|
Truth! Bravo - I want a sign like that next time I see a "love it or leave it" tractor-trailer I've quoted this several times here at Clipmarks. Doesn't seem to be a very popular idea among the fascist, leftist types. Especially when the "expression" is in the form of facts and evidence. Speaking of facts and evidence: fascists are right-wing, not left-wing. Good non-fact. Fascist are third-wayers. They were Socialists. Mussolini was an editor for a Socialist magazine and was disillusioned with the encroachment that communism had made in the socialist movement. Hitler was a member of the socialist-workers party. The Fascist groups in Spain, France, and England all formed out of the Socialist networks. Even to this day, the fascists in England, see London city council, come from the Labor Party. Mussolini and Roosevelt were admirers of each other. Moussili often said he was emulating Woodrow Wilson and FDR said on several occasions that the Italian Nationalist Program and FDR's new deal were very similar. In the context of "right-wing" as it re... The funny thing about all that is that since we see so many similarities in the way Hitler and Mussolini ran their Socialist states and the way the Rethuglicans here and now act--it gets confused.... Yeah, Willie's right so far as his logic, but not the reality. How many people have you banned from commenting in your clips, Willie? I never banned one--altho I have asked them to go away when they be redundant spewers of right wing trash. Willie is still buying Jonah Golberg's sorry excuse for a book. They are similar because they are totalitarian systems, not because they are fascist. Once again...definitions are important. Funny. I've been saying this at Clipmarks before I even knew who Jonah Goldberg is. Totalitarianism is a requirement of Fascism, Fascism is not a requirement of totalitarianism. I'm glad, though, that you learned something from mine and Ouyangwulong's discussion on the matter since it is obvious you could never arrive at that misapplication on your own. I always get a kick out of you pretending to have a faint idea of what you are talking about. I've gotten used to it more now that I am the father of a 2 and 1/2 year old. It can be so cute. I'll never forget being called a materialist. That still gets me rolling. Being a great fan of Chomsky, I salute you! Thanks Remember, Freedom for all means freedom for those that disagree with you as well Freedom for all also means freedom not to choose freedom It also means the freedom to fail miserably. Oh poor Willhelm, I am not the one confusing the terms. I never said that they where the same. Where do you get that idea? Poor kid, I doubt you can even understand him, seeing as you barely undertand basic concepts such as definitions. Besides, I never called you materialistic, only pointing out your obession with the concept. Again, there is a difference, which is yet another basic concept you can not understand. And I don't even recall that conversation with our fellow clipper, not that you could actually teach me something. And just because you say something, it doesn't make it true. You might belive that, but no that is not the way reality functions. Your insecurity and doubt bellow from you like tears from a balling baby. bawling baby. First of all Stalin and Churchill, were quite friendly and the came from opposite ends of the political spectrums. So friendliness between political leaders can be discarded in your evidence of ideological matters. You say that Hitler was a member of the socialist worker's party. Actually when we refer to Hitler we refer to the times when he banned the socialist workers party. It is much more historically important to think of him as a Nazi. Although yes many ideas of his were along side the socialist ideals, particularly the greedy employer aspect. But the truth is many people identify themselves as Socialist Libertarians, and are far removed from the Fascists. Because Fascists are righ... Lee093 Yes, fascists are authoritarian, no doubt - leftists are authoritarian. History shows us that over and over. Yes, fascists are right wing if you mean right of Stalin and the like. By any other measure in the world's political landscape they were far left-wing anti-libertarians. And I was not speaking about friendliness of political leaders. Roosevelt and his advisers worked to implement Mussolini's policies in America, and said so. The city of London has am member of the Fascist party in city government. He came from the labor party. So, you are deluded. Fascists are Progressives. That is what they are and that is that. No amount of revisionist denial will change that fact. hmmm. London. The member of the fascist party the BNP, is not member of the city government. he was simply elected to the London Assembly. i am unaware that he came from the Labour party, as it seems as if he was from the BNP, could you please expand. Anyway, now you bring up London, The last city government was liberal and left-wing, yet was despised by the fascist as it was all about inclusivity, something supported by the British labour movement in general. Fascists are not remembered for that. You can go on about Individual liberty etc, but their is a very big difference bewtween fascism and the left. The british Labour party brought in the minimum wage, Pinochet got rid of it in Chile.... You can see info here in clip and comments. If you are interested in learning about what fascism is, then you can can read these clips and comments. "The city of London has am member of the Fascist party in city government. He came from the labor party. So, you are deluded." I still dont understand how you claim richard barnbrook, is from the labour party, he simply isnt. At first I was willing to give you the benefit of doubt, that maybe he was once from Labour. But he wasn't. I would prefer if you didn't try to wrongly taint the city of London Labour party, with the BNP. Most people today misuse the term "fascism" and use it to mean simply authoritarianism or, to put it more simply, bullying. In a 1944 essay, What is Fascism, Orwell wrote: It will be seen that, as used, the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely In practice, Fascism can be either right-wing or left-wingThat is true, except that it is not "in practice". It should be "in theory". In practice it has always been left-wing and progressive. And it continues to be in the context of Obama's campaign rhetoric and agenda. So there has never been right-wing authoritarian regimes? Is that what you suggest. What was Pinochet, a man who was against democracy, nationalist and a brutal murderer. But surely he can only be described in the crude left right split, as a man who beleived in individual enterprise, right wing. He was not collectivist or liberal. Orwell's essay goes on to say, "Yet underneath all this mess there does lie a kind of buried meaning. To begin with, it is clear that there are very great differences, some of them easy to point out and not easy to explain away, between the régimes called Fascist and those called democratic. Secondly, if ‘Fascist’ means ‘in sympathy with Hitler’, some of the accusations I have listed above are obviously very much more justified than others. Thirdly, even the people who recklessly fling the word ‘Fascist’ in every direction attach at any rate an emotional significance to it. By ‘Fascism’ they mean, roughly speaking, something cruel, unscrupulous, arrogant, obscurantist, anti-liberal and anti... ... it has always been left-wing and progressive.I repeat, it is typical of the misunderstanding of this term for one side to consider it exclusively the province of the other. Jorjor, the misunderstanding is yours. If you want to learn what fascism is, I will be happy to teach you. If you want to remain convinced you are right, then be my guest. If you want a good, balanced discourse on fascism, then this is a good place to start. If you want to learn more, then you can look here. Fascism is not about throwing jews into ovens. Fascism is, briefly, about the unity of a society into an active and organized whole where individualism is cast out from the society. Lee093, sorry I missed your comment. When you say "right-wing" what do you mean? Hitler was Right-wing compared to Stalin, but far left-wing when compared to Kennedy, Reagan, or even Roosevelt. Also when you speak about Left being collectivist or Liberal, you are misapplying the word liberal. Liberal is the direct opposite of fascism. I know that in America we have kind of messed that word up. Liberals in America are not liberal. What we call liberals in America are mostly materialists and fascist progressives. I think I cant wright properly. I say Pinochet is not liberal, so is therefore fascist you agree, and is not leftwing so is right. so he was a fascist right winger. i use liberal as in tolerance, freedom etc thats my understanding. I was there in london when Barnbrook was elected, your article made it non the clearer, how was he from Labour as you claimed earlier? He was not from labour, because he stood as BNP. Labour PM stood outside Downing street and spoke for the Hope not Hate campaign. Im puzzled by your earlier claim. He also has no part in the city government. Just a seat in the Assembly. If Pinochet is not Liberal, meaning in support of libertarian ideas, free markets, individual primacy, then he is a Leftist - not a Rightist. I do not think Pinochet was an adherent of true liberalism, therefore he is a Leftist (He is a Neocon magnified). I think you confuse his economic policies with his social, anti-democratic ideas, which helps you to disfigure the paradigm of his anti-libertarian, pro-fascist policies. The antithesis of Fascism is Libertarianism ( or, actually it is ultimately anarchy). So we are agreed he was not a Liberal, his economics might of been Liberal, but his social approach was certainly not. Your argument is that all of those who are against liberal ideas of freedom, are against individualistic right and are therefore Left. Freedom certainly comes from liberal ideas, but does not freedom come from the breaking of old traditions, the extended rights to all, and an authority to which you can stand up to on principle, not on practicalities. Is not morality the guiding light of freedom? An ideal of the left. i mean morality in governing over practicalities. Morality can be of the right Is not morality the guiding light of freedom?Yes An ideal of the left.Not even remotely. Anyone can be moral, but morality as the hub of liberal democracy is a characteristic of the Right. Materialism, not morality, is the characteristic philosophy of the left as I see it. Lee093, I guess we are confused on the bastardized meaning of the word 'liberal' and we are talking passed each other. I am on the political 'right' and I am classically liberal. 'left' and 'right' are place markers. I do not see them as ideologies, but I may have contributed to the confusion on that point. I tend to discuss these issues in the framework of American politics. |
View the Top Clips from May 29, 2008
Embed This Clip In Your Site...
|
|
|
|
