all the added unhealthy crap tends to be expensive, so that might be a "targetting the poor" thing again. These upper classes who can afford the "safe" food might get more abortions, but they also have the means to raise a few children well.
Your second approach actually sounds like a group I can think of, The Republican Party. I think that we can argue that TPTB hold the poor of the Republican Party in about as much contempt as they do other poor. However, the poor in the Republican party might remain useful, in that they come pre-brainwashed into believing in "rugged individualism" and that anyone more successful than them is simply more deserving. You too can get rich if you work hard (except you very rarely actually can).
So, by this, it looks like there's an elite, rich, moneyed group that are being preserved, and a poor, easily manipulated working class being preserved. Perfect social stratification might be the real end goal.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
If you consider members of the Nazi party the "nation" of Germany, they were given a lot of socialized programs by the Nazi government. Healthcare, the autobahn.
I believe the last time I spoke to anyone here on the subjects of socialised programs, they were adamant that social programs aren't socialist, so who knows. I certainly think social programs are not enough to dictate the political ideology of the government that enacted them.
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
The opposite end of this is that the the major industries weren't technically controlled by the government, but rather friends of Hitler (or at least sycophants). The success or failure of these industries was dependent upon the relationship with the fuhrer. Also, if you weren't a Nazi, or even particularly high up on the Nazi totem pole...
Business was given a huge amount of latitude under the Nazis. How do you think Oskar Schindler managed to save so many Jews in his factories? He was a rich industrialist and so was above the law.
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
So they weren't QUITE fascist, and not QUITE socialist, but there were some elements of a state-controlled economy, and they took some practices from the far left for preferred members.
They weren't AT ALL socialist and they were very much Fascist.
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
-From the wikipedia entry on Nazis, which does call them fascist. I suppose it could be said the elite Nazis who were businessmen, military leaders, and Hitler's friends could technically be considered the government. And because they owned and controlled all of the industry, it could be considered a state-controlled economy.
It was state controlled in a more corporatist than Socialist sense. It was collusion of Corporation and State, not simply state control. Corporatism is considered Right-Wing, if we're keeping score.
The Left isn't inherently authoritarian, and the Right inherently Individualist, no matter what certain voices on the right would like to claim. In fact the reality is pretty much 180 degrees to that position. Consider Communism, for all it's Authoritarianism in practice, it's actually supposed to be a stateless ideal, not a statist one. Anarchism is left wing. Libertarianism, though generally considered right wing, is an offshoot of classical liberalism, just like modern liberalism. The left is, and always has been anti-authoritarian in ideal. The further left you go, the more you find anti-authoritarianism and individualism; conversely the further right you go the more you find Authoritarianism and Statism as an ideal.
Sure there are authoritarian left wing governments, but you tend to find them where left-wing ideology has failed. You find authoritarian right-wing governments where right-wing ideology has succeeded. The Ideology of Nazism is Statist and Authoritarian; those are ideals of the right, not the left. Lets not forget where the terms left and right come from: pre revolutionary France, where the statist Monarchists, believing in a strong central absolutist authority, sat to the right of the chamber, while the Republicans and reformers, people believing in things like democracy, sat to the left.
Ask yourself which side of the political spectrum really wants to enforce the right way for someone to live? The right is forever pointing it's finger at Liberals, but lets take a random example: Homosexuals. Is it Liberals or Conservatives who think they should live their lives as they wish, is it Liberals or Conservatives who believe they should the legislated against, legally prevented from marrying for instance, because how they choose to live their lives is wrong?
Is it the right or the left wanting to dictate their lives for them? Is it the right or left that campaigns for civil liberties? For Human rights? Is it the right or the left that wants to shoe horn religion into the state, so that people can be told how to act and behave?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"The right is forever pointing it's finger at Liberals, but lets take a random example: Homosexuals."
The Left pushes their lifestyle choice as normal and something to be given special status. I.E pushing their views and beliefs on others.
The Rght does not wish their lifestyle choice to be accepted as a special status. By not giving them special status, they are in effect impacting the lifestyle of homosexuals.
Either way, its always a bad idea for government to get involved in social issues.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
The Left isn't inherently authoritarian, and the Right inherently Individualist, no matter what certain voices on the right would like to claim. In fact the reality is pretty much 180 degrees to that position. Consider Communism, for all it's Authoritarianism in practice, it's actually supposed to be a stateless ideal, not a statist one. Anarchism is left wing. Libertarianism, though generally considered right wing, is an offshoot of classical liberalism, just like modern liberalism. The left is, and always has been anti-authoritarian in ideal. The further left you go, the more you find anti-authoritarianism and individualism; conversely the further right you go the more you find Authoritarianism and Statism as an ideal.
Hmm, well. I've always figured in a lot of cases as some people get more extreme on either end of the spectrum, the more power and control they want to make their ideas reality.
That's why I've always liked the grid political map better, with left and right on one axis, and authoritarian versus anarchist (left) and libertarian (right) on the other.
Even that's not perfect, though, because there is a such thing as authoritarian anarchists, who'd like to shove their utopia down society's throats. Thanks to them, anarchists get painted as bomb throwing nut jobs. 9_9
Quote:
Ask yourself which side of the political spectrum really wants to enforce the right way for someone to live? The right is forever pointing it's finger at Liberals, but lets take a random example: Homosexuals. Is it Liberals or Conservatives who think they should live their lives as they wish, is it Liberals or Conservatives who believe they should the legislated against, legally prevented from marrying for instance, because how they choose to live their lives is wrong?
Is it the right or the left wanting to dictate their lives for them? Is it the right or left that campaigns for civil liberties? For Human rights? Is it the right or the left that wants to shoe horn religion into the state, so that people can be told how to act and behave? Can we, at any stage drop this utter drivel about the right being all about freedom and individualism?
The Nazis were right wing.
I could care less about the battle between left and right, so the emotional appeal here is somewhat ineffective. I can name ways that both sides attempt to control issues, policy, and each other. You can say the Nazis are right wing, and this can be discussed. The argument above was more about trying to say the right wing are Nazis, and so I see it as beside the point, and a little biased.
Both sides seem to firmly want to to assert that they are not Nazis. They're probably both right. Nazis are Nazis, nothing really compares to the horror they did, which is why they're the archetype in modern times for brutality, intolerance, and rule by force.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I have to ask... why Left and RIght?
I mean, isn't a little strange that the political process is now between 2 parties?
I mean... call me paranoid... but divide and conquor?
Make it about 2 "teams" and you can control the outcome...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
The Left pushes their lifestyle choice as normal and something to be given special status. I.E pushing their views and beliefs on others.
The Rght does not wish their lifestyle choice to be accepted as a special status. By not giving them special status, they are in effect impacting the lifestyle of homosexuals.
The left is categorically not trying to force a life style or a belief system on anyone else, merely trying to stop the right doing so. As usual the right-wing being prevented from taking others rights away is painted, by the right-wing, as an infringement of their rights.
How is giving homosexuals the same rights as everyone else treating them specially, exactly? How is it forcing anything on anyone who isn't homosexual?
You're correct though: The right does not wish their lifestyle to be accepted as a special status. They want their lifestyle and beliefs to be the only choice possible. A fact adequately proven by the fact that it's the right that passes laws to stop people living their lives in ways they see as wrong, not the left.
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Hmm, well. I've always figured in a lot of cases as some people get more extreme on either end of the spectrum, the more power and control they want to make their ideas reality.
Methods tend too, and the ideology gets more extreme, but the extreme left is replete with ideologies of statelessness, the extreme right is marked by ideologies of increasing state control.
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
That's why I've always liked the grid political map better, with left and right on one axis, and authoritarian versus anarchist (left) and libertarian (right) on the other.
If you can find any extreme left political ideals that fit the Authoritarian mould (and communism doesn't count for reasons I've already outlined) I'll listen.
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
I could care less about the battle between left and right, so the emotional appeal here is somewhat ineffective.
And I could care less about your superiority complex, so your appeal to ridicule is extremely ineffective.
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
The argument above was more about trying to say the right wing are Nazis, and so I see it as beside the point, and a little biased.
It should be pretty easy for you to pick it apart with a counter-argument and evidence then; pretty telling that you don't/can't.
My argument is that Nazism is a right wing ideal, showing how the ideals of Nazism are represented to some degree or another throughout the Right-wing of the political spectrum isn't biased, so much as a required point of evidence. Trying to claim doing that is claiming all the right are Nazis, is nothing more than a strawman, and perhaps indicative of your own bias. I'd do the same thing to show how Anarchism or Communism are Left-wing ideals, though if you'd prefer to just feel superior and dismiss my statements as bias, seemingly because you didn't understand them, I won't bother.
--------------------------------------------------
If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well I, on the other hand, thoroughly enjoyed Citizen's eloquent thesis (of course) on an emotional level. And I think there is truth to it.
But reading all this, it seems to me again that the interpretation of all these buzz words is pretty subjective; you can find about anything to back up any claim if you look hard enough.
I think it's like mental illness in a way. We may be dx'd with one thing, but we usually have components of other diagnoses, they're just not severe enough to impact us, and virtually EVERYONE has components of one or another diagnosis; again, just not severely enough to impact our lives negatively.
Same with politics (except take out the "impacting our lives" 
) I think you can find a bit of every one of those words in virtually every kind of government if you look hard enough. And I think just about any government, over time, can find something positive in any of those philosophies to utilize it.
Politics and government are so subjective, I don't see how anything can be definitive. Unless you're like our RWAs and can hold contradictory beliefs quite happily yet think they're the same. Or have such a dislike of any and all governments that you can't see beyond it.
All the cries of things we hate, in other words, all "visceral" cries: facist, communist, Nazi, socialist, etc., are used to hurl as invectives, when in actuality most people don't even know what they mean, and those who DO, have their view in some way, major or minor, skewed. JMHO.
Hippie Operative Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
signing off
To our President: “Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar. Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.... oh, go fuck yourself, Mr. President” ...Raptor
To Anthony, unquestionably the most civil person on this forum: “Go fuck yourself. On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you. ...Raptor
To Frem: “You miserable piece of shit.” ...Raptor
To Niki: “My guess is it won't just be your ugly face you dislike.....Well, it's true......if you had a soul.” ...Raptor
...Remember, remember, the ugliest member...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
I think you can find a bit of every one of those words in virtually every kind of government if you look hard enough. And I think just about any government, over time, can find something positive in any of those philosophies to utilize it.
Yes, you probably can. But that's because a government is a practical implementation, not a political ideal. A government is left or right based on the balance of it's political ideology, more ideals from the left, it's left wing, the balance shifted to the right makes it right wing. I'm talking about the ideologies, not the implementation; the ideology of Communism is stateless, the implementation is statism.
--------------------------------------------------
If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So, again, the government has no right, no need, and no cause, in getting involved in social issues.
Thats up to the society to judge, determine, and implement.
Btw, I dont care if you are of the ghey, support the gheys, or if you hate the gheys. Just don't push your ideology on me.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
And I could care less about your superiority complex, so your appeal to ridicule is extremely ineffective.
How was this ridicule? You used an appeal to emotion. I called you on it.
If I'm making fun of you, I'll generally let you know. Or at least think I was trying to be funny. I wasn't. Or have a punchline. It didn't.
Quote:
It should be pretty easy for you to pick it apart with a counter-argument and evidence then; pretty telling that you don't/can't.
I haven't been asserting that Nazis aren't fascist. I've been trying to make up my mind on it. Right now, I'm somewhat leaning towards fascist, especially after reading on the wikipedia entry, which I did after I posted my initial impressions.
I'm only trying to look at the Nazis objectively. Aside from that the worst of them were mass murdering monsters, and the least of them were cheerfully (or ignorantly) complicit.
The Nazis did have some policies that were taken from the far left. It doesn't necessarily make them left-wing, no. Everyone knows what the Nazis are and what they did, and neither the left nor the right wing are necessarily Nazis.
And again, you weren't saying how the Nazis were right wing, you were comparing the right wing to Nazis. There's a difference, and yes, it's indicative of bias against the right wing.
I can think of one prominent left wing group that's somewhat authoritarian: environmentalists.
I generally agree with environmentalists on a lot of issues. That doesn't mean they don't use government power and control to decry and prevent industry and individual transgressions on the environment.
You might be able to argue that the most extreme representation of an -ism are all authoritarian in some way. Some of those isms ARE on the left.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
As to environmentalists (as I am one) using government power, I think we do so to a FAR less extent that big business, Big Oil, Pharma, religion, anti-choice or any other such group. They all, and others, use governmental power to achieve their agenda, and many more forcefully and more successfully than environmentalists.
And I don't think all of us are "authoritarian", in fact I don't think most of us are. I don't follow any one environmental group, or any several of them, and abhor the pracites of several. I'd like to hear what you mean by authoritarian in more depth. We do go on the concept that "once you've lost an environment, it's lost for good; even if you protect it, another power will come along to destroy it". It's happened again and again, and always will. If anything, I think we're fatalists and try everything we can to protect what we can, knowing nonetheless that we'll lose in the end, as population keeps going up and mankind's desire to keep "growing" and developing will always continue.
It always amazes me how people can be almost uniformly in favor of growth...it's as finite as oil, yet we keep doing it and it's the determinant factor as to whether a society is "good" or not, strong or not, etc.
Nothing environmentalists have ever done has protected something forever--many things still protect parts of the environment FOR NOW, but we'll lose in the end and those of us honest with ourselves know that. Doesn't mean we won't keep trying.
Nonetheless, I disagree heartily with the idea that environmentalists are anywhere near as authoritarian as the others I cited, and I really would like to understand how you think of us as such.
Hippie Operative Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
signing off
To our President: “Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar. Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.... oh, go fuck yourself, Mr. President” ...Raptor
To Anthony, unquestionably the most civil person on this forum: “Go fuck yourself. On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you. ...Raptor
To Frem: “You miserable piece of shit.” ...Raptor
To Niki: “My guess is it won't just be your ugly face you dislike.....Well, it's true......if you had a soul.” ...Raptor
...Remember, remember, the ugliest member...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
"The right is forever pointing it's finger at Liberals, but lets take a random example: Homosexuals."
The Left pushes their lifestyle choice as normal and something to be given special status. I.E pushing their views and beliefs on others.
By saying that black people, Hispanics, gays, etc., should be treated EXACTLY like everyone else, should have the SAME rights and privileges, and not be singled out for special treatment, THAT in your view equates to "giving them special status"? Just treating them as equals is "special" in your view?
Quote:
The Rght does not wish their lifestyle choice to be accepted as a special status. By not giving them special status, they are in effect impacting the lifestyle of homosexuals.
Either way, its always a bad idea for government to get involved in social issues.
No, the right ABSOLUTELY wants their own lifestyle choice given special status. They want it codified into LAW, in point of fact. They've actively campaigned on the idea of a Constitutional Amendment PROHIBITING gays from marrying. You can't get much more "special" in your status than being singled out for exclusion by the Constitution.
Mike
On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you. --Auraptor
This vile and revolting malice - this is their true colors, always has been, you're just seeing it without the mask of justifications and excuses they hide it behind, is all. Make sure to remember it once they put the mask back on. --Fremdfirma
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I say this, in that I agree with environmentalists that we must move towards sustainability, and that I'm always happy to hear a new wilderness area has been designated.
I define authoritarianism to have two aspects: one is that authoritarian followers will listen to a specified authority, and the second is they will then act or react based on the statements and will of that authority.
Let's use the Deep Water Horizon Oil Plume as an example. Say British Petroleum says that they've done all they can to cap that damn well, it just isn't taking. Say some environmentalists call bullshit. Who are you going to believe?
And this is nothing against you, BP is a bunch of lying snakes, and it's wise to not believe a word of what they're saying, because they have a motive to reduce the damages they have to pay and the costs here of this spill.
But you would tend to listen to the environmentalists, wouldn't you? Again, nothing against you, I'd probably do the same. But being fair, this is siding preferentially with people like us, mostly because they are like us, and not like THEM (BP and other polluters), who are evil.
Of course, this presupposes also that environmentalists and BP both have equal expertise in regards to drilling and the capping of leaking wells, which of late I'm not fully convinced is true of BP.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well, in a way "tend", but not completely. The blurb on a voter guide or TV ad which says it's supported by environmental groups, such as Sierra Club, etc., doesn't make up my mind to vote for someone or some measure. I want to know more about it, because I know environmental groups will back things that further their agenda SPECIFICALLY, and/or will compromise, so I don't agree with everything those groups' endorse.
I also feel some environmental groups go too far in what they espouse...just as I DESPISE Peta for some of their stances and actions, which I believe end up alienating people rather than giving them the opportunity to come to ideas regarding animals on their own or via education. Same with environmental groups--some go too far and don't take into account anything but the environmental agenda.
By the way, much as I also like to hear of areas being protected (or in the Bay Area, frequently mitigated or returned to their natural state--which goes on here a lot), at the same time I recognize that such is only valid until someone else gets in office and reverses it.
All of which has strayed from the original topic, and I maintain Planned Parenthood is not "liberal" per se.
Hippie Operative Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
signing off
To our President: “Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar. Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.... oh, go fuck yourself, Mr. President” ...Raptor
To Anthony, unquestionably the most civil person on this forum: “Go fuck yourself. On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you. ...Raptor
To Frem: “You miserable piece of shit.” ...Raptor
To Niki: “My guess is it won't just be your ugly face you dislike.....Well, it's true......if you had a soul.” ...Raptor
...Remember, remember, the ugliest member...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
And that's just the thing. They are some of us who are layered, and we don't just unthinkingly back anything. We find an appeal to moral authority fallacy like in political or activist campaigns heavy handed, sometimes even obnoxious, even if in general we agree with that particular authority.
Yet, none of us are without our biases, and through them, we can be easily manipulated. I'm very biased and opinionated, but I do try to be civil. I was in fact trying to be civil with Citizen, but I seem to have offended him, and I regret that. I think I was not careful enough in what I was saying.
Quote:
All of which has strayed from the original topic, and I maintain Planned Parenthood is not "liberal" per se.
No, I don't think so either. Nor is it necessarily evil genocide mwahahaha, and everyone involved eats babies for dinner. As ever, my concern is whether someone with bad intentions can use or abuse something like this, and how.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
How was this ridicule? You used an appeal to emotion. I called you on it.
You're entire counter was hinged around ridicule, and I called you on it. And for the record you'll have to explain to me how my statements really form an Appeal to Emotion.
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
I haven't been asserting that Nazis aren't fascist. I've been trying to make up my mind on it. Right now, I'm somewhat leaning towards fascist, especially after reading on the wikipedia entry, which I did after I posted my initial impressions.
Didn't say you were. What I said is if my statements were as illogical and flimsy as you try and claim, you'd be able to argue against them, rather than using accusations to detract from them; something you've still failed to do: but whatever.
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
And again, you weren't saying how the Nazis were right wing, you were comparing the right wing to Nazis. There's a difference, and yes, it's indicative of bias against the right wing.
And again, you can't actually dismiss my argument by attacking it's content, and prefer to wave your arms around, strawman it and call it bias. There's a difference between saying the whole right-wing are Nazis, and saying the Nazis are right wing because their policies can be found throughout the Right wing to some degree or another.
Social Equality plays a big role in the left. In Liberalism it's expressed through social programs, and the aforementioned campaigns for gay marriage; in Communism it manifests as no private ownership, among other things. Oh Noes! According to you I've just called everyone on the left Communist. In this readers digest example, Liberalism and Communism are left wing because they are all about Social Equality, Liberalism isn't Communism because it doesn't take it too the same extreme.
As it is with Nazism. It's right wing because it takes the stance of a strong central government with moral authority that has been a part of the right since the birth of Monarchism; the whole right aren't Nazis because they don't take that to the same degree, the same extreme as Nazism.
Yes there's a difference, it's one of degrees and nuance. Not understanding that would seem to indicate black and white thinking.
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
You might be able to argue that the most extreme representation of an -ism are all authoritarian in some way. Some of those isms ARE on the left.
You might try and argue that, wouldn't change that you are wrong of course. Extreme expressions of Anarchy are ideologically completely non-authoritarian, so claiming that they're Authoritarian simply because you've decided extremism is authoritarianism is a non-starter as an argument.
--------------------------------------------------
If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
And for the record you'll have to explain to me how my statements really form an Appeal to Emotion.
The reason I called them an appeal to emotion is because you asked me which wing it is that doesn't allow homosexual marriage. While I would like to see homosexual marriage, I really don't see how that pertains to the conversation about which wing the Nazi party belongs to. Now, obviously the Nazis had some objection to homosexuality, but I thought that was something about eugenics and undesirables. Whereas on the right wing, the objection seems to be religious in general. That might just be a facade to hide eugenics at work on their part, I don't know.
In any case, perhaps it was just me, but I felt like the combination of bringing up gay marriage, which is something I do strongly support, was an appeal to emotion. If I didn't support gay marriage, it might have been an appeal to shame. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but that's what I felt.
And again, ridicule involves a JOKE. There was no joke. I was not ridiculing you. I'm sorry you took it that way.
Quote:
Didn't say you were. What I said is if my statements were as illogical and flimsy as you try and claim, you'd be able to argue against them, rather than using accusations to detract from them; something you've still failed to do: but whatever.
I didn't say they were ALL illogical and flimsy, and the ones I found logical and sound I didn't argue against for obvious reasons. I only objected to the ones where you started about what the right wing supports and what the Nazis support.
Quote:
And again, you can't actually dismiss my argument by attacking it's content, and prefer to wave your arms around, strawman it and call it bias. There's a difference between saying the whole right-wing are Nazis, and saying the Nazis are right wing because their policies can be found throughout the Right wing to some degree or another.
We're debating about whether the Nazis are fascist, we're starting to agree they're fascist. To strawman your argument, I'd have to be trying to make you say something you weren't saying at all, just so I'd have an easier time beating you.
Now, I think I did misunderstand the point you were trying to make, in regards to the right-wing compared to the Nazis, though now that I understand it, I do still have some issues with it.
The specific point of contention here is whether it's fair to say that because some right wing people disagree with gay marriage, or want to force religion on people, and all Nazis disagree with gay people in general, and state sponsored Christianity, that we can safely say that all Nazis are right wing.
I don't think we can, because I think those are wedge issues, and not the main socio-economic and type of government definition of what it is to be right-wing, and what it is to be Nazi.
Some people on the right wing, for example, do believe in civil rights, or believe in evolution, and some of them even support homosexuality. Just as, I imagine, some Nazis quietly dissented with the state policy on Jews, gays, Communists, Socialists, and etc. That really doesn't define either one well, though perhaps you can say, from the fact that some (many?) of them have a willingness to force beliefs on others, that they are authoritarian.
A better argument for them being right wing is the corporatism. That is a fairly water-tight argument, and a level comparison.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Let's see. Using your definitions from the French court, where the right wing wants a monarchy/dictatorship, and the left wing wants a Republic, definitely the Nazis are also right wing in that sense.
But I doubt most modern right wing people would agree with that assessment. Is the modern version "wants to remain a republic/corporatist state" and the left is "wants... something different?"
Neither one necessarily is or isn't authoritarian. We might think a Republic is a "freer" government with less authority than a monarchy/dictatorship, but the end result of both is a class of people who controls the general population.
Similarly, an anarchist can be authoritarian if they try to force their system of government on others.
As such, I do still think it's valid to say that all forms of extremism have some element of authoritarianism (including anarchism, which you were posing as an exception, I think). This does not necessarily make the entirety of the specific extremist movement authoritarian.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Actually, Byte, the right was pretty clear in that they DID want a monarchy/dictatorship of sorts. Hell, Bush even joked about it. And don't forget all the "unitary executive" talk, the "permanent majority", the claims that Cheney could claim executive privilege despite firmly NOT being in the Executive Branch (his post is in the Legislative Branch of the government, not the Executive, and he ONLY moves to the Executive upon the death or incapacitation of the President, upon which time the Vice President assumes his role and duties - none of which ever happened during Bush's term of office).
The right absolutely wanted a consolidation of all power under one leader. That they didn't *quite* get it is to our great fortune.
Mike
On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you. --Auraptor
This vile and revolting malice - this is their true colors, always has been, you're just seeing it without the mask of justifications and excuses they hide it behind, is all. Make sure to remember it once they put the mask back on. --Fremdfirma
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Byte
Nazis *were* the social party, before they ate the nationalist party and became national socialist. The accusations of right wingedness of the Nazis posted here are absurd. The nazis favored and achieved a completely government run economy. Their policies were pretty much directly in line with those of the soviets. The reason they hated communists was that they thought communists represented Russia. They had no major policy disputes with the ideology, but I don't know at this is any defense of the left, since, objectively, the soviets were worse than the Nazis, resulting in 60 million deaths in Russia and eastern Europe, and another 70 million in China, not to mention tens of millions of their own civilians, ten times as many as the Nazis slaughtered within their own borders, which is not to say that the Nazis were not evil, but I don't know why the communists would compare favorably.
Liberals,
You can win this debate here, on this thread, because of their sheer numbers, but I would, before bowing out in the face of extremely obvious defeat, advise the members of the left here to feel free to carry this debate into the wider public, where I feel absolutely certain they would lose. This has already been gone over to the nth degree and there's not even a debate on the topic. I offered you the option of disowning the nazis, i think thats a better tack. If you bring the communists Stalinists, and maoists, into your argument, you will go down even more resoundingly.
Sure, the right can be wrong on a lot of issues, from unregulated business to gay marriage. Fight those battles, if you want to win.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Question: Is Fascism and state one party Communism the same thing, in practice?
Not communism like the hippy communes, which actually do fulfill the proported original idea of a stateless society. The Stalinist style of Communism that tries to claim that only creating a one party government with absolute power and getting rid of dissenters can "prepare" their nation for a true government-less commune state.
From what I can tell, you have a strong centralized economy in both cases, and a large working class (cannon fodder) supporting an elite class, which reaps full, socialized-style benefits at the expense of the working class (plus the slave labour they get out of people in concentration camps before they kill them).
Did the workers in Soviet Russia get anything, besides bare minimum subsistence wages? In Italy, what did the workers get?
I understand the philosophical and ideological differences, but what are the differences in practice?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
The reason I called them an appeal to emotion is because you asked me which wing it is that doesn't allow homosexual marriage.
You need to look up the definition of "appeal to Emotion".
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
And again, ridicule involves a JOKE. There was no joke. I was not ridiculing you. I'm sorry you took it that way.
You might want to check out "appeal to ridicule" while you're at it.
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
I didn't say they were ALL illogical and flimsy, and the ones I found logical and sound I didn't argue against for obvious reasons. I only objected to the ones where you started about what the right wing supports and what the Nazis support.
I've clarified it even further, I'm not going to continue with you misunderstanding/strawman/whatever further.
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
We're debating about whether the Nazis are fascist, we're starting to agree they're fascist. To strawman your argument, I'd have to be trying to make you say something you weren't saying at all, just so I'd have an easier time beating you.
Actually we're debating whether they're right-wing; whether they're fascist is ancillary. It's what type of right-wing ideal they are.
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
The specific point of contention here is whether it's fair to say that because some right wing people disagree with gay marriage, or want to force religion on people, and all Nazis disagree with gay people in general, and state sponsored Christianity, that we can safely say that all Nazis are right wing.
We can safely say Nazism is a right wing political ideal. If someone is an adherent of a right wing political ideal, its fair to say they are "right-wing".
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Some people on the right wing, for example, do believe in civil rights, or believe in evolution, and some of them even support homosexuality. Just as, I imagine, some Nazis quietly dissented with the state policy on Jews, gays, Communists, Socialists, and etc. That really doesn't define either one well, though perhaps you can say, from the fact that some (many?) of them have a willingness to force beliefs on others, that they are authoritarian.
What if some communists believed in Capitalism and not communism? Oh erm, well they'd be Capitalists and not Communists, right
.Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
A better argument for them being right wing is the corporatism. That is a fairly water-tight argument, and a level comparison.
Well given that your best argument for Authoritarianism not being a right wing ideal is "maybe some Nazis weren't Nazis" I'm not sure you're in a position to say that avenue isn't water tight.
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Similarly, an anarchist can be authoritarian if they try to force their system of government on others.
No, because you are confusing ideology with implementation. I've already dealt with this very point; you find authoritarians on both sides of the aisle, but where you find authoritarianism in the left its where a left-wing ideology has failed: vis a vis Communism. Communism is stateless, it's not an Authoritarian in ideal, but it works out that way in implementation because it fails in the real world.
But there are Right-wing ideologies that are Authoritarian by design, Fascism for instance. They're Authoritarian in practice, not by accident like communism, but because they're meant to be.
--------------------------------------------------
If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
One other major difference between "classical" fascism and communism is that fascism INSISTS on the whole warrior mythos thing. Mussolini may have summed it up best by saying that Italy would reclaim its Roman greatness in the same fashion as Rome, by constantly being at war, and the Nazis also played into that, in that they believed that glory could be found ONLY through constant war.
Communism, even under the Stalinist monstrosity, didn't really go for war that heavily. Hell, Stalin even refused to believe that Hitler had attacked Russia when Operation Barbarossa kicked off.
Mike
On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you. --Auraptor
This vile and revolting malice - this is their true colors, always has been, you're just seeing it without the mask of justifications and excuses they hide it behind, is all. Make sure to remember it once they put the mask back on. --Fremdfirma
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hmm, okay, so that answers my question about Communists versus Fascists pretty well. Well, assuming the authoritarianism in Stalinist Communism wasn't the end goal, and that the communist ideology the espoused was just an excuse.
To put it more simply, assuming that it was, in fact, an accident.
What about American libertarians? I know that globally, libertarians actually mean the same thing as anarchists, but over in America, we call the anti-capitalist type an anarchist, and the pro-capitalist type is a libertarian. The American libertarian identifies as right wing.
Quote:
We can safely say Nazism is a right wing political ideal. If someone is an adherent of a right wing political ideal, its fair to say they are "right-wing".
Based on your outline of the Nazi platform, I don't think we can still. In the corporatist sense, Nazis are right-wing, and also fascist, even though they take care of their elite with social programs.
But I'm not prepared to concede that racism, homophobia, and religious intolerance defines what the right wing is. You yourself said that originally, right wing just meant they sat to the right of the king/dictator and supported him.
I will grant that intolerance is common among members of the right wing, but it is not what defines it. Similarly, I'm not sure intolerance is what defines the system of government the Nazis promoted, though their intolerance is definitely what's remembered best about them.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
You can win this debate here, on this thread, because of their sheer numbers, but I would, before bowing out in the face of extremely obvious defeat, advise the members of the left here to feel free to carry this debate into the wider public, where I feel absolutely certain they would lose.
Which "wider public" are we talking about? The US public, who've grown up in a country whose political system is so skewed to the right that the Democrats are considered it's left wing party? Or the wider public of the world, who by and large on board with the Nazis being right-wing? Really the first (and only) time I ever heard any suggestion that the Nazi's weren't of the right, is from American Right-wingers.
Continue to believe as you wish, but don't think you're anything but the minority, or doing anything but denying the evidence.
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
This has already been gone over to the nth degree and there's not even a debate on the topic.
Indeed, the Nazis were Right-wing; and as your retreat shows, there's is no debate on the topic
--------------------------------------------------
If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So both are nationalistic, but one is more martial?
What about the Cold War? Russia was pretty competitive with us for a while, until they drained their coffers.
Actually, kinda glad we didn't go to actual war against Russia. In all likelyhood, we would have been slaughtered in a Napoleon-esque way.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Hmm, okay, so that answers my question about Communists versus Fascists pretty well. Well, assuming the authoritarianism in Stalinist Communism wasn't the end goal, and that the communist ideology the espoused was just an excuse.
No, because assuming it was just an excuse, it's still the case that Communist Ideology isn't Authoritarian.
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
What about American libertarians? I know that globally, libertarians actually mean the same thing as anarchists, but over in America, we call the anti-capitalist type an anarchist, and the pro-capitalist type is a libertarian. The American libertarian identifies as right wing.
Another thing I talked about in a previous post. Libertarianism is an off-shoot of classical liberalism.
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Based on your outline of the Nazi platform, I don't think we can still. In the corporatist sense, that's right-wing, and also fascist, but I'm not prepared to concede that racism, homophobia, and religious intolerance defines what the right wing is. You yourself said that originally, right wing just meant they sat to the right of the king/dictator and supported him.
No, I said it was rooted in Monarchism, further Absolutist Monarchism; which is inherently about a strong centralised religious state (since an absolutist monarch is one ruling with divine providence).
But you're trying to drag up details and ignoring what they are. The Nazi's enacted Racism, Religious Intolerance et al. as part of a state dictated master race. It's the details of Nazism's implementation of their Authoritarian ideal.
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I will grant that intolerance is common among members of the right wing, but it is not what defines it. Similarly, I'm not sure intolerance is what defines the system of government the Nazis promoted, though their intolerance is definitely what's remembered best about them.
No, Authoritarianism does, intolerance was merely one of the mechanisms they used to impliment their Authoritarian Ideal.
--------------------------------------------------
If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
What about the Cold War? Russia was pretty competitive with us for a while, until they drained their coffers.
And the US was also pretty martial (and arguably more so), while also had it's own witch hunts under Joseph McCarthy: A republican senator.
--------------------------------------------------
If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
So both are nationalistic, but one is more martial?
Somewhat. It's one of the key tenets of fascism that war = glory = the greater good of the nation. Communism believes in the sacrifice of the few for the good of the state, but it doesn't necessarily go all-out in insisting upon a constant state of invasion and conquest, and it doesn't necessarily preach the self-sacrifice in military endeavors to be the greatest glory achievable.
Quote:
What about the Cold War? Russia was pretty competitive with us for a while, until they drained their coffers.
Actually, kinda glad we didn't go to actual war against Russia. In all likelyhood, we would have been slaughtered in a Napoleon-esque way.
They were on a "showboat" footing with us, but how often did we actually go to war with each other? Look at the Soviets' actual record of military invasion, conquest and takeover. Not much success there. Contrast it with Nazi Germany, where you had them rapidly taking on - and beating - France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, etc. Add that to the Italian sweeps through the Mediterranean (backed by the Germans, of course), and the backing they gave in the conquest of nationalists in Spain, and you see a real dedication to conquest, and some real skill in it - up to a point, anyway! Really, had the Germans not launched attacks against England and Russia, they likely could have held the European continent pretty easily.
I'm not real sure how a hot war between the U.S. and the Soviets would have played out. I'm glad we never had to find out, because I doubt it would have stayed non-nuclear for very long at all.
Anyway, that's my take on some of it.
Nationalism = All for the glory of the state, through armed conflict and conquest.
Communism = All for the glory of the worker, through the death of the state. Or so they say. ;)
Mike
On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you. --Auraptor
This vile and revolting malice - this is their true colors, always has been, you're just seeing it without the mask of justifications and excuses they hide it behind, is all. Make sure to remember it once they put the mask back on. --Fremdfirma
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Byte
Nazis *were* the social party, before they ate the nationalist party and became national socialist. The accusations of right wingedness of the Nazis posted here are absurd. The nazis favored and achieved a completely government run economy. Their policies were pretty much directly in line with those of the soviets. The reason they hated communists was that they thought communists represented Russia. They had no major policy disputes with the ideology, but I don't know at this is any defense of the left, since, objectively, the soviets were worse than the Nazis, resulting in 60 million deaths in Russia and eastern Europe, and another 70 million in China, not to mention tens of millions of their own civilians, ten times as many as the Nazis slaughtered within their own borders, which is not to say that the Nazis were not evil, but I don't know why the communists would compare favorably.
Liberals,
You can win this debate here, on this thread, because of their sheer numbers, but I would, before bowing out in the face of extremely obvious defeat, advise the members of the left here to feel free to carry this debate into the wider public, where I feel absolutely certain they would lose. This has already been gone over to the nth degree and there's not even a debate on the topic. I offered you the option of disowning the nazis, i think thats a better tack. If you bring the communists Stalinists, and maoists, into your argument, you will go down even more resoundingly.
Sure, the right can be wrong on a lot of issues, from unregulated business to gay marriage. Fight those battles, if you want to win.
The left doesn't have to disown the Nazis because they were an extremed right winged party, and only someone with a sorry understanding of history and politics would call them left winged. The NAME meant nothing. Their characteristics were extreme nationalism, law and order, militarism and of course the whole racial purity deal. They were a dictatorship. EXTREME RIGHT WING. Just as Franco's Spain and Mussolini's Italy were extreme right wing.
Yes, the Nazis were different. They were crazier.
Fascinating having this topic discussed where this is even questioned. Gives me an insight into some of the rewriting of history by the American right.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You put DT's name in there for some reason, Citizen.
Quote:
But you're trying to drag up details and ignoring what they are. The Nazi's enacted Racism, Religious Intolerance et al. as part of a state dictated master race. It's the details of Nazism's implementation of their Authoritarian ideal.
Quote:
No, Authoritarianism does, intolerance was merely one of the mechanisms they used to impliment their Authoritarian Ideal.
Hmm. It's going to take me some effort to grasp that. But I think the background on the kings helped to make the connection to divine right and such with the Nazis.
Are we necessarily sure that this does represent the modern right wing? The religious right, maybe, but there's multiple kinds of right wing.
You know, someone else I know, besides DT, also thinks the Nazis were left, and we had an argument two weeks ago about it. I might check in again with him to see if I can his arguments in simple form, and see what you make of them.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Byte: Question: Is Fascism and state one party Communism the same thing, in practice?
Undoubtedly some, but not enough to make a serious difference, the corporatist fascists created the same kind of centralization of power and control over industry.
Mike makes a good point on the warrior myth, I'll add another one, fascists were pro white babies, and anti Jew.
Citizen, sorry, I should have clarified, Americans misuse the word liberal, as we do football, and in the sense that liberal means austrian economics and libertarian policies, the Nazis were not it. I do historical research for the head of your own British head of history, so I can tell you from that dept, that there is virtually no one, none that I've met, who thinks that the Nazis were right wing, this is a liberal fantasy with no basis in fact.
That said, sorry for the rant guys. I wanted to clarify a point on Junkers. Junkers were not a political party, they were much more like the tea party, and not hat dissimilar ideologically. 56% of Germans allied themselves with the junkers, and around 40% with the Nazis. When the propaganda campaign first started in the 20s, anti semitism was virtually non-existent, polling around 2%. after successfully blaming the Jews for wwi, the German defeat in wwi, the economic crisis and the international hostility towards Germany, it hit a peak of around 50%. with roughly 80% of those voting Nazi, anyone can crunch the numbers and see that yes, there must have been some anti Semitic Junkers, but also, that it must have been a slim minority.
As for junker businesses supporting the NSDAP, junker businesses were confiscated, so it really doesn't imply anything.
Again, the left is free to disown the Nazis, they are not free to push them off on the right, which is a preposterous idea.
If you go back to the right wing that precedes modern conservatives, meaning the monarchists, then your not talking about the same group of people at all: today's Tories are the former Whigs, the ones who opposed the tories of the 18th c. Most americans don't get this. Tory is a nickname, it comes from the Celtic toreigh, for rebel, which first surfaced I believe it was the Irish who resisted british rule.
Oh, citizen, welcome back, good to see you. Your people elected David Cameron, good choice, I wish we had a candidate like that to vote for here. Alas, I suspect well get Sarah Palin. Not quite the same thing ;)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Mike makes a good point on the warrior myth, I'll add another one, fascists were pro white babies, and anti Jew.
Actually, that seems to be kind of unique to the Nazi brand of fascism, which rather sets it apart. And heck, it seems as if every nation and "-ism" has had its anti-Semitic period(s).
Mike
On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you. --Auraptor
This vile and revolting malice - this is their true colors, always has been, you're just seeing it without the mask of justifications and excuses they hide it behind, is all. Make sure to remember it once they put the mask back on. --Fremdfirma
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Good point byte. Russia and Germany both had over the top pageantry. Germany mainly conquered things to remove enemies from the board, Russia actually tried to control the things it conquered, which ate a ton of resources. Russia in that regard was much more like china or Rome, probably halfway in between. China tends to destroy the local culture, rather than use it.
Quote:
The left doesn't have to disown the Nazis because they were an extremed right winged party, and only someone with a sorry understanding of history and politics would call them left winged. The NAME meant nothing. Their characteristics were extreme nationalism, law and order, militarism and of course the whole racial purity deal. They were a dictatorship. EXTREME RIGHT WING. Just as Franco's Spain and Mussolini's Italy were extreme right wing.
Preserving this for posterity. That was a pretty warped view of the right. My point earlier was that no one in the real world agrees with this position. I suspect the rewriting of history is happening on this board right now.
Oh, and Magon, just in case you missed it, there was absolutely nothing right wing in the argument you just put forth.
If the right is racist, then why were the major civil right achievements historically made by the right?
If the right is warlike, why have almost all wars been initiated by the left, and the bloodiest ones overwhelmingly left-on-left?
If the right is so nationalistic, then why is it always left wing governments who nationalize everything?
If the police state is a right wing concept, then how come libertarian individualism is a right concept, almost all police states have been set up by left wing parties and the police seem to always align themselves with the left wing party?
I know this isn't just the US. I see Cameron has already gotten rid of the national ID card program (a racist police state policy of warmonger Tony Blair, no?)
I think your projecting on to the right a lot of boogeymen rather than looking at us as people who have real beliefs, values, and an idea of the best way to run a government, which I believe is minimalist, not fascist.
I believe we had this conversation a lot ealier, and on this side of the aisle we conceded pinochet as a right wing dictator, but really it's not a common phenomenon at all. I think almost always it's a structure that has the word socialist actually in the name.
What boggles my mind is that after a couple hundred million deaths were still debating whether or not socialism is a good form of government, it seems to me that if it kills everyone, then no, its not.
Ironically, I suspect we would actually agree on a lot of specific policies. We just seem to disagree on who has historically stood for those policies.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
The Nazi's enacted Racism, Religious Intolerance et al. as part of a state dictated master race. It's the details of Nazism's implementation of their Authoritarian ideal.
Citizen,
Thank you for making my point for me. I agree entirely.
As I said, this was not liberal of them, but it wasn't conservative either.
Oer the thread, I think John's point was not to simply condemn the left, but was to answer the claim that the racists were on the right.
The reality is that the racists are everywhere, and I think that was the point, so saying random tea par tiers are racist, and hence the tea party movement is a racist movement is fallacious, like saying all fruits are bananas.
I mean, sure, I could make the argument that in the 1990s the democrats opposed intervention in Rwanda tl save blacks from being massascred and then supported intervention in bosnia to save whites, and ask whether people really thought that race played no part in that decision. Really?
But I generally avoid such arguments because they're pointless. I am only forced to make the "Nazis were left-wing" argument to refute the rather absurd claim that Nazis were right-wing
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Mike,
Good point, though it's safe to say that Italy was anti-Semitic under Mussolini,, it was just that it wasn't genocidally anti-Semitic, but it was still a lot more anti-Semitic than today's Iran. (actually I think the latter is mostly in the minds of the zionists. As a pretty strong supporter of Israel myself I think the whole anti-Iran thing is absurd. Oh, and israel, is making itself very hard to support rit now, so I ue everyone, blame Netanyahu, the man and his govt, which I'll grant is rit wing, and not Israel as a country. It seems highly unlikely that six million people wanted to attack a flotilla, and right now I'm sure their alk being told that the flotilla was full of terrorists which shipments of arms...)
Right now, this country is anti Mexican, and anti Muslim, those worry me a lot more. No one is about to set up camps filled with Jews, but someone might set up "deportation camps" for mexicans, or internment calms for"terrorist suspects" read Muslims
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Preserving this for posterity. That was a pretty warped view of the right. My point earlier was that no one in the real world agrees with this position. I suspect the rewriting of history is happening on this board right now.
It seems to be spreading, quite rapidly and widely. Would you say that Wikipedia represents the "real world" in at least some capacity, given that real-world people can edit it?
From Wiki, re: Fascism:
Quote:
Fascism, pronounced /ˈfæʃɪzəm/, is a radical and authoritarian nationalist political ideology.[1][2][3][4] Fascists seek to organize a nation on corporatist perspectives, values, and systems such as the political system and the economy.[5][6] Fascism was originally founded by Italian national syndicalists in World War I who combined left-wing and right-wing political views, but gravitated to the political right in the early 1920s.[7][8] Scholars generally consider fascism to be on the far right of the conventional left-right political spectrum.
Fascists believe that a nation is an organic community that requires strong leadership, singular collective identity, and the will and ability to commit violence and wage war in order to keep the nation strong.[15] They claim that culture is created by collective national society and its state, that cultural ideas are what give individuals identity, and thus rejects individualism.[15] In viewing the nation as an integrated collective community, they claim that pluralism is a dysfunctional aspect of society, and justify a totalitarian state as a means to represent the nation in its entirety.[16][17] They advocate the creation of a single-party state.[18] Fascist governments forbid and suppress openness and opposition to the fascist state and the fascist movement.[19] They identify violence and war as actions that create national regeneration, spirit and vitality.[20]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
That certainly bears an awful lot of similarity to the 7 years following 9/11, it seems.
Okay, so that's a real-world working definition of Fascism. But what of Nazism, which was a specific outgrowth of fascism? What does the real world hold for that idea of government and state?
Again from Wiki, re: Nazism:
Quote:
Nazism (Nationalsozialismus, National Socialism) was the ideology and practice of the Nazi Party and of Nazi Germany.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] It was a unique variety of fascism that involved biological racism and anti-Semitism.[9] Nazism presented itself as politically syncretic, incorporating policies, tactics and philosophies from right- and left-wing ideologies; in practice, Nazism was a far right form of politics.[10]
Racial ideology is an important component of Nazism, that stresses the belief in the supremacy of an Aryan master race.[11] The Nazis claimed that the German nation represents the most racially pure Aryan people.[11] The Nazis deemed the greatest threat to the Aryan race and the German nation as the Jewish race, which the Nazis described as being a parasitic race that has attached itself to various ideologies and movements to secure its self-preservation, such as the Enlightenment, liberalism, democracy, parliamentary politics, capitalism, industrialization, Marxism, and trade unions.[12]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism
So it seems the real world - or at least the parts of it that are online - holds that fascism and Nazism ARE hard-right forms of government.
I know that doesn't jibe with your belief system, but if you're going to try to disown the Nazis, maybe you shouldn't be surprised if they get thrown back at you when you try to throw them onto the left. Nobody wants the Nazis. Well, PN maybe, but nobody RATIONAL wants them. :)
And if you say that none of those tenets of fascism are held by the right in this country, I'll merely point out that these were the exact kinds of things the Republicans did or tried to do, or talked about wanting to do, during the Bush years. You can claim that they weren't really "on the righ
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Mike,
Good point, though it's safe to say that Italy was anti-Semitic under Mussolini,, it was just that it wasn't genocidally anti-Semitic, but it was still a lot more anti-Semitic than today's Iran. (actually I think the latter is mostly in the minds of the zionists. As a pretty strong supporter of Israel myself I think the whole anti-Iran thing is absurd. Oh, and israel, is making itself very hard to support rit now, so I ue everyone, blame Netanyahu, the man and his govt, which I'll grant is rit wing, and not Israel as a country. It seems highly unlikely that six million people wanted to attack a flotilla, and right now I'm sure their alk being told that the flotilla was full of terrorists which shipments of arms...)
Right now, this country is anti Mexican, and anti Muslim, those worry me a lot more. No one is about to set up camps filled with Jews, but someone might set up "deportation camps" for mexicans, or internment calms for"terrorist suspects" read Muslims
I pretty much agree with as much of that as I could make out. :)
Kidding, of course. I mean, about not being able to read it. That iPad recognition software needs some serious tuning, it seems.
Oh, and we're cross-posting.
Mike
On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you. --Auraptor
This vile and revolting malice - this is their true colors, always has been, you're just seeing it without the mask of justifications and excuses they hide it behind, is all. Make sure to remember it once they put the mask back on. --Fremdfirma
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME