View Full Version : Is there really an extreme right?
If the extreme right was so dangerous you would have already seen violence against groups such as this. They're right in this country. Sometimes I wish I was a hacker.
http://www.brutallyhonest.org/brutally_honest/2009/04/jihad-recollections.html
This is bad stuff!
http://jarretbrachman.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/recollections1.pdf
There'a an excellent article on night vision on page 45.
Of course there exist an extreme Right (and Left).
Of course there exist an extreme Right (and Left).
I was refering to the dangerous ones that DHS is worried about.
I was refering to the dangerous ones that DHS is worried about.
The DHS is worried about any armed man or woman who knows the government is in the wrong more frequently than ever, and those of us who are calling them out
Its about them preserving their socialist goals
Let's see.
Historic examples within the past 20 years.
How about Tim McVeigh ?
Terry Nickles (sp).
The a$shat who murdered the cops in Pa. a few weeks ago?
Just gettin' warmed up.
FromMyColdDeadHand
05-01-09, 15:50
Let's see.
Historic examples within the past 20 years.
How about Tim McVeigh ?
Terry Nickles (sp).
The a$shat who murdered the cops in Pa. a few weeks ago?
Just gettin' warmed up.
If far right groups had torn up cities, like Seattle was a few years ago, by the anti-globalists, we would never hear an end of it.
If McVeigh and Nickles were part of an organized group, why did Clinton pick on Limbaugh after the bombing and not them? ( I still think there is something goofy with McVeigh and possible middle-eastern ties).
I think the real question is why the organized right groups are so less dangerous than their left counterparts. The police in Denver and Minneapolis weren't having to deal with large, unruly crowds of right-side people, it is always the left causing crap in the street.
If far right groups had torn up cities like Seattle was a few years by the anti-globalists, we would never hear an end of it.
If McVeigh and Nickles were part of an organized group, why did Clinton pick on Limbaugh after the bombing and not them? ( I still think there is something goofy with McVeigh and possible middle-eastern ties).
I think the real question is why the organized right groups are so less dangerous than their left counterparts. The police in Denver and Minneapolis weren't having to deal with large, unruly crowds of right-side people, it is always the left causing crap in the street.
They must destroy america, so they go after the right, people who believe in the F and the constitution etc, and those likley to resist
DangerMouse
05-02-09, 12:25
Is there really an extreme right?
The simple answer is yes... they are called anarchists.
The Government scale the left doesn't want you to see;
Graphics show true Political Spectrum as linear with 100% government at one extreme and 100% Liberty at the other. (http://freedom4america.wordpress.com/57/)
They don't want you to see this because it shows the truth. It shows that Fascism isn't far right. It's Far left. Although on the scale that this website did, Fascism is more left than Communism which isn't a true representation as Fascism still allows for some private ownership (even if it's not much).
Less government = more to the right.
More government = more to the left.
thopkins22
05-02-09, 22:22
The Political Spectrum Explained.
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-4kCD4nbrw&feature=PlayList&p=6606E4C5A6CE6A99&index=7) Excellent video.
The DHS is worried about any armed man or woman who knows the government is in the wrong more frequently than ever, and those of us who are calling them out
Its about them preserving their socialist goals
That's kinda how I think. I often put myself "in their shoes with their goals" and guess what? Anyone who disagreed would be watched. If that person was also armed he'd be viewed as a potential threat but only under certain narrow circumstances. If the person had very well-developed philosophical beliefs at odds with my/gov't's then he'd be Public Enemy No. 1 and all the more so if he were vocal (the only way I'd know about him) and well armed. That person has the belief, perhaps the will and the means to resist.
One would have to be AFRAID of losing power to have such views; at least that's the frame of mind I have to assume to think in the manner that the planet's leaders seem to think. It's all Fear-based. And perhaps rightly so. I'm not a fearful person but I admit it's "easier" for me to assume my position as I have far less material things to lose than they. I'm not that driven to dominate as they (and many others) obviously. Some of what "the gov't" perceives I do too. There ARE potential threats but I'm of the opinion that they are reactionary in nature (that is a response to what our gov't agents are doing).
Just my two cents.
FromMyColdDeadHand
05-02-09, 22:34
I've always thought of it like a horseshoe with the apex at the top. The apex is the max personal freedom, while the tips are the max control, either on the left (the masses) or the right (the state).
thopkins22
05-02-09, 23:12
I've always thought of it like a horseshoe with the apex at the top. The apex is the max personal freedom, while the tips are the max control, either on the left (the masses) or the right (the state).
That's flawed. Where do you think the state derives it's power? And what do you think the masses demand? The right should represent the individual.
FromMyColdDeadHand
05-03-09, 00:25
That's flawed. Where do you think the state derives it's power? And what do you think the masses demand? The right should represent the individual.
I didn't say it was perfect....
Don't fall into the trap that the extreme right in it's organized political form is anymore classically liberal than the extreme left in it's organized political form. I think that is an important distinction, since while a far left anarchist and a far right libertarian don't themselves have an anti-individual philosophy, the power vacuum is too enticing and some sort of anti-individual type of government emerges. The left just gets a lot more chances because since masses don't move all the way towards liberterianism, since at its root it offers nothing. The left promises much better door prizes.
I'm not a lefty, I think Genghis Kahn was a pussy. It's just as you move more right, you end up with a Statist, often religion influenced, power structure whose main purpose is being anti-left, but ends up being guilty of some of the same crimes against the individual.
I think you answered you own question "The right should represent the individual" but often it falls short of its goal.
But to answer your questions:
Where do you think the state derives it's power? From its ability to deny you life and freedom if you disobey it, until a critical mass says "No more". You pay taxes because if you don't they throw you in jail.
And what do you think the masses demand? More than they kicked in. We are going to end up with 49% paying 99%, if we aren't there already.
I've always thought of it like a horseshoe with the apex at the top. The apex is the max personal freedom, while the tips are the max control, either on the left (the masses) or the right (the state).
I've seen the same concept depicted as a circle. The extreme " right " and the extreme " left " meet and merge.
Submariner
05-03-09, 08:07
The simple answer is yes... they are called anarchists.
The Government scale the left doesn't want you to see;
Graphics show true Political Spectrum as linear with 100% government at one extreme and 100% Liberty at the other. (http://freedom4america.wordpress.com/57/)
They don't want you to see this because it shows the truth. It shows that Fascism isn't far right. It's Far left. Although on the scale that this website did, Fascism is more left than Communism which isn't a true representation as Fascism still allows for some private ownership (even if it's not much).
Less government = more to the right.
More government = more to the left.
You won't get far with this notion here. It puts Bush/Goldman Sachs and Buck Ofama/Goldman Sachs on the same side of the political spectrum.
John_Wayne777
05-03-09, 12:06
The current situation we face is a group of people who believe in the supreme authority of the state versus those who hold that the state has meaningful limits on its power.
Traditional labels of D vs. R, "liberal" vs. "conservative", etc are largely meaningless because they have been so thoroughly corrupted. There are plenty of people who have an R behind their name who claim to be conservative that are statists. Perhaps not as extreme in that position as others, but still firmly on that side of the divide.
This is how I tend to look at things:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmJMqKrSM4A
DangerMouse
05-03-09, 13:22
You won't get far with this notion here. It puts Bush/Goldman Sachs and Buck Ofama/Goldman Sachs on the same side of the political spectrum.
Its a really hard concept to wrap your mind around isn't it? But the more you look into it, the more you realize that it is so true.
I think that the majority of posters here would be more easily convinced of this than those at the Daily KOS or the Huffington Post or the Democrat Underground. Those people are hopeless.... at least most of those who post here have a healthy respect for the 2nd Amendment... and that's a good start.
Once we can get them on the side of Thomas Jefferson and James Monroe, the rest will be easy.
I wonder if the notion that we are not a Democracy would fly here? For the Record, we are a Republic. Elections happen in Republics much like in Democracies, but that is where the similarities end. Remember, whenever anyone talks about our "Democracy" being threatened, remind them we do not have a Democracy, we have a Republic.
DangerMouse
05-03-09, 13:37
This is how I tend to look at things:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmJMqKrSM4A
Exactly! Just keep spreading this video around to everyone you know and maybe we'll begin to turn the tide.
My liberal family members have tried (in vain mind you) to argue that we have always been a Democracy and that it is ungrateful and downright treasonous to suggest otherwise. Funny, now that their guy is in power, anything we say that might jeopardize that power is now called treason.
FromMyColdDeadHand
05-03-09, 13:46
Remember, whenever anyone talks about our "Democracy" being threatened, remind them we do not have a Democracy, we have a Republic.
That's what always bothered me about W's verbiage about our strategy in the Middle East. He talked about freedom, but he seemed think that was synonymous with democracy. Democracy is just a fancy way of saying "Mob Rule". The key is to have the state respect rights, with democracy, or citizen participation' as a check on abusinve power. Unfortunately, we've gotten to the point where people have realized that they can vote themselves stuff, and out courts have gotten so far out of whack that instead of mitigating unconstitution changes, they seem to accelerate them.
rubberneck
05-03-09, 14:07
I don't believe in the linear political spectrum but rather a circular one. As you go further and further from the middle the aims of the extremes become more and more similar, if for very different reasons. Extreme groups, both left and right, hate our government and parts of our society and wish to eradicate it and replace it with something that fits their world view. You can bring up Tim McVeigh, the Klan and abortion clinic bombers and I can counter with the weather underground, the FALN, the new black panther party, the SLA, Armstrong, Armstong, Fine and Burt, the ALF, the ELF and dozens of others. Somehow the current DHS only seems to care about the right wing ones. If they had any intellectual honesty they would be worried about extremism and stop screwing around by attaching politics to it. Left or right they are all a bunch of worthless oxygen thieves that have no right to walk amongst us.
DangerMouse
05-03-09, 16:23
I don't believe in the linear political spectrum but rather a circular one. As you go further and further from the middle the aims of the extremes become more and more similar, if for very different reasons. Extreme groups, both left and right, hate our government and parts of our society and wish to eradicate it and replace it with something that fits their world view. You can bring up Tim McVeigh, the Klan and abortion clinic bombers and I can counter with the weather underground, the FALN, the new black panther party, the SLA, Armstrong, Armstong, Fine and Burt, the ALF, the ELF and dozens of others. Somehow the current DHS only seems to care about the right wing ones. If they had any intellectual honesty they would be worried about extremism and stop screwing around by attaching politics to it. Left or right they are all a bunch of worthless oxygen thieves that have no right to walk amongst us.
The circular spectrum denies the truth about the desires of the power hungry or those who just hate Liberty. While it may show certain sociological traits, it does not address the underlying political ones which rest solely on the linear scale of 100% government to 0% government.
Sure, there are crazies who just want to hurt people, or who hate whites or who hate blacks or Jews or [insert ethnic or religious group here]. But the fact remains that those people are small fringe groups who will not be able to take away our liberties because they just do not have the political support. Like the video said, they may have the same basic methods, but their goals are very likely very different. Anarchy and social disorder to force change is a very common trait and it resides at the low end of the spectrum close to 0% government. However, the leftists' desire is to install a new 'social egalitarian government' that will decide fairness through repressive controls, while the supposed right winger (while horribly misguided) wants a government that has almost no contact or control over the lives of the individual. Who is more dangerous in your mind? To me, the advocates for Socialist Slavery are the most dangerous because they would enslave us for our own good.
A famous quote from C.S. Lewis clarifies my feelings on that matter;
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
The circular spectrum denies the truth about the desires of the power hungry or those who just hate Liberty. While it may show certain sociological traits, it does not address the underlying political ones which rest solely on the linear scale of 100% government to 0% government.
Sure, there are crazies who just want to hurt people, or who hate whites or who hate blacks or Jews or [insert ethnic or religious group here]. But the fact remains that those people are small fringe groups who will not be able to take away our liberties because they just do not have the political support. Like the video said, they may have the same basic methods, but their goals are very likely very different. Anarchy and social disorder to force change is a very common trait and it resides at the low end of the spectrum close to 0% government. However, the leftists' desire is to install a new 'social egalitarian government' that will decide fairness through repressive controls, while the supposed right winger (while horribly misguided) wants a government that has almost no contact or control over the lives of the individual. Who is more dangerous in your mind? To me, the advocates for Socialist Slavery are the most dangerous because they would enslave us for our own good.
A famous quote from C.S. Lewis clarifies my feelings on that matter;
That quote is genius.
DangerMouse
05-03-09, 17:57
That quote is genius.
CS Lewis most definitely was a genius. We've been warned time and time again and yet the ignorant in our midst become the sheep that need sheepdogs to protect them from the wolves. It's sad really.
Submariner
05-03-09, 20:36
CS Lewis most definitely was a genius. We've been warned time and time again and yet the ignorant in our midst become the sheep that need sheepdogs to protect them from the wolves. It's sad really.
Just be careful of the sheep dogs who develop a taste for mutton.
Its a really hard concept to wrap your mind around isn't it? But the more you look into it, the more you realize that it is so true.
I think that the majority of posters here would be more easily convinced of this than those at the Daily KOS or the Huffington Post or the Democrat Underground. Those people are hopeless.... at least most of those who post here have a healthy respect for the 2nd Amendment... and that's a good start.
Once we can get them on the side of Thomas Jefferson and James Monroe, the rest will be easy.
I wonder if the notion that we are not a Democracy would fly here? For the Record, we are a Republic. Elections happen in Republics much like in Democracies, but that is where the similarities end. Remember, whenever anyone talks about our "Democracy" being threatened, remind them we do not have a Democracy, we have a Republic.
NO, it's not hard to get my mind around. You are, of course, correct. Many may not agree with it as it puts their favorite political party leaders on the "wrong side" of things. So be it. Many also erringly parrot that we are a Democracy and that there is no difference between a Republic and a Democracy just as Rush Limpbaugh has done for years. We have a long uphill battle...
FromMyColdDeadHand
05-03-09, 22:15
Sure, there are crazies who just want to hurt people, or who hate whites or who hate blacks or Jews or [insert ethnic or religious group here]. But the fact remains that those people are small fringe groups who will not be able to take away our liberties because they just do not have the political support.;
Like Hitler, he wasn't much of a problem. I do agree that these monsters, while neither trully right or left, usually come with enough screws loose that it becomes their demise.
Anarchy and social disorder to force change is a very common trait and it resides at the low end of the spectrum close to 0% government.
I think the anti-globalist, eco-terrorist, PETA-loving/Man-hating GROUPS have cornered the market on social disorder and anarchy.:confused: Sure, you can throw the unabomber and McVeigh in there, but they are not groups or movements.
Maybe we agree more then disagre. You are exactly correct that the right has a philosophy of small government and individuality, it just seems that when leaders on that side of the spectrum get into power, they end not leading that way. That is just the nature of power, and the GOP over the past 8 years is a rather mild example of it.
Just be careful of the sheep dogs who develop a taste for mutton.
Aint nuttin' like mutton!
thopkins22
05-04-09, 02:23
I think the anti-globalist, eco-terrorist, PETA-loving/Man-hating GROUPS have cornered the market on social disorder and anarchy.:confused: Sure, you can throw the unabomber and McVeigh in there, but they are not groups or movements.
That's the problem with considering anarchy as a legitimate political movement. Inevitably it's a tactic...not a goal. These groups want to use anarchy as a means to bring about the type of government/awareness/whatever that they desire, but no less tyrannical or excessive. I know quite a few anarcho-capitalists that role with the Libertarian Party, but I bet 99% of "anarchists" have never heard of such a thing.
In a linear spectrum, modern democrats and modern republicans alike are pretty far left...as were the Nazis, Communists, and pretty much every other oppressive government in history. It's the nature of oligarchies.
DangerMouse
05-04-09, 02:51
You are exactly correct that the right has a philosophy of small government and individuality, it just seems that when leaders on that side of the spectrum get into power, they end not leading that way. That is just the nature of power, and the GOP over the past 8 years is a rather mild example of it.
Then they are not on the right side of the spectrum. They just lie and SAY they are to get votes. They are Progressives in Conservative clothing and they like big government to push their agenda just as much as the leftists do. While the modern day Republican party may be right of the Democrats, they're still way left of the founding fathers and they're even left of center. Reagan was the only President in the 20th Century who was a little right of center. But he was unable to get rid of any of the government bureaucracies that entrenched Statists hunker down in to infest our country and eventually take it over.
We're dealing with the Statist ideology which has permeated our political class... hell, it was the Progressives who actually decided they'd make a political class... as before them, being a Senator or a Congressman or President was a temporary gig and afterwards, you went back to your factory, your farm or what have you.... if we are to restore the Republic, we must do away with the professional politician.
FromMyColdDeadHand
05-04-09, 07:19
We're dealing with the Statist ideology which has permeated our political class... hell, it was the Progressives who actually decided they'd make a political class... as before them, being a Senator or a Congressman or President was a temporary gig and afterwards, you went back to your factory, your farm or what have you.... if we are to restore the Republic, we must do away with the professional politician.
While I agree in concept with term limits, I think it is treating the symptom and not the disease. The main problem with term limits, as I see it, is that you then shuffle in and out politicians, and the staffers and lobbyists become the de facto administrators. The politicians never have enough time to root out the problem before they are back on the farm. Not saying that term limits, either legislated or the norm, wouldn't help, I just think first you have to shrink the size of government so that people don't want to stay. Maybe a little chicken-and-the-egg, but we need to somehow reign in the politico-educational complex.
"if we are to restore the Republic, we must do away with the professional politician."
That my friend is the political 'nut' that needs cracking!!! However, we don't teach this in our schools today and that is why our future is screwed!!! The leftest regime has been infiltrating our schools since I was in elementary school back in the 60's.
My dad was the principal and just because of the 'progressive' thinkers out in California thought that classrooms should not have walls........well, you get my drift. We had a good educational system that had worked since the founding of our country, but, the reason to change it was just because someone 'thought' that something theoretically would work.
Have you seen the Newsweek article about the SC principal that has started spanking again to control student behavior?
http://www.newsweek.com/id/195119?Gt1=43002
My father actually had grown adults come back and thank him for correcting their behavior by spanking. Again, though, we were from a 'backward, southern school system in NC'.......not one of those great new schools from 'progressive California'!!!
Sorry for the rant above!!!!! I have very strong feelings about our educational system. After all, that is where most seeds are planted. If you plant in a fertile field, you get good results, but if you plant among thorns.........
FromMyColdDeadHand
05-04-09, 07:52
Sorry for the rant above!!!!! I have very strong feelings about our educational system.
We'll let it slide this time, but if you do it again, you'll get spanked.
While I agree in concept with term limits, I think it is treating the symptom and not the disease. The main problem with term limits, as I see it, is that you then shuffle in and out politicians, and the staffers and lobbyists become the de facto administrators. The politicians never have enough time to root out the problem before they are back on the farm. Not saying that term limits, either legislated or the norm, wouldn't help, I just think first you have to shrink the size of government so that people don't want to stay. Maybe a little chicken-and-the-egg, but we need to somehow reign in the politico-educational complex.
I agree...there is more to the government than elected politicians, and term limits don't do anything about that. I guess you're right, the only way to get bureaucrats out of there is to shrink the bureaucracy...
I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America,
and to the Republic for which it stands:
one Nation under God, indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for all.
Submariner
05-04-09, 08:34
indivisible
Probably not forever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sudden
indivisible
Probably not forever.
I hope our system still works. I worry the current benevolent dictator will be able to influence the outcome of future elections.
We'll let it slide this time, but if you do it again, you'll get spanked.
Won't be the first one!!!!!!!:D:D:D
Remember, my dad was the principal.........nothing got by him!!!;)
CarlosDJackal
05-04-09, 09:13
I was refering to the dangerous ones that DHS is worried about.
Does it matter? They only need to exist in Napolitano's feeble little mind for some sort of action to occur. This is the same dipshit who thinks the law-abiding citizens of these United States are more of a threat to Mexico than than the Mexican Drug Cartel, corrupt Mexican Police and Military, or illegal aliens are to US!!
Why bother gauging reality based on her warped perception. :rolleyes: JM2CW.
Probably not forever.
Does it matter? They only need to exist in Napolitano's feeble little mind for some sort of action to occur. This is the same dipshit who thinks the law-abiding citizens of these United States are more of a threat to Mexico than than the Mexican Drug Cartel, corrupt Mexican Police and Military, or illegal aliens are to US!!
Why bother gauging reality based on her warped perception. :rolleyes: JM2CW.
Actually, I've always believed there was an extreme right. Not as DHS sees it of course. I just wondered if there was why they weren't active against the enemies of America. Apparently they aren't as violent as a lot of people think. I'm speaking of hate groups that you would think would strike at groups that support hurting our country. I'm not saying they should but I wonder why they haven't.
The_War_Wagon
05-04-09, 11:29
So much as QUESTION a Democrap's motivations about ANYTHING, and you're 'right-wing fringe' these days... :rolleyes:
FlyAndFight
05-04-09, 11:38
A famous quote from C.S. Lewis clarifies my feelings on that matter;
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
C.S. Lewis is one of my favorite writers of all time.
Here is another quote just as applicable:
Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.
toasterlocker
05-04-09, 12:21
I personally think the traditional linear political spectrum and other links provided are oversimplified and don't address the very real differences between, for example, communism and fascism. I think of it more like a compass, with the north/south being economic control, and the east/west being social control.
The best diagram I found illustrating this concept is this:
http://cdn.okcimg.com/graphics/politics/chart_political.gif
This is what the diagram comes from, if any of you are curious. The test is kind of fun.
http://www.okcupid.com/politics
(Yes, it is from a dating site and isn't all that serious, but it is still fun and interesting)
For stupid dating site test, it is pretty astute.
thopkins22
05-04-09, 13:37
That graph makes very little sense to me. Fascists, communists, socialists, and increasingly more democrats and republicans are totalitarians.
It's trying to squeeze too much into one graph. I think the simple far left=total government and far right=zero government is best. Differences between ideologies beyond that are trivial in practice.
My quiz results:
You are a
Social Liberal
(85% permissive)
and an...
Economic Conservative
(95% permissive)
You are best described as a:
Anarchist
You exhibit a very well-developed sense of Right and Wrong and believe in economic fairness.
That graph makes very little sense to me. Fascists, communists, socialists, and increasingly more democrats and republicans are totalitarians.
It's trying to squeeze too much into one graph. I think the simple far left=total government and far right=zero government is best. Differences between ideologies beyond that are trivial in practice.
Some posts from GT of all places on this topic that I tend to agree with:
When an authoritarian government has stripped the people of their liberties, and regards them as livestock in a herd, the finer points of exactly how the government is flawed are irrelevant.
Controling a population isn't a philosophical question. It is a matter of logistics...and those don't change depending on whether it is a fascist or a socialist in charge. History is pretty strong with examples that support this.
DangerMouse
05-04-09, 15:59
I personally think the traditional linear political spectrum and other links provided are oversimplified and don't address the very real differences between, for example, communism and fascism. I think of it more like a compass, with the north/south being economic control, and the east/west being social control.
The best diagram I found illustrating this concept is this:
http://cdn.okcimg.com/graphics/politics/chart_political.gif
This is what the diagram comes from, if any of you are curious. The test is kind of fun.
http://www.okcupid.com/politics
(Yes, it is from a dating site and isn't all that serious, but it is still fun and interesting)
For stupid dating site test, it is pretty astute.
That graphic has got to be one of the most misleading and dangerous political graphics out there. First of all, do you even understand what the term 'Republican' means? It has nothing to do with the party which uses the moniker. Republican beliefs and ideology are based in the ideals of a Republican form of government. Fascism isn't based in belief in a Republic at all, and is in fact, far from Republican values. Fascism is a Socialist ideology. Socialist is a broad spectrum which covers Fascism, Communism and Social Democracies to name a few. Whoever made that graphic wanted to prove that Republicans are Fascists. It’s a BS graphic and is nowhere near the truth.
The thing most people cannot get their minds around is that our politics are built from absolutes and moderated from there. There is no such thing as a centrist. That is a political construct that politicians use to convince their voters that they're the nice guys and not the mud slingers. Its all smoke and mirrors. The linear model shows that absolute government is at one end, and absolute liberty is at the other. Absolute liberty is the absence of government. In sparsely populated areas, it works because there is room. However, once bad guys figure out where these peaceful areas are, they come in to prey on those living there, so those living there then hire protection and the beginnings of a local government are formed.
Our Constitution guarantees every State in the Union a Republican form of government.... only those who hate our Constitution and hate Liberty would make a graphic like the one you posted. Do not be drawn into these warped individual's ideals about what collectivism is. They're very very bad for your freedom and liberty and they'll eventually cause harm to you and those you love by trying to take too much control and trampling on people's rights that they spark the next US Revolution.
I think that I'll take the test just for fun.
Maybe more than once.
:p
toasterlocker
05-04-09, 23:42
That graphic has got to be one of the most misleading and dangerous political graphics out there. First of all, do you even understand what the term 'Republican' means? It has nothing to do with the party which uses the moniker. Republican beliefs and ideology are based in the ideals of a Republican form of government. Fascism isn't based in belief in a Republic at all, and is in fact, far from Republican values. Fascism is a Socialist ideology. Socialist is a broad spectrum which covers Fascism, Communism and Social Democracies to name a few. Whoever made that graphic wanted to prove that Republicans are Fascists. It’s a BS graphic and is nowhere near the truth.
I think you are taking it personally/emotionall that the word "Republican" is next to a naughty word like "fascist" instead of thinking more analytically.
The graph isn't referring to "Republic" as a form of a government, but the modern US political party. Thought that would be clear to most of the people looking at it, but I guess I should have clarified. You'll also notice the block labeled "Republican" is very large, so someone could fall in that area and be nowhere near fascist. So your quibble about what "Republic" means is unnecessary, we all know what a Republic is. And thinking that it somhow likens all Republicans is paranoid.
Secondly, your description of differentiating a Republic and a fascist government is inaccurate. A Republic can be socialist or capitalistic, it all depends on the ideology of those elected to office. And a Republic can elect fascist leaders. You don't seem to understand the difference between a POLITICAL system and an ECONOMIC system, which is what the graph is supposed to illustrate.
If there is anyone else that doesn't "get it," just let me know. I would be more than happy to provide further clarification.
variablebinary
05-05-09, 09:15
The socialist and fascists on MSNBC would have you believe that anyone that isn't a pervert, pedophile, progressive or supporter of infanticide is "extreme far right"
Your true political self:
You are a
Social Liberal
(68% permissive)
and an...
Economic Conservative
(80% permissive)
You are best described as a:
Libertarian
You exhibit a very well-developed sense of Right and Wrong and believe in economic fairness.
I was on the libe between capitalist and libertarion in the chart w/ the above results
DangerMouse
05-05-09, 10:51
I think you are taking it personally/emotionall that the word "Republican" is next to a naughty word like "fascist" instead of thinking more analytically.
That's because Fascists are Left-wingers and Socialists.
The graph isn't referring to "Republic" as a form of a government, but the modern US political party. Thought that would be clear to most of the people looking at it, but I guess I should have clarified. You'll also notice the block labeled "Republican" is very large, so someone could fall in that area and be nowhere near fascist. So your quibble about what "Republic" means is unnecessary, we all know what a Republic is. And thinking that it somhow likens all Republicans is paranoid.
Again, Fascists are not right wing. The chart was purposely intended to show that you have to have Republican values to have the chance of becoming a Fascist. Again, total BS since Fascism is a National Socialist ideology.
Secondly, your description of differentiating a Republic and a fascist government is inaccurate. A Republic can be socialist or capitalistic, it all depends on the ideology of those elected to office.
Capitalist is not a governmental ideology... you need to study more as your banal definitions are tired and typical of someone pushing someone else's obfuscations. They've not only confused you successfully, but you're convinced that their explanation is so right, that anyone who does not "get it" must be stupid. :rolleyes:
And a Republic can elect fascist leaders. You don't seem to understand the difference between a POLITICAL system and an ECONOMIC system, which is what the graph is supposed to illustrate.
Wow, you are even more obtuse than you first seemed. Typical product of the US education system. Your statement about a Republic able to be capitalistic was a prime example.
If there is anyone else that doesn't "get it," just let me know. I would be more than happy to provide further clarification.
Obviously, you don't get it. You will likely never get it since you think you are very smart. It was quite obvious to me that the person making that chart wanted people to think that certain Republicans are Fascists... like Mike Huckabee and Bush...
I am not a Republican in the modern sense, but in the Thomas Jefferson and James Monroe sense of the word Republican. I am a Republican as the Constitution frames Republicanism, not as the GOP frames Republicanism. But I will not stand idle while idiots defame people just because they are not smart enough to argue a true position.
Would a Republic remain a republic in the event that it elected a fascist leader/administration?
I wonder how one would justify the idea that fascism is more closely aligned with the modern GOP as opposed to the Democrat party (which is depicted as being almost diametrically opposed to fascism). The graph does show socialism lining up next to the Democrat party (again, assuming that we accept the premise that this graph depicts modern party ideology) and to me, that sorta makes sense. Still, Mussolini was a socialist. So was Hitler.
Does not compute.
DangerMouse
05-05-09, 13:49
Would a Republic remain a republic in the event that it elected a fascist leader/administration?
By definition, a Republic is a political unit governed by a charter, while a democracy is a government whose prevailing force is always that of the majority will or vote. Technically, a weak Republic could have its charter re-written by a Fascist who takes over if the charter isn't properly protected by an Amendment process that requires a supermajority. But that is not the case with our Republic. The problem in our Republic at the moment is that people keep calling it a Democracy, and therefore, they claim that the will of the 50.00001% of the people is that they fundamentally change our charter. This isn't legitimate, but they do it through sophistry and obfuscation to downright lies.
I wonder how one would justify the idea that fascism is more closely aligned with the modern GOP as opposed to the Democrat party (which is depicted as being almost diametrically opposed to fascism). The graph does show socialism lining up next to the Democrat party (again, assuming that we accept the premise that this graph depicts modern party ideology) and to me, that sorta makes sense. Still, Mussolini was a socialist. So was Hitler.
Does not compute.
The problem with modern day socialists is that they are desperate to distance themselves from the truth of their ideology. The truth that Socialist ideals have been responsible for more death, murder and mayhem than any other ideology and that includes religious ones. Between all socialist governments and movements, we can count nearly 300 million dead in the 20th Century all thanks to one form of collectivism or another.
Now I realize for some people here, the idea that a Republic is not a Democracy is an anathema to them as the definition of Republic on the Princeton website shows it as a Democracy. The Definition is quite clearly wrong. Those who put that definition out there have an agenda to move our Republic from a Political System based on a Charter to one based on Majority rule or a Democracy. So, they change the definition of terms.
Article IV of the constitution of the United States "guarantees to every State in this Union a Republican form of Government." It never mentions a Democracy which is why the academic elites want so desperately to change or redefine the meaning of the word Republic. Myself and many others are fighting these elites in their effort and are peppering the Internet and chat rooms with the truth.
Hopefully, many will learn the truth and in turn, spread it to others they know.
Lastly, do NOT let the elites enslave you. This WILL happen if they are allowed to create any more gun laws. There is no such thing as a common sense gun law.
toasterlocker
05-05-09, 13:52
That's because Fascists are Left-wingers and Socialists.
Ummm, no, because fascism by definition doesn't include complete government control of the economic system like socialism does. It focuses heavily on SOCIAL control.
Again, Fascists are not right wing. The chart was purposely intended to show that you have to have Republican values to have the chance of becoming a Fascist. Again, total BS since Fascism is a National Socialist ideology.
That is just the way you are interpreting it because you are overly sensitive. It also Democrats and socialists as bordering on totalitarian, so stop crying like only Republicans are being picked on. If you stop looking at the issue as "Left/Right" and start looking at is as a compass (as it is designed), maybe you will "get it" and realize it isn't trying to pick on anyone.
Capitalist is not a governmental ideology...
I never said it was. It is an ECONOMIC ideology, which is what I said in my post if you actually read it. I pointed that out because YOU didn't seem to get it, and somehow you must have read it backwards to think I need to be told something I had already said. Again, I'll point out that in a republic, the people can elect representatives that support a capitalist ECONOMIC system. Think of the difference between Ron Paul's and Obama's stance on economic policy.
Wow, you are even more obtuse than you first seemed. Typical product of the US education system. Your statement about a Republic able to be capitalistic was a prime example.
And why can't a republic operate with a capitalist economic system? Who is being obtuse now?
...It was quite obvious to me that the person making that chart wanted people to think that certain Republicans are Fascists... like Mike Huckabee and Bush...
I can see how the picture placement in that graphic might upset some folks, but I'm not referring to that, JUST THE PICTURE I POSTED. If you take issue with where the pictures of politicians are, I understand that. They used to have a much better picture for that before Obama and Huck were around. But if you take issue with the black and white picture I posted standing on its own merit, you're nuts.
toasterlocker
05-05-09, 14:05
I wonder how one would justify the idea that fascism is more closely aligned with the modern GOP as opposed to the Democrat party (which is depicted as being almost diametrically opposed to fascism). The graph does show socialism lining up next to the Democrat party (again, assuming that we accept the premise that this graph depicts modern party ideology) and to me, that sorta makes sense. Still, Mussolini was a socialist. So was Hitler.
Does not compute.
I think the layout is the way it is because Republicans are typically viewed as being more socially controlling (imposing their moral standards on society,) but less economically controlling, where as Democrats are more economically controlling (redistribution of wealth) but less concerned about imposing moral standards (more supportive of gay marriage would be a good example.)
And for the love of God, these are broad sweeping generalizations being used as explanations, don't anyone get all pissy and offended.
As for Hitler and Mussolini being socialists, that is a bit of a misnomer. While industry is more or less "owned" by the government in fascist system, it still operates more or less on a capitalist supply/demand type system instead of being totally controlled from top to bottom like a true socialism. Lets not forget that Oscar Schindler was still his own businessman even in the supposedly "socialist" Nazi Germany. And that Hitler had a strong hatred for the communists. The word "socialist" in Nazi is a bit backwards, for them it described their social system instead of economic.
Let me throw something out that isn't really at the federal level but makes me wonder. If you can explain this it I will learn something.
At the state level in CA voters stopped gay marriage by voting against it. That seems like a democracy type of move. Can laws be forced to a vote on the federal level? Please leave out the court system in this discussion.
DangerMouse
05-05-09, 16:09
Ummm, no, because fascism by definition doesn't include complete government control of the economic system like socialism does. It focuses heavily on SOCIAL control.
Um, that's Communism. Socialism is and always has been a very broad spectrum which includes Fascism, Communism and other Collectivist ideals. Socialism is not a form of Communism, but Communism is a form of Socialism. Does that make sense now? Have you even studied political science? If so, it seems as if the programming took because you're very brainwashed when it comes to what these political ideologies stand for.
That is just the way you are interpreting it because you are overly sensitive. It also Democrats and socialists as bordering on totalitarian, so stop crying like only Republicans are being picked on. If you stop looking at the issue as "Left/Right" and start looking at is as a compass (as it is designed), maybe you will "get it" and realize it isn't trying to pick on anyone.
Maybe you'll get the fact that you're wrong. You and your kind have always BEEN wrong and as long as you continue in your ideology, you will remain wrong. The compass is wrong. It does not represent any real idea of political systems since its purpose is to obfuscate and cause confusion. You obviously cannot see that. By the way, both Republican and Democrat border Totalitarian, but only Republican borders Fascist.... they're obviously trying to say something here and they're obviously trying to fool the fools into believing that they're being fair in their assessment... only problem is that the argument isn't really about Fascists or Socialists or Democrats or Republicans.... it's about Statists vs Liberty Minded individuals which you obviously are not. This is why the linear scale is so appropriate and that compass is such sophistry.
I never said it was.
You did.
It is an ECONOMIC ideology, which is what I said in my post if you actually read it. I pointed that out because YOU didn't seem to get it, and somehow you must have read it backwards to think I need to be told something I had already said. Again, I'll point out that in a republic, the people can elect representatives that support a capitalist ECONOMIC system. Think of the difference between Ron Paul's and Obama's stance on economic policy.
You're describing a Social Democracy, not a Republic. Capitalism exists without government.... but market controls i.e. Socialism, Fascism, Communism et al only exists with government control. Free markets need no government to operate and therefore it matters not who gets elected. Capitalism is a natural result of Free Markets. Socialist Economies are planned and are the exact opposite of Freedom and Liberty hence an abomination to our Republic and our Constitution.
And why can't a republic operate with a capitalist economic system? Who is being obtuse now?
Because OUR Republic does not dictate our markets. The only reference to markets in any sense is in the commerce clause where the government is meant to be a mediator between the States when the States cannot come to an agreement, and in the case of trade treaties with foreign powers or Indian tribes. Other than that, our Republic is supposed to be strictly hands off.
I can see how the picture placement in that graphic might upset some folks, but I'm not referring to that, JUST THE PICTURE I POSTED. If you take issue with where the pictures of politicians are, I understand that. They used to have a much better picture for that before Obama and Huck were around. But if you take issue with the black and white picture I posted standing on its own merit, you're nuts.
I only reference the picture as an example of how people will associate the supposed political spectrum map. It is wrong. The spectrum is based on control. Again, this is why the linear system works and your model does not.
Maybe this is hard for you to understand. In mathematics, the idea is called inverse proportionality. The size and scope of government is inversely proportional to individual freedom and liberty. That is why a linear graph is so much clearer. Move away from 100% government and liberty and freedom grows. Now there is such a thing as too much liberty, where government is 0%. That scenario always leads to havoc and the barbarians taking over and raping and pillaging. You see it constantly happening in Stateless countries even today. But we’re not advocating that. We’re advocating government around the 10% mark. No social services, no services of any type. No regulatory bodies. The only things government would do would be to negotiate treaties with foreign powers, mediate trade or commerce disputes between the States and Control the Navy. The Army and Air Force would have to be given up to the control of the States in times of peace or no constitutionally declared war. The regulatory powers for each State are up to each State individually.
While people and personalities may be wildly different so can be mapped on a strange and convoluted personality map. Political philosophies can easily be distilled down to 100% government or 0% government and all levels in between.
FromMyColdDeadHand
05-05-09, 17:32
I wonder if in heaven the victims of Russian Gulags, Chinese purges, and NAZI concentration camps argue about what was worst?
Sure, if you insist on a linear system DangerMouse is right, too bad we don't live in a linear world.
I can't find it, but someone mentioned about California and changing their constitution with 51-49% votes. Even though I like the Prop 8 idea, passing constitutional changes by 50-50% split is a bit scary? What happens when they can get slim vote on guns, or chrurches, or homeschooling?
I think the layout is the way it is because Republicans are typically viewed as being more socially controlling (imposing their moral standards on society,) but less economically controlling, where as Democrats are more economically controlling (redistribution of wealth) but less concerned about imposing moral standards (more supportive of gay marriage would be a good example.)
And for the love of God, these are broad sweeping generalizations being used as explanations, don't anyone get all pissy and offended.
As for Hitler and Mussolini being socialists, that is a bit of a misnomer. While industry is more or less "owned" by the government in fascist system, it still operates more or less on a capitalist supply/demand type system instead of being totally controlled from top to bottom like a true socialism. Lets not forget that Oscar Schindler was still his own businessman even in the supposedly "socialist" Nazi Germany. And that Hitler had a strong hatred for the communists. The word "socialist" in Nazi is a bit backwards, for them it described their social system instead of economic.
The notion that communism and Nazism are polar opposites stems from the deeper truth that they are in fact kindred spirits. Or, as Richard Pipes has written, "Bolshevism and Fascism were heresies of socialism." Both ideologies are reactionary in the sense that they try to re-create tribal impulses. Communists champion class, Nazis race, fascists the nation. All such ideologies -- we can call them totalitarian for now -- attract the same types of people.
Hitler's hatred for communism has been opportunistically exploited to signify ideological distance, when in fact it indicated the exact opposite. Today this maneuver has settled into conventional wisdom. But what Hitler hated about Marxism and communism has almost nothing to do with those aspects of communism that we would consider relevant, such as economic doctrine or the need to destroy the capitalists and bourgeoisie. In these areas Hitler largely saw eye to eye with socialists and communists. His hatred stemmed from his paranoid conviction that the people calling themselves communists were in fact in on a foreign, Jewish conspiracy. He says this over and over again in Mein Kampf. He studied the names of communists and socialists, and if they sounded Jewish, that was all he needed to know. It was all a con job, a ruse, to destroy Germany. Only "authentically" German ideas from authentic Germans could be trusted. And when those Germans, like Feder or Strasser, proposed socialist ideas straight out of the Marxist playbook, he had virtually no objection whatsoever. Hitler never cared much about economics anyways. He always considered it "secondary". What mattered to him was German identity politics.
Liberal Fascism, pages 74-75
I recommend Mr. Goldberg's book...I've been reading quite a bit on 20th century American history lately and to be honest what is taken as conventional wisdom is often times wrong.
DangerMouse
05-05-09, 18:30
I wonder if in heaven the victims of Russian Gulags, Chinese purges, and NAZI concentration camps argue about what was worst?
Sure, if you insist on a linear system DangerMouse is right, too bad we don't live in a linear world.
Actually, we live in a very linear world. You would be hard pressed to find anything that does not exist on some sort of linear scale until you get down into the quantum level where things are anything but linear. Scientifically speaking, our world on a macro level is very linear. The Habitable zone where life like ours can exist is inversely proportional to the radiation of the sun the planet in question orbits. This is a linear scale which is well documented. Now as for governments, the level of Freedom vs Non-Freedom is what we are talking about. Government at 100% means Freedom at 0%. There has never been a government which achieved 100%, though not for lack of trying. Linear scales measure this perfectly. This can be scientifically measured and proven given time and research money. Suffice it to say, the models which have a motley configuration of ideals spread out in a cross or any other format are not at all flexible enough to measure what more or less government means to individual liberty and freedom. The linear scale does that perfectly.
I can't find it, but someone mentioned about California and changing their constitution with 51-49% votes. Even though I like the Prop 8 idea, passing constitutional changes by 50-50% split is a bit scary? What happens when they can get slim vote on guns, or chrurches, or homeschooling?
You are very right to be wary of the rule in California that allows them to change their Constitution by a simple majority vote. You should be on the side of the US Constitution which supersedes the State Constitutions.
How our Republic is SUPPOSED to work is that our US Constitution is our Supreme law. It protects our pre-existing rights as well as limits what government can do. It then says that any other laws are the bailiwick of the States or the Individual which means, if it isn't in the Constitution, the Federal Government CANNOT DO IT. And, if it IS in the US Constitution, NO GOVERNMENT IN THE US can supersede that law. Therefore, no one can make any law that abridges your right to free speech, to worship as you see fit and to keep and bear arms. Yet they do it all the time.
We must fight for our Constitution to be abided by or punish the traitors who do not abide by it. Our Constitution is our only protection from the tyranny of the masses, or the proletariat if you will. Democrats want a Democracy... their party name should have given that away. The reason they want a Democracy is simple. People are easy to manipulate if you have an articulate demagogue, but you cannot manipulate the Laws if you have other Legislators to fight you on it. Plus, our Constitution requires an Amendment to be proposed by 2/3s of Congress and then to be enacted, it must be ratified by 3/4 of the States. It's much easier to have the unwashed masses vote and then by a simple 51% majority, change the law... then we do not live in a Republic, but instead we live in a Democracy. Even if you support the idea of Prop 8, you should oppose prop 8 on the very fact that it was created by a Democracy and not by the proper Amendment process. The Constitution 'GUARANTEES' Every State a Republican style government and California does not have that. Fight it or lose all your gun rights and your right to voice your opinion on anything... because whatever the majority wants... it will get in a Democracy.
The follwoing are excerpts taken from the following link.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090505/ap_on_re_eu/eu_britain_not_welcome
LONDON – Britain on Tuesday published its first list of people barred from entering the country for allegedly fostering extremism or hatred, including Muslim extremists, a right-wing American radio host, an Israeli settler and jailed Russian gang members.
Popular American talk-radio host, Michael Savage, who broadcasts from San Francisco and has called the Muslim holy book, the Quran, a "book of hate," is on the list. Savage also has enraged parents of children with autism by saying in most cases it's "a brat who hasn't been told to cut the act out."
Apparently the U.K. See's Savage as a Right Wing Extremist.
DangerMouse
05-05-09, 19:18
The follwoing are excerpts taken from the following link.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090505/ap_on_re_eu/eu_britain_not_welcome
LONDON – Britain on Tuesday published its first list of people barred from entering the country for allegedly fostering extremism or hatred, including Muslim extremists, a right-wing American radio host, an Israeli settler and jailed Russian gang members.
Popular American talk-radio host, Michael Savage, who broadcasts from San Francisco and has called the Muslim holy book, the Quran, a "book of hate," is on the list. Savage also has enraged parents of children with autism by saying in most cases it's "a brat who hasn't been told to cut the act out."
Apparently the U.K. See's Savage as a Right Wing Extremist.
The UK has no protections for speech like we have in the US. In fact, we are the only country in the world with the guarantees of rights like we have. Nowhere else has these rights which cannot be taken away by some arbitrary law.
We had better watch out or people like the current Democrats will change us into a carbon copy of Europe.
The UK has no protections for speech like we have in the US. In fact, we are the only country in the world with the guarantees of rights like we have. Nowhere else has these rights which cannot be taken away by some arbitrary law.
We had better watch out or people like the current Democrats will change us into a carbon copy of Europe.
You are correct!
I recommend Mr. Goldberg's book...I've been reading quite a bit on 20th century American history lately and to be honest what is taken as conventional wisdom is often times wrong.
An excellent read. I wish more of my "on the fence" liberal-light friends would read this book. IIRC Goldberg tells us that Mussolini described himself very clearly as a radical leftist.
The UK has no protections for speech like we have in the US. In fact, we are the only country in the world with the guarantees of rights like we have. Nowhere else has these rights which cannot be taken away by some arbitrary law.
We had better watch out or people like the current Democrats will change us into a carbon copy of Europe.
I wholeheartedly agree...
toasterlocker
05-06-09, 00:23
Um, that's Communism. Socialism is and always has been a very broad spectrum which includes Fascism, Communism and other Collectivist ideals. Socialism is not a form of Communism, but Communism is a form of Socialism. Does that make sense now? Have you even studied political science? If so, it seems as if the programming took because you're very brainwashed when it comes to what these political ideologies stand for.
Maybe you'll get the fact that you're wrong. You and your kind have always BEEN wrong and as long as you continue in your ideology, you will remain wrong. The compass is wrong. It does not represent any real idea of political systems since its purpose is to obfuscate and cause confusion. You obviously cannot see that. By the way, both Republican and Democrat border Totalitarian, but only Republican borders Fascist.... they're obviously trying to say something here and they're obviously trying to fool the fools into believing that they're being fair in their assessment... only problem is that the argument isn't really about Fascists or Socialists or Democrats or Republicans.... it's about Statists vs Liberty Minded individuals which you obviously are not. This is why the linear scale is so appropriate and that compass is such sophistry.
You could have summed up this entire section by just saying: "A chart with an X and a Y axis is just too complicated for me. I can only handle one line, not two. Measuring social and economic control on two different lines just hurts my brain, even though it makes sense to recognize that there are differences in political ideologies more complex than simple left and right. Don't try and confuse me, my mind is made up."
Are you really trying to tell me that there is no difference between economic and social control? How do you explain with your left/right system some libertarians and some Republicans who agree on economic issues, but are diametrically opposed on a social/moral issue like the drug war? Or how do you explain with your simple left/right system the Democrats who share similar views on the economic issue of redistribution of wealth, but are opposed on the social issue of gay marriage?
Your simple left/right doesn't address the differences between social and economic concerns, but the north south east west illustration does.
You are taking a broad sweeping generalization made by the chart as a personal, deliberate insult against Republicans. Maybe if you looked at the term "fascist" as merely describing "economically permissive, socially controlling" as the chart is trying to convey, instead of just thinking of the pejorative connotations, you wouldn't be freaking out so badly.
Try this out: Imagine they just got rid of the term fascist completely and made the Republican part bigger. Would that make you feel better because they got rid of the word with all the nasty connotations you are so distressed about?
You did.
Where?
You're describing a Social Democracy, not a Republic. Capitalism exists without government.... but market controls i.e. Socialism, Fascism, Communism et al only exists with government control. Free markets need no government to operate and therefore it matters not who gets elected. Capitalism is a natural result of Free Markets. Socialist Economies are planned and are the exact opposite of Freedom and Liberty hence an abomination to our Republic and our Constitution.
Your twisting what I said again, I think just for the sake of arguing some more. I understand that capitalism can and does exist without government, I agree with that. All I was saying is that some politicians support a MORE capitalist system, while others support a LESS capitalist system. We are in 100% agreement what capitalism is, I think you are just fabricating supposed positions I don't even have so you can argue with them. Classic strawman argument.
Because OUR Republic does not dictate our markets. The only reference to markets in any sense is in the commerce clause where the government is meant to be a mediator between the States when the States cannot come to an agreement, and in the case of trade treaties with foreign powers or Indian tribes. Other than that, our Republic is supposed to be strictly hands off.
Agreed. Not entirely sure why you brought it up, because I never said it should be any other way.
I only reference the picture as an example of how people will associate the supposed political spectrum map. It is wrong. The spectrum is based on control. Again, this is why the linear system works and your model does not.
Maybe this is hard for you to understand. In mathematics, the idea is called inverse proportionality. The size and scope of government is inversely proportional to individual freedom and liberty. That is why a linear graph is so much clearer. Move away from 100% government and liberty and freedom grows. Now there is such a thing as too much liberty, where government is 0%. That scenario always leads to havoc and the barbarians taking over and raping and pillaging. You see it constantly happening in Stateless countries even today. But we’re not advocating that. We’re advocating government around the 10% mark. No social services, no services of any type. No regulatory bodies. The only things government would do would be to negotiate treaties with foreign powers, mediate trade or commerce disputes between the States and Control the Navy. The Army and Air Force would have to be given up to the control of the States in times of peace or no constitutionally declared war. The regulatory powers for each State are up to each State individually.
While people and personalities may be wildly different so can be mapped on a strange and convoluted personality map. Political philosophies can easily be distilled down to 100% government or 0% government and all levels in between.
So, once again, you are saying you are only capable of thinking 2 dimensionally because it is EASIER that way. The chart I posted addresses two different forms of control, while yours only addresses control in general. I think the differences in social/economic control are important to understand, you clearly don't. You just see control as control, which I think is kind of elementary.
Not saying I disagree with you on where our government should be at, just saying I think your way of explaining things is a too bare for describing how complex modern ideologies can be.
thopkins22
05-06-09, 01:26
Ummm, no, because fascism by definition doesn't include complete government control of the economic system like socialism does. It focuses heavily on SOCIAL control.
That's wrong. Hitler himself talked about national socialism etc... Fascism always hyped itself as being an option between capitalism and socialism.
Mussolini talked quite a bit about corporatism(something both parties are involved with heavily,) and heavy state intervention/planning of the economy. Economic fascism=public control of private capital.
Really quite the same in practice as socialism.
The UK has no protections for speech like we have in the US. In fact, we are the only country in the world with the guarantees of rights like we have. Nowhere else has these rights which cannot be taken away by some arbitrary law.
We had better watch out or people like the current Democrats will change us into a carbon copy of Europe.
Hmmm. Maybe that's why our forefathers hopped on the ships to un-ass the U.K. I wonder if we can ship the liberals back to the "Motherland"? I think the Haji's from Gitmo stand a better chance of finding a new home in the U.K. or Europe than the Lib's!
Wow:
The follwoing are excerpts taken from the following link.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090505/ap_on_re_eu/eu_britain_not_welcome
LONDON – Britain on Tuesday published its first list of people barred from entering the country for allegedly fostering extremism or hatred, including Muslim extremists, a right-wing American radio host, an Israeli settler and jailed Russian gang members.
Popular American talk-radio host, Michael Savage, who broadcasts from San Francisco and has called the Muslim holy book, the Quran, a "book of hate," is on the list. Savage also has enraged parents of children with autism by saying in most cases it's "a brat who hasn't been told to cut the act out."
Apparently the U.K. See's Savage as a Right Wing Extremist.
And all this time I thought Mike Savage was just a plain old fashioned A$$Hole.
That's wrong. Hitler himself talked about national socialism etc... Fascism always hyped itself as being an option between capitalism and socialism.
Mussolini talked quite a bit about corporatism(something both parties are involved with heavily,) and heavy state intervention/planning of the economy. Economic fascism=public control of private capital.
Really quite the same in practice as socialism.
Bingo. That's the problem that I have with that two-axis chart; that fascism and socialism are shown as diametrically opposed, which is almost taken for granted for the most part but I don't believe that to be true. Saying that there is total economic freedom in fascism doesn't jive with me. Saying that Hitler and/or Mussolini weren't socialists doesn't fit with history.
Wow:
And all this time I thought Mike Savage was just a plain old fashioned A$$Hole.
I dont like Savage alot anymore since he openly backed an assault weapon ban, giving the age old speach. "I can hunt and sport without these military weapons, and they have no use in our hands" IMHO he's a joke. But him getting banned from Britain still makes me mad because if he was a peice of socialist scum they woulda left him be. It just shows what this country is heading for, thats what socialism is. The ability to take our rights away at the snap of a finger with no questions asked.:mad:
http://www.jpfo.org/articles-assd/michael-savage.wnd.htm
Im not a jew but these jews are for 2A rights and i some how dug this up a while ago. Anyway, the article is the same as what "Savage Nation" had on their web page.
toasterlocker
05-06-09, 09:45
That's wrong. Hitler himself talked about national socialism etc... Fascism always hyped itself as being an option between capitalism and socialism.
Mussolini talked quite a bit about corporatism(something both parties are involved with heavily,) and heavy state intervention/planning of the economy. Economic fascism=public control of private capital.
Really quite the same in practice as socialism.
While I understand that certain fascist regimes incorporated socialistic economic practices, that is still not a consistent, defining characteristic of all "fascist" regimes. While the word "socialist" is throw around by Hilter, it is not used in an economic sense. Private industry, operating under supply/demand was still quite active in Nazi Germany. Granted most of the "demand" was for war related products, but productions in Germany was not under the same direct control as it was in the Soviet Union.
This is what I'm saying:
Fascism is mostly characterized by social control: one party systems, focus on superiority of one group over others, heavy use of propaganda, squashing any dissent, etc. Once you start incorporating economic controls as well, you really start to have more of a totalitarian regime than something that is purely fascist. There is a difference.
The thing that really gets me is that historians can't even agree on what fascism actually means, but we seem to have a bunch of experts on this site.:p
I make no claim of being an expert, far from it in fact; and from an observational standpoint the only person in this thread who comes off as thinking that they are is yourself.
That said, fascism, communism, and socialism all have a hell of a lot in common, and though I've already posted it in this thread, it bears repeating:
When an authoritarian government has stripped the people of their liberties, and regards them as livestock in a herd, the finer points of exactly how the government is flawed are irrelevant.
Controling a population isn't a philosophical question. It is a matter of logistics...and those don't change depending on whether it is a fascist or a socialist in charge. History is pretty strong with examples that support this.
Making sure this doesn't slide into personal attacks...
thopkins22
05-06-09, 12:27
The thing that really gets me is that historians can't even agree on what fascism actually means...
Then stop defining it and placing it on a graph.:D That's actually the whole point...so many of these ideologies when practiced are pretty indistinguishable from one another. And for that matter to argue that fascism saw unbridled capitalism is a falsehood. When people aren't free to buy what they want, to invest in what they want, or to keep their earnings, it doesn't matter whether the products are made in a state owned factory or a private factory...it's not free market capitalism.
IMO the test and chart was skewed left anyway. Fascism was shown as a right thing, its not, its more leftist IMO. Hitler was a good example, he was a Nationalist fascist but still a socialist, so thats not right.
It would have been better labled as a Theocracy IMO as the far right is the religious extremeist
anyway...
toasterlocker
05-06-09, 22:56
It would have been better labled as a Theocracy IMO as the far right is the religious extremeist.
anyway...
I agree with that 100%. Theocracy would be more accurate.
DangerMouse
05-09-09, 14:40
Are you really trying to tell me that there is no difference between economic and social control? How do you explain with your left/right system some libertarians and some Republicans who agree on economic issues, but are diametrically opposed on a social/moral issue like the drug war? Or how do you explain with your simple left/right system the Democrats who share similar views on the economic issue of redistribution of wealth, but are opposed on the social issue of gay marriage?
Big government is big, controlling government no matter what. What you call leftists, I call Statists and what you call Right Wing, I call Statists. The left wing statists implement control in different social areas, but their controls are just as freedom robbing as those of the right wing Statists.
Big government is big government and I don't care if the people implementing it are religious zealots or radical egalitarians, they are both looking to restrict my freedom and increase the size of government to help them attain their goals.
Your simple left/right doesn't address the differences between social and economic concerns, but the north south east west illustration does.
Duh, that's because there is no difference. Lets see, would you like to be electrocuted or shot? Hmmm, the end result is the same, so what's the difference? Oh, you could take lethal injection right? They say that lethal injection is more humane... but still, the end result is still the same. No, your argument is banal and tired. There is only one argument. Grow government bigger, or shrink it. Liberty cannot exist with government. Where government is, liberty is restricted.
You are taking a broad sweeping generalization made by the chart as a personal, deliberate insult against Republicans. Maybe if you looked at the term "fascist" as merely describing "economically permissive, socially controlling" as the chart is trying to convey, instead of just thinking of the pejorative connotations, you wouldn't be freaking out so badly.
No, I'm saying that your moronic chart was created to paint a picture, while pulling the wool over the sheeple's eyes at the same time. Make people think that at least with Democrats, we won't have another Hitler. It's subtle, but it's effective. My chart goes right to the issue and addresses the real problem... and that is government. Yours dances around the subject, mine hits it right on the head.
Your twisting what I said again, I think just for the sake of arguing some more. I understand that capitalism can and does exist without government, I agree with that. All I was saying is that some politicians support a MORE capitalist system, while others support a LESS capitalist system. We are in 100% agreement what capitalism is, I think you are just fabricating supposed positions I don't even have so you can argue with them. Classic strawman argument.
Not a straw man at all. You were trying to say that Capitalism was a part of our government. That capitalism was the equivalent to economic controls under socialism. I was telling you that you were wrong. And I was right.
So, once again, you are saying you are only capable of thinking 2 dimensionally because it is EASIER that way. The chart I posted addresses two different forms of control, while yours only addresses control in general. I think the differences in social/economic control are important to understand, you clearly don't. You just see control as control, which I think is kind of elementary.
Not saying I disagree with you on where our government should be at, just saying I think your way of explaining things is a too bare for describing how complex modern ideologies can be.
I don't care how complex you want to try and paint these modern ideologies. They're simple. Not complex. They're all about power. Each one equally affects social and economic policies. With the liberals, it's all about being politically correct. Hate crimes anyone??? Talk about social controls... now they're legislating your thoughts. Whether it's gay marriage, hate crimes, speech codes, public nudity laws, it's all a form of social control and both sides equally implement it.
So the argument comes back to my linear scale, and the truth. Big government vs Liberty. Which side are you on?
No, I'm saying that your moronic chart was created to paint a picture, while pulling the wool over the sheeple's eyes at the same time. Make people think that at least with Democrats, we won't have another Hitler.
Perpetuation of a false dichotomy. Good post.
There are some differences between Socialism and Fascism but if you're under the heel of either it MAY not matter much.
In Socialism ALL means of manufacturing, distribution and property belongs to the State.
In Fascism ALL means of manufacturing and distribution are under the influence/control of the State. Private property is allowed under strict guidelines.
DangerMouse
05-10-09, 00:11
There are some differences between Socialism and Fascism but if you're under the heel of either it MAY not matter much.
Yeah, the oppressed don't really care which ideology it is that is oppressing them.
In Fascism ALL means of manufacturing and distribution are under the influence/control of the State. Private property is allowed under strict guidelines.
Sounds a little like what our government has been doing over the past year and especially in the last 6 months.
Sounds a little like what our government has been doing over the past year and especially in the last 6 months.
Yes, the bailouts CAN end up being just that depending on how the International Banking Cartel wish it to be. It appears to me that they are refusing any REAL attempt (if there are any) of rectifying the economic disaster. Those of us who proscribe to the NWO know (it's in their own written documents) that they wish to sink the world and merge the Fascist (i.e., National Socialist) and Socialist (more or less or to SOME degree International Socialist) gov'ts into a Global Socialist gov't with THEM at the top.
The Bush Admin (and Clinton Admin) assisted these Banksters immeasurably. The crisis is such that you or I would struggle to extricate one's self notwithstanding the treasonists within the Halls of Congress.
Definitions can be quite confusing and little is 'black and white'.
toasterlocker
05-10-09, 14:16
blah blah blah...
The only place where we even disagree is that I think the differences between social and economic control are relevant, whereas you do not. I would agree with you that the end result is more or less the same, but understanding the methods that are used to create control is helpful in preventing it. If you want to gloss over that because you feel it complicates things too much for the general public, go right ahead.
But I take an interest in more than just the end result, I am also interested in the MEANS of control, which your chart, once again, does not really address.
DangerMouse
05-10-09, 16:22
The only place where we even disagree is that I think the differences between social and economic control are relevant, whereas you do not. I would agree with you that the end result is more or less the same, but understanding the methods that are used to create control is helpful in preventing it. If you want to gloss over that because you feel it complicates things too much for the general public, go right ahead.
But I take an interest in more than just the end result, I am also interested in the MEANS of control, which your chart, once again, does not really address.
There are numerous ways of fooling people, and so when you let your government get too big, it's too late to reverse it without a war. We're probably never going to get the Republic we want without bloodshed.... and that's because the eggheads always thought they could defeat it if they just understood it. The problem is that power is just power. Those who want it will go to almost any means to get it, and the worst people are those who think they are doing it for your own good. The do-gooders. Those self appointed protectors of everything that regulate us into chains.
There is only one way to stop them. KEEP GOVERNMENT SMALL AT ALL COSTS! And as the great Thomas Jefferson said, if that means that the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants, then so be it.
Those who want social control (and it's both sides equally), do you really see them backing down without a fight? I don't. They think they're right and they'll kill to make sure their policies are implemented. The Statists are insatiable. They cannot be satisfied until all liberty is drowned out and social justice and order is put in its place. Forced equality. Forced to NOT be racist. Penalized for speaking one's mind. In some cases, jailed for it. This is coming again and quite soon. The new Hate Speech laws being introduced have in them provisions that would make it a crime to suggest that something someone else does is a perversion as those words would unduly prejudice people towards that other person and could cause them to do violence against them.
But my point isn't what method they'll use, whether social or economic. My point is that they can only do it with big government and so your point of understanding them is moot. I don't want to understand them, I just want them to back off and live and let live, or die. It’s that simple. The Gadsden Flag with the infamous words “Don’t Tread On Me” is a uniquely American tradition and it is one that is quickly coming back. This new form of Tyrant is what we call the soft tyrant. The tyrants who are only doing what’s best for “you” , “the environment”, “equality” or name your modern liberal busybody cause. They only exist with big bureaucratic government where they can infest large swaths of it with unelected bureaucrats. These officials at the EPA, the FCC, the FDA etc make claims and regulations that strangle our nation and our liberty and they must be stopped.
Again, who cares the why. The how is big government. Shrink government and many of these problems disappear. We are millions strong with weapons and they fear us… hence their label of “Right Wing Extremist” but I feel proud that they fear us because I can share that honor with most of our Founders.
The extreme right is what happens when the populists realize they can behave the same way as the communists.
Is there really an extreme right? Yes
The extreme right is what happens when the populists realize they can behave the same way as the communists.
What do you mean?
What I mean is a near complete breakdown in what would honestly be is considered "acceptable" behavior in a society to restore/rejuvenate the society. A good example of this sort of militant populism gone awry would be the nazis. Outright thuggery, terrorism, sadism, intimidation, and ethnic/social cleansing in an effort to restore an almost mythic "old order" and bring about a golden age.
Al Qaeda shares a bit of that "by any means necessary" mantra, the Taliban even more so.
The only thing extremists really share is the method of gaining power. They convert, or blunt, often in broad sweeping terms (IE 'peace, land, bread'), then consolidate power completely.
Socialism proved to be brutality far worse than any populism seen yet. Probably because it is very good at spreading and subjugating, but like the auto companies or schools here, it can't deliver the goods.
:)
What I mean is a near complete breakdown in what would honestly be is considered "acceptable" behavior in a society to restore/rejuvenate the society. A good example of this sort of militant populism gone awry would be the nazis. Outright thuggery, terrorism, sadism, intimidation, and ethnic/social cleansing in an effort to restore an almost mythic "old order" and bring about a golden age.
Al Qaeda shares a bit of that "by any means necessary" mantra, the Taliban even more so.
The only thing extremists really share is the method of gaining power. They convert, or blunt, often in broad sweeping terms (IE 'peace, land, bread'), then consolidate power completely.
Socialism proved to be brutality far worse than any populism seen yet. Probably because it is very good at spreading and subjugating, but like the auto companies or schools here, it can't deliver the goods.
What he said.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.