republican....when did Harper say he wanted to get rid of the Queen???

I forgot, words are labels without real meaning...of course that would depend on Seamus knowing what a republican was, vs a member of the Republican party in the United States.

As for Zundel....he isnt right wing he is a bigot and a racist and there were a number of them wandering around the Liberal convention.

As a footnote....did Warren Kinsella ever come out and publically go after those guys at the Liberal convention???

I'm not going to start yet another debate to correct the attempt to classify Hitler's Nazi party as a left wing party, but I don't think there is any misapplication of the term when applied to neo-nazi/Holocaust deniers/supremecists. They are most assuredly on the right and share - albeit to an extreme most on the right don't go - far more ideology than anyone on the left.

Such as:
- no/little immigration
- immigration from only certain countries
- for many, white Christian supremacy
- small government/anti-government
- strong military
- strongly anti-communist
- strongly anti-gay (shared with social conservatives but not necessarily economic conservatives)
- no gun control
- man as leader/woman at home
- certainly very opposed to anything politically correct
- oppose most every progressive/liberal program or initiative
- oppose hate laws (though this is shared by many ideological groups)

... and so on and so on and so on...

And just look at their voting patterns and which parties they run for when that is made discernible, David Duke being only the most obvious.

Ted

Yup. It's not as though the Heritage Front tried to enter the NDP, now, is it?

Quote: "I'm not going to start yet another debate to correct the attempt to classify Hitler's Nazi party as a left wing party,..."

Quote: "On the contrary, the support which brought these ideas to power came precisely from the socialist camp."

The Socialist Roots of Naziism
Friedrich A. Hayek
...
What, then, caused these views held by a reactionary minority finally to gain the support of the great majority of Germans and practically the whole of Germany's youth? It was not merely the defeat, the suffering, and the wave of nationalism which led to their success. Still less was the cause, as so many people wish to believe, a capitalist reaction against the advance of socialism. On the contrary, the support which brought these ideas to power came precisely from the socialist camp. ...-
http://lamar.colostate.edu/~grjan/hayeknaziism.html

I'd say that the Nazi party shows us just how ineffectual the simplistic left/right dichotomy is. For a more effective way of classifying social and economic systems, one would need two axes (one social and the other economic) rather than attempting to fit such concepts in a single left-right (economic) axis.

As far as economics goes, the Nazis were centrist: midway between pure capitalism and pure communism. As far as their social system, the Nazis were decidedly authoritarian (as opposed to libertarian).

Stalin and Mao good enough for ya?

What is the "Heritage Front" anyway? I only ever hear of them mentioned by neurotic/psychotic left wingers. Are they a couple of dozen hillbillies somewhere in Canada with some bigoted opinions? Weren't they some kind of 1980s phenomenen? I don't want to search their name and give their website (if any) a hit. I am conservative and keep myself politically very well informed and involved, but the "Heritage Front" just isn't on my radar. Who are they? Are they in some kind of alliance of convenience with the hard left?

Bonus link: http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/

"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions." --Adolf Hitler

(Speech of May 1, 1927. Quoted by Toland, 1976, p. 306)

Teddy, lonely again?
I'll see your David Duke and raise you a George Wallace and a Robert Byrd and not to mention of course Bull Connor.(All Democrats).
Nice to see the Liberals have not lost their way with twisting the truth.

Few realize how socially popular eugenics was. One thing we can thank Hitler for - he made it impossible for the social elite to continue safely advocating it.

One of the most annoying discussions (and also one of the most common that I wind up having with my friends) is this whole business of trying to classify Hitler as either right-wing or left-wing. I say that both are wrong...for the same reason that they are both kind of right.

Nationalism has historically been defined as a group of people thinking that they should get together and form a nation because of a shared race, ethnicity, religion, or language (or some combination of the four). For much of human history, that was the way it was always done. This is the important point.

Again historically (and rather simplistically), liberals are people who believe in changing things. Conservatives resist change. Therefore, at one time, it would be quite reasonable to assume that someone who thinks nations should continue to be formed based on the superficial grounds of race, language and/or religion would be a conservative - by virtue of the fact that "that is the way it has always been" and they want to resist change. Strong patriotism has also always been more associated with conservatism. By contrast, the idea that your country should exist based on non-visible things such as common values would have been seen as liberal.

That's using ancient standards...but at least I see the argument.

Socialism...needs no explanation.

So, a "Nationalist Socialist" party could (by the old definitions) be translated as the "Conservative Liberal" party. People on the right side of the political spectrum focus on the Socialist part and people on the left focus on the Nationalist part.

What gets me so annoyed at people arguing over these points is that I think the argument is stupid. Hitler was a freak. The patriotic nationalist thing was all about his admiration for the American use of "Your country needs you" advertising during WWI. The socialist part was to appeal to the people who were suffering under mind-numbing poverty. In other words, he took the best from both camps so that he could get to power. He would have taken on any political slant to achieve power. Over the course of his political career, he expressed disdain for every group - capitalist and communist. Remember the theory that Germany was sold out during WWI because of a conspiracy between the Jewish capitalists and the Bolsheviks???

It's the same with Stalin. He wasn't a communist...he was a freak. He would have created a totalitarian regime and killed just as many people under whatever system was popular in Russia at the time he seized power. If it had have been fascism with laissez-faire economic underpinnings, he would have adopted that as his platform.

OK...Done venting. Wooo...I feel better

ok, here we go again
first off, zundel has way more in common with the anti-semetic libranos, than with the CPC....secondly, the majority of the membership of the CPC are mainly fiscal conservatives...I remember very clearly arguing with the bible thumping crowd in the Reform days, and the majority of them went off and joined the CHP....once again, members of the CPC have been victimized and tarnished with a bigotry and hatred usually reserved for the most vile in a society.....it would be scary, if these moonbat/dipper bigots were not so predictable

So what if they were all Democrats, DDT. No one would ever accuse those two of being lefties. Who's doing the truth twisting now?

The left and the so-called "extreme right" have always had a love hate relationship: they have hated each other so fiercely because they were competing for the same revolutionary turf, and competing for the same disillusioned portion of the electorate. Hitler admired Stalin and hated Churchill; Stalin and Mussolini had an excellent economic relationship in the 20s; Hitler also said he'd prefer to see ex-Reds in his party than "reactionaries" (i.e. old school conservatives, catholics and devout protestants, aristocrats).

Nazism and Fascism were revolutionary ideologies...very far from what one could justifiably deem right-wing. Of course this did not prevent the left in the 20s and 30s from trying to smear the Fascists and Nazis by allegding that they were "reactionary", just as today the left smears the traditional right by calling them fascists.

Fascism as created and developed by Mussolini was in many ways exceptionally left wing (the "fascio" was a term identified in Italian political history with groups of left wing radicals, the term "fasces" however refers to the rods and ax carried by the lictors of ancient Roman magistrates) - and though (like Stalin accomodating the Orthodox Church when faced with internal upheaval during WW2) Mussolini signed a Concordat with the Church and ruled alongside (and beneath) a monarch, the Italian Social Republic (1943-5) more accurately represented the left leaning anti-conservative and anti-clerical nature of the original Fascists.

Ted,

I will conced the point that fascism is generally seen as far right movement, as much as that matters, if you will concede that the extremes at the left and the roght have more in common with each other than the centre versions of left and right.

COmes down to totalitarians versus democrats....Rascists show up in all parties centre, far left, far right, they have their own particular smell to them.

Zundel, right left doesnt really matter does it? He is a racist. Now if only they wold deport those racists at the Liberal convention.....oh sorry that different, dont know how but it appears to be different.

Ted, Cut the crap. You're the one that implied that the Republicans attracted the loathsome David Dukes of this world. By the way David Duke also ran for the leadership of the dempocrats.

Oh, and Ted? Please get an education. The so-called "political spectrum" does not exist. Political philosophies do not form a linear continuum. Those who teach this are mentally lazy.
Your purpose is apparent from your comments: to establish a degree of commonality between the National Socialism of Hitler and the politics of the Canadian conservative party led by Harper. As you begin with a false premise, your views are worthless and may thus be ignored.

When asked which was worse, communism or nazism, the Toronto Star's Richard Gwyn replied that nazism was worse because the communists "meant well."

(replying to a question by Steve Paikin on a forerunner of TVO's Diplomatic Immunity).

So little stick boy O'Reagan is a Libcomsimp!

Big surprise ... the truly insidious thing is that the Network Brass at CTV BellBlobmedia allow this crap to go on .... and on ..... and on!

I think I would prefer it if the network would put up a disclaimer about the competence and qualification of their staff and their opinions or bias!

The only person they have on air that has a modicum of professional competence and integrity is Jeff Hutchison well maybe Mike Duffy too!
BTW- Check out the poll at the CTV website!
Link>http://www.ctv.ca/canadaam

Stephen: "I will conced the point that fascism is generally seen as far right movement, as much as that matters, if you will concede that the extremes at the left and the roght have more in common with each other than the centre versions of left and right."

That is a very easy one to concede and readily I do. Left and right both got their authoritarian wingnuts.

Tenebris: "Your purpose is apparent from your comments: to establish a degree of commonality between the National Socialism of Hitler and the politics of the Canadian conservative party led by Harper."

What gave me away? Was it when I started out by saying I didn't want to talk about or compare Hitler's Nazi party to today's right wingers?

Sorry, Tenebris. But in future, if you want to try to argue someone should get an education, it will bolster (that means to support or strengthen) your argument to show an ability to read and, um, not be mentally lazy, as you say. I have never said and don't believe that Harper or the Conservative Party of Canada is fascist or Nazi like.

I can argue Jean Harper is bad for Canada on his own demerits without having to resort to such hyperbolic (that means greatly exaggerated) rhetoric.

Ted

The liberanos are so close to being nazis it stinks! The only differnce is there name.

Perhaps people should actually read Hitler, if they can bear to. Whereas the Left has always (at least rhetorically) stood for equality, here is Hitler on the individual (sounds, I must say, a bit like Ayn Rand in part). All quotes are from Mein Kampf:

Hence all inventions are the result of the creative faculty of the individual. And all such individuals, whether they have willed it or not,
are the benefactors of mankind, both great and small. Through their work millions and indeed billions of human beings have been provided with means and resources which facilitate their struggle for existence. Thus at the origin of the material civilization which flourishes to-day we always see individual persons. They supplement one another and one of them bases his work on that of another. The same is true in regard to the practical application of those inventions and discoveries. For all the various methods of production are in their turn inventions also and consequently dependent on the creative faculty of the individual. Even in purely theoretical work, which can not be measured by a definite rule and is preliminary to all subsequent technical discoveries, is exclusively the product of the individual brain. The broad masses do not invent, nor does the majority organize or think; but always and in every case the individual man, the person.

Therefore not only does the organization possess no right to prevent men of brains from rising above the multitude but, on the contrary, it must use its organizing powers to enable and promote that ascension as far as it possibly can. It must start out from the principle that the blessings of mankind never came from the masses but from the creative brains of individuals, who are therefore the real benefactors of humanity. It is in the interest of all to assure men of creative brains a decisive influence and facilitate their work. This common interest is surely not served by allowing the multitude to rule, for they are not capable of thinking nor are they efficient and in no case whatsoever can they be said to be gifted. Only those should rule who have the natural temperament and gifts of leadership.

Though all human civilization has resulted exclusively from the creative activity of the individual, the principle that it is the mass which counts--through the decision of the majority-- makes its appearance only in the administration of the national community especially in the higher grades; and from their downwards the poison gradually filters into all branches of national life, thus causing a veritable decomposition.

Marxism represents the most striking phase to eliminate the dominant significance of personality in every sphere of human life and replace it by the numerical power of the masses. In politics the parlimentary form of government is the expression of this effort. We can observe the fatal effects of it everywhere, from the smallest parish council upwards to the highest governing circles of the nation. In the field of economics we see the trades union movement, which does not serve the real interests of the employees but the destructive aims of international Jewry.

If [we] should fail to understand the fundamental importance of the essential principle, if it should merely varnish the external appearance of the present State and adopt the majority principle, it would really do nothing more than compete with Marxism on its own ground.

The best constitution and the best form of government is that which makes it quite natural for the best brains to reach a position of dominant importance and influence in the community.

Sorry, guys, revise history as you will, but Hitler was profoundly conservative.

CTV poll: 75% feel Dijon is a liability...OUCH!

Hey dawg I have read all of meinkomf and if you had as well you wouldnt say what you just said. It makes you look like a lying liberano scumbag!!!!!

Oh and ted your little trick hasnt gotten me or anyone else with enough brain to breath to click on your link to your commie webpage either.

Does it matter? BTW, Hitler's Germany allowed private ownership of factors of production within a command economy. Though the NAZI party was known as "national socialism," Hitler hated anything remotely close to commumism. Yes, the far right has a big body count, but it doesn't rate the extreme left, Stalin, Pol Pot, and on ..

Some people equate fascism with authoritarianism or totalitarianism. They are usually that too, maybe always. But fascism is a drill down of nationalism, so in its classical sense, fascism gives us ugly derivatives such as ethnic cleansing. Again, so did attempts at collectivism.

I've never read meinkomf. But I can provide references in Mein Kampf for every one of the quotations provided, and not one of them is out of context.

In fact, I could link to an English-language version, but out of respect for Kate I won't. Easily found on-line, though.

Sorry, guys, revise history as you will, but Hitler was profoundly conservative

OMG, Dr. Dawg...you're getting to be a little selective there aren't you? Kinda like that there MSM?

I have read Mein Kampf. Hardest thing I ever tried to read. Not so much because of objectionable material...but because it is the mindless ranting of a retard. The copy I had included a warning from the translator that said essentially, "Some rants are sentences that go for an entire paragraph with many thoughts juxtaposed together; making them difficult to understand. This is not a result of translation. A German reader studying the original publication would have the same trouble following the thoughts."

You have pulled Volume 2 - Chapter 4 quotes that attempt to push the liberal view that Hitler was conservative (because he rails against Marxism here more than anywhere else). I am not going to get pulled into this game...but there are just as many (and probably more) examples of his attacks on the business elite. He hated everyone.

Oh and BTW...I imagine that you (like most) think that Mein Kampf was considered to be some sort of Nazi bible. It wasn't. The feelings of most Germans...even Hitler's most ardent supporters can be generally summarized as being, "Hitler's a great guy...too bad about that stupid book."

Nice try though.

Ted - I will acknowledge you to be a master of the false dilemma. My statement was clear: Political philosophies do not form a linear continuum. That's the top-down view. Let's go the other way...

Read carefully, OK, because this is your fundamental problem...

People can begin from fundamentally opposed philosophical/ideological positions, yet end up with specific commonalities (hint - this is why democracy sort of works). That partial equivalence does not imply ideological agreement. This is a false premise.

Not only does the end not justify the means, but the means do not justify the beginning.

Think, man!

Hey Everyone...CHECK THIS OUT.

Check out Dr. Dawg's quotes from Mein Kampf at 2:50pm in this thread...

...Then, check out his post from October 2005 at 3w.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/002814.html#c31346.

BUSTED! Get some new material, buddy.

"Busted?" How so? It's the same discussion.

Ted, Hitler's regime was most certainly a small government and had no gun control. Muahahahaha!

Ted,

You're deluded.

First off, if you think the Nazis were anti-big government you're on crack.

Second, Hitler was anti-catholic until he decided it was useful to pretend otherwise.

No Gun control? Are you serious? All totalitarian regimes ban guns. Hitler registered the guns in Germany before confiscating them. I'm no gun nut but come off it.

Racism is universal. Shared with a lot of both left and right all the way up to... now. Ask the Ukrainians how the Ethnic Russians treated them... We have a group of upper-class, socialists on our $50 bills (there for PC reasons) who shared a love of Eugenics with Tommy Douglas and Hitler.

Fascists don't hate government. They hate the old-moneyed privileged people who ran governments. Commies hated capitalists. Both hate those above them and with to crush them and replace them. It is a power-envy. They hate who they see having power and they want to use the state's power for themselves. They are both loser ideologies. They are failures who think that "those people" (and fill in a scapegoat at random for who "those people" are for any given set of losers,) are responsible for their failures. Both competing forms of totalitarian socialism are envy driven by power-hungry and angry losers who want to control society and force their preferences onto the rest of us. The reason why they both lead to mass graves is the hate and perception of payback.

How "progressive" was Stalin exactly? How many woman leaders did the USSR have? Cambodia? Or Canada for that matter. How many Women have led the Liberal party. Fricken jackass.

Your definitions are absurd. Most of your attributes are either shared widely or non-existent/non-applicable.

Oh, and for voting records, look up "Dixiecrats." The KKK is a Democrat, leftist, socialist cable of inbred idiots. That they are white and Christian is incidental to the fact they are losers that fear being left behind. You may want to look up Robert Byrd for an example.
In 1975, Duke sought a seat in the Louisiana State Senate as a Democrat. In 1988, he ran in the Democratic Party primary for President of the United States. After a poor showing in the Democratic primaries, he appeared on many state ballots as the nominee of the Populist Party and received 47,047 votes in the 1988 general election.
Today's right is the polar opposite of both fascism and communism. Clearly you don't understand history or politics and seem incapable of analysing facts.

Oh, by the way, what was the Hitler's party called? NSDAP, National-Socialist German Worker's Party if I am not mistaken. Good try though!

Busted in that, like most liberals, you have no original thought and no new ideas. You recycle the exact same selective "evidence" and hope that, by repeating it again and again, it will become truth.

I'm even willing to bet that you were given those quotes and references (good old "received wisdom")...seeing as you never read what you are citing as a source.

You give everyone a good example of how your ilk work. Don't investigate...don't read...don't think...and don't come up with any conclusions yourself based on ALL of the fact.

You just use the same stuff you've been given over and over again.

When reading the comments above I'm truly sorry that they were not posted earlier, before this years Darwin Awards had been listed. Ted and a few others would surely have received Honourable mention. Why is it that people that are supposedly educated can't do a simple Google search before they shoot their mouths off. By the way Ted, Hitler was a strong proponent for gun control and a lot of his friends were openly gay, Ernst Rohm for one.

Conservative (definition) - resistant to change

Dawg - Hilter was conservative?! Possibly. But only AFTER he was the unquestioned dictator. And even then, it's more accurate to say he was progressive (see Ted, I too can play the game)

Dawg,

You too are a twit. Google "racist democrats"

Or Liberal PM King saying that "none is too many"

Or...

Equality? Give your head a shake. Learn some history.

You leftards take every bad trait people had in the past (however widely shared) and attribute it to the "right" then take all of the noble traits and claim them for yourselves. Then because you claim all this garbage, you think it has become a fact. Well, facts don't arrange themselves to your high opinion of yourself.

You delusional halfwits think you're fricken saints or some sh*t like that. Come on!

Anti-Semitism was alive and well on both sides but stayed in the left while the biggest defenders of the Jews and the state of Israel is exclusively right. But I don't claim this was always so. Anti-Semitism was virtually universal in the past and is making a comeback on the left. Especially on Campus, the BBC/CBC and the EU (land of socialist Eurotrash.)

...and like all liberanos adolf didnt win, he stole the leadership of germany, it wasnt even his country he was born in austria. Its amazing what subterfuge and strong-arm tactics can do.

You know, there's a reason that Godwin's law exists...

Susan Delacourt on Adler trashing Dion.

The media free pass is officially cancelled.

What makes you guys think that the Dixiecrats were "left-wing"? Good grief, obey your own injunctions and read a little history.

Incidentally, "bryceman," I have indeed read Mein Kampf, and I found those quotations, hardly selective, for myself--quotations that all the bluster and name-calling here (such phenomena are always in inverse proportion to the facts available to conservatives, it appears)will not erase from history.

Warwick, Aaron, Tenebris, others...

Let me repeat this yet again since it is not sinking in.

The topic, or at least part of it, is about today's neo-Nazis/Holocaust deniers and whether they can be called right, which clearly they are. I started out by saying that I am NOT trying to start ANY discussion about whether Hitler was right-wing or left-wing. The views I listed are views and opinions shared in common by today's neo-Nazis and right wingers. That is all and that is pretty irrefutable.

Jeez Louise. No wonder Jean Harper is trying to distance himself from you types.

Ted

Stephen @1:24: Kinsella won't wade in to those waters...He squirmed out of it saying it was 'adequately covered by others'(his explaination to me)...real brave one there...goes on TV with his Barney doll, but doesn't 'see' the anti-Jew goings on at the conference...

I thought this thread was about the shallow interview of Dion by Seamus. As to Hitler, he was just an evil guy who hated everyone. I think everyone regardless of political stripe would agree with me there.

Back to Canada AM... did anyone see Giggles Taber on the show last week?

She read a statement from Gerrard Kennedy saying that he had made a mistake in accusing the CPC of using government money to fund the Dion ads. She then couldn't resist adding her own liberal spin by saying, "So Kennedy's original statements were not completely true"

Then Jeff Hutchison jumps in and says "Wait - Don't you mean totally untrue?"

Then there is this awkward silence where Giggles tries to find a way out. She then blathers on about federal parties getting cash back based on percentage of popular vote ...etc

All I could say was "Way to go Jeff!!!"

Hey Dawg...

I didn't call anyone names...and my point still stands. Your selective quotes are the only examples you have. You obviously didn't just rewrite them. You obviously keep them handy to try and repeat and re-use until you can convince people that you're educated and give an honest assessment.

You didn't fool anyone. No one here is convinced by your attempts to say "Hitler was a right-winger."

My only point is that you are trying to not exactly re-write history...just erase the parts (which constitutes the majority of the evidence) that goes against your views.

I bit off topic on the thread here, but whenever I see a media commentator use the term right wing, hard right, extreme right etc in describing the Conservatives and Harper I send the following question. Columnist such as Wells, Ivison, Martin, Coyne, Ibbitson, Simpson are all very good at responding to emails, but none will answer this question.

"Perhaps you as a media professional can answer this for me. Why is it that the media allows the left (Liberals) to define the political spectrum in Canada?

The Liberals since Truduea have continued to move ever leftward. Yet a result of that movement is that the Conservatives, who ideologically have remained more static ( and have actually drifted somewhat left over the same time period) get called "hard right"?? Shouldn't the Liberals be called " hard left"?

Compare Canada to Australia, New Zealand, and the US, countries with a shared birthright and our common mother Great Britain. Canada as a result of almost 40 years of Liberal rule (with a short stint of Red Tory rule) is more left than all of them, and "da traditional Canadian values" as M. Chretien would say, would place Liberals on the far left of the political spectrum in any of them.

Chretiens majority governement passed a motion in the HOC upholding the traditional definition of marriage in 1999. Was he or his governement right wing?

So I would ask what yardstick the national media uses that allows them to paint the Liberals, despite their continous leftward march, as somehow centrist and the Conservatives - as you did - right wing?

What is it about people that seems to make them want to dichotomize things? It seems the MSM, for one, can't get past the "right" "left" dichotomy which is meaningless when applied to most people. The libertarian party has a better idea with their "world's smallest political quiz", but this is basically the right/left 1D mapping expanded to 2 dimensions. To properly characterize an individuals political views one would need to plot their position as a point in an N dimensional space where N>>3. Korzybski lays the blame for our propensity to dichotomize squarely at Aristotle's feet and reading Korzybski's writings on non-Aristotelean systems is a lot more usefull than reading Mein Kampf.

The artifacts that result from mapping clouds of points in an N-dimensional space to a 1D line may make for interesting arguments, but these arguments will never be resolved as much of the information has been lost during this transformation. Many of the political arguments are analagous to arguing over the location of a shadow in a chest xray which no-one does anymore since a CT scan will precisely delineate the 3D position of the suspicious mass.

Oh goodie, another wing debate. This subject is fresh in my mind after my daughter called me "right wing" at Xmas, and an old friend, who loves Suzuki and Lewis, called me "extreme right wing". I'm a hard-core libertarian in reality.

Let's face it: "right wing" in popular discourse today is merely code language for demonizing people who believe that private solutions are usually more effective than government solutions.

The far left-far right poles only work within a strictly totalitarian spectrum: far left meaning state ownersip of the means of production, far right meaning nominal private ownersip but under total state control. The same thing, really, as the commie romantics who went off to Spain in 36 to fight fascism soon learned. They are merely different styles of totalitarianism.

The problem with labelling people who consider themselves conservative or libertarian -- and who are mainly energized by a desire for smaller government -- as "rightist", is that the ideological spectrum fails: to go further and further "right" would mean less and less government not more and more which is where fascism goes.

Von Mises made a great point in Socialism. Fascism arises when socialists lack the appetite to put into play the forces necessary to realize their objectives. So socialists, then, are sorta ineffective sissy, panty-waist or nancy-boy fascists, eh?

I would describe most of today's totalitarians as fascist, including the FruitFlyGuy Suzuki. After all the failed experiments no one has the chutzpah today to recommend state ownership.

Statist and Privatist might be better labels. Or statist and devolutionist?

Warwik .... you are unfortunately, wasting your time.
You are casting pearls before swine and it will do you no good. These unfortunates you wish to debate are only here to toss a load of crap at Kate and run away to giggle or to perform aping dances at the safe distance the web affords them.

They should be confined to sitting in their own basements to perfect their thumbsucking technique but are allowed to roam as they will without any regard for learning or wisdom.

A veritable pack of monkeys as in The Jungle Book!

bryceman:

No, you avoided name-calling, which makes you stand out, but you are still prone to shrill accusations.

The discussion here is identical to the one in which I first posted those quotations. Want more?

It must never be forgotten that nothing really great in this world has ever been achieved through coalitions, but that such achievements have always been due to the triumph of the individual.

If it be denied that races differ from one another in their powers of cultural creativeness, then this same erroneous notion must necessarily influence our estimation of the value of the individual. The assumption that all races are alike leads to the assumption that nations and individuals are equal to one another.

Therefore on the völkisch principle we cannot admit that one race is equal to another. By recognizing that they are different, the völkisch concept separates mankind into races of superior and inferior quality. On the basis of this recognition it feels bound in conformity with the eternal Will that dominates the universe, to postulate the victory of the better and stronger and the subordination of the inferior and weaker. And so it pays homage to the truth that the principle underlying all Nature's operations is the aristocratic principle and it believes that this law holds good even down to the last individual organism. It selects individual values from the mass and thus operates as an organizing principle, whereas Marxism acts as a disintegrating solvent.

Plenty more where than came from: an outright rejection of the notion of equality, a fetishism of the individual. All good conservative stuff.

There can be no confusion of this sort of thing with anything remotely left-wing. You would do well to heed your own advice and read the book, rather than accuse others of not having done so.

"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions." --Adolf Hitler

(Speech of May 1, 1927

Ted - re your 3.40

Little words now...

Left and right are not good labels. Stop using them.

Ted,

"today's neo-Nazis/Holocaust deniers and whether they can be called right"

There is a difference between should call and can call.

You lefties label whoever you are supposed to hate right. The MSN, the lefty professors in the humanities on campus and the left in general have done an amazing job at influencing the language.

There is nothing at all "right" about holocaust denial. The neo-Nazi types have nothing at all to do with the right. The only reason you believe them to be "right" is because you wrongly equate racism with the right and neo-nazis are racist. Ergo, you equate neo-nazis with the right. Your first error is assuming racism = right. The rest of your logic falls apart from there.

Nazis were:

Anti-Capitalist

Anti-Smoking

Pro-Animal Rights

Pro-Gun Control

Pro-Abortion

Pro-HOMOSEXUAL (yes, it's true)

Pro-Euthanasia

Does that sound conservative to you?

Don't believe it?

http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/

Ted, No you implied that the David Duke types were drawn to the Republicans which is historically false. Totalitarians are drawn to power from whatever the source. Witness the Liberals spinning their principles to keep themselves in power. That, Ted is the type of slur you made.

C'mon guys, quit feeding that troll Ted. He's just come in from the cold...

Therefore on the völkisch principle we cannot admit that one race is equal to another. By recognizing that they are different, the völkisch concept separates mankind into races of superior and inferior quality. On the basis of this recognition it feels bound in conformity with the eternal Will that dominates the universe, to postulate the victory of the better and stronger and the subordination of the inferior and weaker.

"Plenty more where than came from: an outright rejection of the notion of equality, a fetishism of the individual. All good conservative stuff."

Since we're already pretty far off-tangent as far as this topic goes, I thought I might as well mention how the words you quote mesh well with the kind of attitude that accepts abortion as a type of class-warfare between those accepted as being 'human' and those who are somehow 'subhuman'.

"There can be no confusion of this sort of thing with anything remotely left-wing."

Unfortunately, I do find myself making many parallels here between left-wing abortion dogma and the words of Mein Kampf.

Ed, I think you were right to call Godwin earlier.

Ted; "Hitler was for small government."????

WTF and Holycrap

Do all liberals call Nazi Germany,.... small government ?

"spot the difference between George Galloway, a British Member of Parliament and recent visitor to Damascus, where he said this on state television:

I was re-elected despite all the efforts made by the British government, the Zionist movement and the newspapers and news media which are controlled by Zionism.

… and David Duke, the white supremacist and former Ku Klux Klan “Grand Wizard”, also on a visit to Damascus where his speech was covered by state television:

It hurts my heart to tell you that part of my country is occupied by Zionists, just as part of your country, the Golan Heights, is occupied by Zionists. The Zionists occupy most of the American media and now control much of American government." From Anglicans for Israel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Galloway

I'd just like to point out to Dawg that all people are NOT created equal. A child born to an overweight, alcoholic, smoking parent who feeds the child formula is at a distinct disadvantage from the outset when compared to a child born to a non-smoking, non-drinking, fit mother who breastfeeds. However, in a society where all members are viewed as having the POTENTIAL to be equal, and are given equal OPPORTUNITY, it is quite possible for the disadvantaged to succeed despite their initial disadvantage. Of course, to do so requires a desire to do so, and comes down to the individual's own will to succeed.

Fisher: Where did I say that Hitler was for small government? I said today's neo-nazis are generally anti-government/in favour of small government. I haven't said a word about the politics of Hitler.

Frankly, I don't know or care if today's neo-nazis share much in common with Hitler other than his racism. In Kate's post the issue was raised about whether Holocaust deniers/neo-nazis can justifiably be called right wing. And obviously they are. Not because of their racism. Racism is absolutely and most definitely a reality along all spectrums of thought, certainly not just the right. But because of the general beliefs and values neo-nazis hold. Which is why I gave a whole laundry list of examples of why today's neo-nazis are clearly and irrefutably right-wing extremists.

Such as:
- no/little immigration
- immigration from only certain countries
- for many, white Christian supremacy
- small government/anti-government
- strong military
- strongly anti-communist
- strongly anti-gay (shared with social conservatives but not necessarily economic conservatives)
- no gun control
- man as leader/woman at home
- certainly very opposed to anything politically correct
- oppose most every progressive/liberal program or initiative
- oppose hate laws (though this is shared by many ideological groups)
- strong, all abiding nationalism

... and so on and so on and so on... all basic, generally held views of your typical neo-nazi.

I honestly thought - no, I'll be more charitable - I for certain know that conservatives are way smarter than you lot are demonstrating, at least way better readers.

C'mon folks, every now and then allow a little fragment of reality to enter into your hatred for all things non-conservative.

(p.s. I love Doug's comment that Hitler's Nazis were pro-gay. Loved 'em so much they sent them to the gas chambers!)

Nazis were "pro-abortion" and pro-gay?

Nope.

10 October 1936
The Reichsfuhrer-SS and Head
of the German Police at the Reich
Ministry of the Interior
SV 1 24/36g
Secret!
Not to be printed in the RMBliV

To: the Secret State Police Bureau, Berlin
the Prussian Land Criminal Police Bureau, Berlin
all regional and local headquarters of the State Police in the Reich all regional and local headquarters of the Criminal Police in the Reich

Subject: Combating homosexuality and abortion
The serious danger to population policy and public health represented by the still relatively high number of abortions which are a major violation
of the fundamental National Socialist world-view, as well as the homosexual activity of a not inconsiderable layer of the population which
poses one of the greatest dangers to the youth, requires more than before the effective combating of these scourges.

1. the handling of the above mentioned offenses is essentially the responsibility of local police.
2. in order to ensure uniform guidelines for central registration and for effective combating of these offenses, I hereby establish within the
Prussian Land Criminal Police Bureau a: Reich Office for the Combating of Homosexuality and Abortion [... list of reporting details deleted for brevity]

On behalf of:
signed Heydrich

Source: Hidden Holocaust? by Gunter Grau (translated by Patrick Camiller), Cassell, New
York, New York, 1995 (original German edition Fischer Taschenbuch Verlag GmbH, Frankfurt am Main, 1993)

Plenty more where that came from too.

Keep spinning Ted, you started out implying that David Duke types were drawn to the Republican Party and by implication slurred all republicans as being anti semites when the facts indicate otherwise. Does that mean only thieves can join the Liberals? They may all be thick but I really don't think they're all thieves.

The Pink Swastika:

http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id12.html

Read this, and then come back and claim that Nazis were not Leftists.

On the contrary DDT. Clearly there are anti-semites in all parties. I'd hazard to say there are probably more anti-semites on the left than the right, but I've never seen anyone documenting that.

Again, slowly this time, it is not the racism of the neo-nazis that makes them right wing. Repeat, it is not the racism of the neo-nazis that makes them right wing.

Keep at it. It will start to sink in eventually.

Although maybe not.

Ted

Ted you still don't get or choose to ignore it. You imply David Duke and by extention the GOP are associated with the KKK. The facts show otherwise and you continue to ignore them and not admit your slur. I know racists come in all political strip and colour. Don't forget the "greatest canadian" was a eugenics proponent.

Dr. Dawg:

None of your new quotes have anything to do with conservatism. They just don't. It seems to me that you have taken your pre-conceived notion of conservatism...then picked up Hitler's rant-mag and went through it and thought, "Yeh...uh-huh...here's a thought that's weird...must be conservative. And because the stuff about not liking Marxism is there...that's proof it's conservative."

Yes, conservatives are anti-Marxism. But, you can't simply say, "if A and B don't like C, then A must equal B." That is not a valid argument.

Conservatives are against what Marx stood for...but NOT what he stood against - which was the lack of competition...the idea that only a few should have all of the money/power and collude on business matters. Republicans and Conservatives are anti-monopoly too. Marx favored revolution - which when carried out in the USSR failed miserably. Conservatives favored reform - which in the case of the US was a success. Both wanted change from the status quo.

Folks who argue postions like you are arguing when you try to categorize an historical bad-man as having a particular slant are not looking at the position of the person you are analyzing...you're simply looking for loose threads and hints of ideas of what they may have been for or against on a particular issue and trying to make one group equal another as a result.

Conservatives (Republicans) are against affirmative action. So, is the KKK. In your mind, that makes the two the same. But, from Wikipedia...

The Republican Party was established in 1854 by a coalition of former Whigs, Northern Democrats, and Free-Soilers who opposed the expansion of slavery and held a vision for modernizing the United States. The new party was created as an act of defiance against what activists denounced as the Slave Power—the powerful class of slaveholders who were conspiring to control the federal government and to spread slavery nationwide. The party founders adopted the name "Republican," echoing the 1776 republican values of civic virtue and opposition to aristocracy and corruption.

I threw out my copy of Mein Kampf years ago...but I know that there are just as many anti-business and anti-capitalist thoughts in there. Note that I have not claimed the opposite of what you are saying...I am not saying that Hitler was left (even though I could give plenty of examples that would make it seem that way if I used the same thought process as you).

He was a freak. Pure and simple. Trying to lend credibility to your argument by using the techniques you are using won't make him anagolous to conservatism.

Harper has done nothing but spend like a drunken sailor since taking office a year ago. Federal spending is up well above inflation. He appointed a moderate to the supreme court, created a childcare program, and increased immigration. The gun registry isn't going anywhere, income taxes actually went up for many.

This is far right? It wouldn't hurt the credibility of some to concede that Canada looks much the same as it did a year+ ago under the Liberals. Harper's not even moderate-right or centre-right; in actual reality he is centre, bordering on centre-left. The Tory strategy is to be "just a hair to the right" of the Liberals, notwithstanding the nonsense about Harper being an ideologue, so this is unsurprising.

So right wing politics = NAZI !
And that is because a NAZI wrote some Right Wingish bullcrap along with a lot of other garbage.

If you think this is a logical conclusion to draw then you are a complete idiot or simply a shallow socialist minded provocateur.
Go back to sucking your thumb!

Um, DDT, David Duke WAS associated with the KKK.

In fact, he was a "Grand Wizard" of the KKK.

In 1975 he ran for the Democrats in Louisiana. I don't know if you can accurately call the Louisiana state Democrats left wing or right wing in 1975. The party re-alignment along more ideological lines among southern Dems that started in the 1960s with the civil rights movement was still evolving. The same re-alignment that results in Byrd, also a southern Democrat and also a former KKK. During the 1980s, that re-alignment was basically established with the Reagan revolution and Duke ran for the Republicans in 1988.

The growth of neo-nazism/white supremacists that Duke represents also rose dramatically in the 1980s and into the 1990s. These neo-nazis were clearly right-wing, though most would probably not have been Republican or aligned with any party, and right wing because of the beliefs they held other than their racism.

Duke also, by the way and no surprise, is a friend and supporter of Ernst Zundel and thinks he is a political prisoner.

So there you go DDT. I addressed your off-topic issue and even brought it back or close to the original topic.

Bottom line, today's neo-nazis are right wing. Doesn't mean there are racists or terrorists or haters or totalitarians of other kinds and stripes on the left. Obviously there are, just look at Castro and Sasha Trudeau's admiration of him. So the left definitely has its wacko extremists. It just happens that one of your wacko extremists are the neo-nazis.

Ted

Ted: Again, slowly this time, it is not the racism of the neo-nazis that makes them right wing. Repeat, it is not the racism of the neo-nazis that makes them right wing. Keep at it. It will start to sink in eventually. Although maybe not.

If only one could create animated Venn diagrams in the comments section of this blog.

Just after the civil war in the US the disgruntled southern DEMOCRATS set up an organization, do you know what it is?

Oh yeah, and Lincoln was a republican. Remember him? Hes the guy that freed the slaves.

I thought Dion's drivel too pathetic to comment on but I see he has cheerleaders trolling SDA to "interpret" his paranoid slanderous rantings.

First, to Dijon anyone who hasn't a hysterical illconcieved socially balcanizing agenda is a right wing extremist.

Secondly, in the stark realities of political discourse when you become so vacant of counter points you are reduced to calling your opponent "hitler" or liken him to a similar tyrant-murderer "right wing extremist" you have lost the debate and your credibility....this seems to escape Borat Dijon the more virulent left. Obviously the fanatic LPC left have their hand up Dijon's tuchas moving his lips.

But with all the partisan hissing and spitting aside, a "extremist" is self evident...and the more the public see of Dijons truely bizarre ideas,in contrast with Harper's reasoned practical approach just exactly who the "exremist" is will become quite evident.

Now run along Steffie and go tank the economy of a country I don't live in with your moonbat ideas.

If Hitler came from the right, then why do today's Nazis (Islamo-Fascists) get all their support from the left?

Ted Like a good little lawyer you continue to ignore the facts you don't like. Duke last ran a republican in 1999. Here comes the big question when you said " And just look at their voting patterns and which parties they run for when that is made discernible, David Duke being only the most obvious." Were you talking about the democrats or the GOP and who were you trying to slur by associating? You brought it up and still haven't answered. You're great at claiming drive by slurs execpt when you make them yourself.

The use of "right-wing" and "far right-wing" and "extreme right-wing" terminology by the media and liberals and socialists is OBVIOUSLY intended as an attempt to denigrate Conservatives...it is not, by any stretch of the imagination, representative of where the Conservatives fall on the "ill-defined" political spectrum.

Linking nazism and neo-nazism to "right-wing" is just another attempt to reinforce the negative image. Don't pretend it is anything other than that.

Although apparently no one believes that Wikipedia is to be believed, it states that it is GENERALLY held that Hitler was right-wing, but it also states quite clearly that the use of a left-right political spectrum is clearly deficient and particularly so in terms of Hitler and nazism.

Try this, Ted...it is GENERALLY held that lawyers are scum-sucking leeches who should all be hung, yet some feel that this is an unfair representation. I will use this as a parallel for the Hitler / right-wing discussion.

So, I would tend to agree with bryceman and Ed Minchau...arguing as to whether nazism is left or right is a fools errand.

With the ever-so-minimal introduction I was ever given to the political spectrum it was described (as I recall) as running from reactionary to conservative to liberal to revolutionary from right-to-left. Running from those resistant to change (reactionary) to those adamant for change (revolutionary). This is wholy inadequate to describe the current political "spectrum", in my opinion.

Do we have to go so far as to dividing up the worlds' worst criminals and despots between the Liberal's side and the Conservative's side? Let's just drop it, shall we? No one will win with that argument...and a nasty argument it would be.

As for Kate's posting, it was in response to the "innocent" sequencing of stories discussing "right-wing", "far right-wing" and "far right-wing" when referring to Harper and Zundel. The likely intent of CTV, and the almost-certain inference that viewers would get, is that Harper and the Conservatives are equivalent to Zundel and Nazis. I say it was their likely intent because, you know, there can only be so many coincidences before it can't be considered a coincidence anymore.

Ted, I know you've held that there is no bias or an equal bias in the media...but the "left-wing" bias is getting so transparent now that I would think that even you would have difficulty maintaining that position. Just check out today's CBC story on Peter McKay and the "arse-licking Satan worshipper" clip that HAD to be included for some reason...when a quote like that would NEVER be included in a story about a Liberal. Check out the media non-response to Holland's "NEP2" statements versus the media's running of Harpers 5-year old letter on Kyoto.

I mean, really...if you can't see it, you're either blind or foolish or completely partisan.

Oh for the love of Pete, DDT. I'm not normally one to get into some personal swipes here but you are a little slow today, aren't you?

1. Neo-nazis and white supremecists like David Duke and Ernst Zundel are right wing because they hold firmly to many of the common beliefs of most right wingers, as listed above, albeit way more extremely than most on the right would accept.

2. The Republican Party, starting in the 1960s and definitely by Reagan, was an ideologically right wing party.

3. It is not surprising that a David Duke and his ilk would find a warmer home in the Republican Party than the Dems because of the shared right wing views.

4. That does not mean that I think every right winger is a racist or that Republicans are more inclined to be racists. Indeed, Bush Sr. and other Republicans spoke out against Duke (although many spoke in his favour as well). So nice try.

I could have the same about an extremist - and racists - like Farkuhan and the Democrats.

It's not like this is a live debate, DDT. It shouldn't be so hard to keep up.

Is anybody going to answer the trivia question?

Thanks Ted. If you are going to be slimy at least say what you mean.

Ed Minchu, maz2 et al,

Conventional reasoning behind the terming of the Nazis as right wing and communist/socialists as left wing rests on the segment of population the regimes get their support. The Nazis had the support of the rich, upper class and business folk. The socialists generally rely on grassroots/worker support. The Nazis had strong links with all the major business houses of their day. A socialist would probably have shut them down.

Thats usually the technical ground used to provide these definitions, anyway.

Dawg: nazis are conservatives and harper is a conservative therefore a Nazi :)

Interesting viscerally construted syllogism. The same dyslexic logical construct would, by extention, state:

Stalinists are socialists Dion is a socialist therefore a Stalinist.

by your rationale there are 2 brands of tyranny to chose from in Canada.

I can understand how if you repeat delusional mantras like this they become part of your personal reality....but obviously it is not part of universal realies.

There is nothing more pathetic than a dogmatic leftoid finger pointing "nazi" at anything he disagrees with....truely sad Dawg. What's it feel like to commit intellectual suicide every time you appear at SDA

Eeyore: Even Stephen Taylor how put up the linked to post didn't think it was deliberate or a sign of bias.

You can cite anecdotes but you choose to ignore just as many anecdotes. Like, oh, I don't know, today's "liberal-biased" Globe front page, top of the fold article with the screaming across the whole page headline: "Tories surge on Harper leadership" based upon a poll that shows Harper with a measly 4% lead on Dion. Or the constant attacking of Dion in the Sun papers. Or the regurgitation of Harper press releases in the Post or CTV national broadcast. Or the entire last election. Or the coverage John Tory is getting and McGuinty has never gotten (CTV even interviewed Tory in a favourable light on a nothing municipal tax story the other day).

If you want to see bias, you'll find bias. But you have to ignore a whole lot more to conclude overriding bias.

Ted: We may not be allies after all.

The party re-alignment along more ideological lines among southern Dems that started in the 1960s with the civil rights movement was still evolving. The same re-alignment that results in Byrd, also a southern Democrat and also a former KKK.

This alignment actually started at the time of Reconstruction,in fact, before: Lincoln was a Republican. The word "Democrat" has simply never meant "left-wing" south of the Mason-Dixie line (and, at least in my view, seldom north of it either).

I'd hazard to say there are probably more anti-semites on the left than the right, but I've never seen anyone documenting that.

And no wonder--it's arrant rot, the New McCarthyism of the right-wing. The word, which once had meaning, has just become a synonym for "critical of Israel."

bryceman: Surely you would agree that emphasis on the individual, the notion of social darwinism, and opposition to homosexuality and abortion, are positions not commonly found on the Left.

As this is a post partly about Stephane Dion claiming, like some ultra-leftist zombie parroting talking points, that Conservatives are "far right", I'd like to bring everyone's attention to the kind of dangerous extremism found attached to Dion and the Liberals:

http://thecanadiansentinel.blogspot.com/2007/02/islamists-pulling-lib-leader-dions.html

I understand that Dion's Liberals are pulling out the stops lately to attempt to demonize the Conservatives at every possible opportunity, desperate to slow their rapid descent in electoral esteem, grasping at whatever they can... it isn't as if they have anything to use against the Conservative gov't that they can back up with concrete evidence.

Therefore, I shall fight back. The Liberals are once again nasty as ever, if not nastier than ever, so they brought it upon themselves.

Vicious. Caustic. The gloves are off. No punches pulled. Ok, then.

All's fair...

Ted said "...right wing because they hold firmly to many of the common beliefs of most right wingers..."

You don't listen, do you? Using your logic, I could turn Harper into a card-carrying communist.

To the fool who accused me of calling Harper a Nazi:

That's a lie. Plain and simple. Reading comprehension should be mandatory over here, even if that would cut down the comments at SDA significantly.

Quote: If Hitler came from the right, then why do today's Nazis (Islamo-Fascists) get all their support from the left?

Because the Islmofascists are against democracy, freedom, capitalism (the market economy and most especially the great and little satans the US and Israel -- a marriage of convenience which the left thinks it'll bail out of just in time.

But today's left is really fascist, i,e, wanting not state ownership but rather total control of the economy via domestic and international regulation. The EU, for example, is now exporting thousands of laws into their so-called sovereign member states (including the UK) where they are swallowed whole. It is a fascist supra-state.

As someone mentioned above the labels "left" and "right" are no longer useful.

It's really better to characterize people as "statist" or "individualist". Or "interventionist" or free market-oriented.

Ted you aact like a typical leftist who has to label and pidgeon hole the philisophical spectrum to make sense of the world.

Conservative thought in the free democracies has nothing in common with Nazi economics or race based politics...so get a grip and stop trying to promote the guit through association ploy...this is intellectually dishonest...If you are indeed a member of the bar I suspect you never sense an ethical problem with misrepresentation until you're busted.

"The word "Democrat" has simply never meant "left-wing" south of the Mason-Dixie line (and, at least in my view, seldom north of it either)."

I guess that's what I meant, Dawg. After about the 1960s, Democrat did start to mean left wing (or lefter wing) across the whole party and further it meant left wing on social issues not just New Deal economics.

As for the left being more anti-semitic, it's not just about Israel and it's not just a right wing spin. Farkuhan and other leaders on the left are virulently anti-semitic. It is so ingrained and accepted in some parts that even Jesse Jackson can breathe the words "himie" and still be a leader. I did not say that the right is empty of anti-semites. Dawg, we have to look in the mirror sometimes and point the light in the shadows.

Yep, if I was the leader of an ultra-right wing party, I'd certainly name it the National Socialist Worker's Party, and I'd set to nationalizing industries, and I'd talk about the "volk", and...

Aw, forget it.

Back to CTV's coverage, and related issues: It's strange how the Conservatives' criticisms of the Liberals, based entirely on the Liberals' record, and on their own ongoing, over-the-top hypocrisy on almost every single issue, tend to either be expunged from coverage, or else dissolved in "analysis" -- i.e. a reporter's take on the minutiae of buffet conversations -- while the Liberals' specious slurs and insinuating warnings are delivered coast-to-coast, one way or another, and elaborated on in a sideways manner by reporters at our two GTA-centric networks.

That's why on the matter of that quick pairing of Zundel/Harper, I'm less forgiving than the commendably diplomatic Mr. Taylor is. The pattern has been so consistently in one direction for too long to be a series of unfortunate editing incidents.

When I start seeing repeated instances of Mr. Dion's visage and words being juxtaposed with clips of a maraca-wielding Peter Allen, or of Don Knotts, or Mao, or inspector Clousseau, I'll rethink that position, but in the meantime, "editing mistakes" doesn't quite cover it.

Remember how, during the last election, CBC's website displayed a cartoon drawing of Mr. Harper with his hand in a "zieg heil" position? Their explanation at the time was that they had edited a section of a larger cartoon, which is a complete non-defense, considering that the uncropped cartoon showed the identical image, only smaller.

And when, during CBC's election night coverage, the single word "heil" appeared on a studio monitor for a good length of time, it was explained as a bad edit: the word wasn't "heil", but rather "their". (!) What happened, apparently, was that the "T" and the "R" got cut off, see, and a cursor, which "looks to some people" like a lower case "L", was inserted after the "i"....

Editing. Remember Christina Lawand's specious, partisan slur of an artfully-edited news report which made Mr. Harper appear blithe about the death of innocents? And how, during the election campaign, the National's news story on Alan Cutler's nomination included an onscreen photo of Stephen Harper proximate to one of Sargeant Schultz of "Hogan's Heroes" fame? Was that, too, an editing mistake?

How many times do we have to see specious, groundless attacks on the Conservatives during "news" broadcasts before we start to recognize them as the political/cultural expressions of certain networks?

A currently running, oft-repeated promo-clip for "The Hour" drops the statement "that guy is so far up George Bush's backside it's ridiculous". Hmm, who do you think that might be refering to?

Last Sunday, CBC employee Mary Walsh stood at the podium at CBC's nationally-broadcast East Coast Music Awards and brayed that the Conservatives are "the arse-lickers of Satan".

Ask yourself this: if some drunken slattern of a CBC employee went on national television and called Liberals the arse-lickers of Satan, do you think she might be fired? Do you think CBC might issue an official statement on the matter? And do you think her unsteady performance might be described in news coverage as an "incident" at the ECMA?

Ted:

I've always considered you a pretty bright guy and certainly no troll (and I really wish you would start blogging again) but, in my opinion, you demean yourself by characterizing all those on the right wing of the political spectrum as having the characteristics you posted at 1:26 and then again at 4:53.

I fit into the description of "right-wing" but to attribute all those views that you posted, to me and others of my ilk, is frankly, absurd, untrue and insulting. Heck, I'm not even religious...

I subscribe to something that Dawg posted not that long ago (paraphrasing)...a little more civility in political discussions, a little less dogma and much less pre-conceived notions.

Frankly, the best post I've seen on this thread is bryceman at 2:18. Arguing about whether Hitler was right or left wing is akin to those in the middle ages trying to determine how many angels could fit on the head of a pin. It's absurd. Hitler, Mao and Stalin were, in my estimation, neither left nor right...they were evil, venal leaders of totalitarian regimes who picked whatever "philosophy" served their purpose - that being, obtain and retain power, at any cost.

As an example,characterizing the current PRC leaders as being communists is wrong (I've been to China a couple of times). They're not communists as such, they're essentially a very large crime syndicate with nuclear weapons. They are pragmatic, not dogmatic. You just have to view the cars leaving the Public Security Branch compounds at quitting time to get a feel for it...Lexus, Mercedes and other luxury cars, and given the position of the steering wheels, mostly stolen from the west.

Imn any event Ted, I think you're much smarter than your posts on this thread seem to represent.

'nuff said...

EBD: If I were in serious competition with the Communists, I might indeed pretend that I was offering the workers an alternative. There was nothing remotely left-wing about Hitler, as Mein Kampf makes abundantly clear.

Ted: Sorry if I misunderstood your point about the 1960s Democrats. But isn't the alignment you speak of the very reason that Wallace ran as a third-party candidate?

Where on earth did you get the notion that Farrakhan was left-wing, by the way? That's a stretch to the breaking-point. In fact, it's the first time I've ever heard Farrakhan described so. Bobby Seale used to refer to his kind of politics as "cultural nationalist horseshit," and indeed it is. You're on stronger ground about Jesse Jackson's one recorded ant-Semitic slur, which has haunted him, probably rightly so, since he uttered it--23 years ago.

I lifted this post today from those fine folks at Maggies Farm...ya'all should pay a visit there and say hello.

-2 Questions-

Question 1:If you knew a woman who was pregnant, who had 8 kids already, three who were deaf, two who were blind, one mentally retarded - and she had syphilis, would you recommend that she have an abortion?

Read the next question before looking at the response for this one.

Question 2:It is time to elect a new national leader. Here are the facts about the three candidates.

Candidate A.
Associates with crooked politicians, and consults with astrologists. He's had two mistresses. He also chain smokes and drinks 8 to 10 martinis a day.

Candidate B.
He was kicked out of office twice, sleeps until noon, used opium in college and drinks a quart of whiskey every evening.

Candidate C
He is a decorated war hero. He's a vegetarian, doesn't smoke, drinks an occasional beer and never cheated on his wife.

Which of these candidates would be your choice?
Decide first... then go to Continuation Page for the response.

Candidate A is Franklin D. Roosevelt.
Candidate B is Winston Churchill.
Candidate C is Adolph Hitler.

And, by the way, on your answer to the abortion question:
If you said YES, you just killed Beethoven.

P.S.Forgot to mention that Candidate C is a dog-lover and enjoys bringing them to the mountains and a big Greenie, too. Nature, blood-and-soil, maidens around the village Maypole, neo-pagan Gaia fantasy, all a big feature of the Nazi religion.

In general ... Conservative believe in a reduction of state influence in the lives of the citizens of the state ...

The Nazi movement was a movement of growing governmental involvement in every area of an individual's life ...

The fact is that most dictatorships are far closer to the left in canada (Liberal/NDP) because of their focus on a strong centralized government and governmental involvement in every area of an individual's life ...

Simple way to demonstrate this ... Listen to how most Liberal/NDP members talk about "Evangelical Christians" and then replace "evangelical Christian" with Jew and see who they sound like ...

Let's throw arch-segregationaist Governor George Wallace into this free-for-all. Left-wing or conservative? Hint: He claimed he was the latter, but you know how sneaky the Left is...

Left - right, is a broad brush that means nothing in politics.
It is collectivism where the action is and where only the results count.

"The Nazis are well remembered for murdering well over 11 million people in the implementation of their slogan 'The public good before private good', the Chinese Communists for murdering 62 million people in the implementation of theirs, 'Serve the people' and the Soviet Communists for murdering more than 60 million people in the implementation of Karl Marx's slogan 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs'.
Anyone who defends any of these, or any variation of them, on the grounds of their 'good intentions' is an immoral (not amoral) enabler of the actual road to hell." - Rick Gaber

And speaking of trivia, what country is it that had a Prime Minister for 13 years that was on the public record as supporting the slogan 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs'?

And whose needs exceeded his ability, as it always does with these people.

I also agree that the 'left-right' dichotomy is inadequate (though sometimes useful, in the absence of a better alternative), and that playing partisan hot-potato with the likes of Hitler, Zundel, Stalin, etc. is pointless.

Having said that, recall that the current Conservative Party of Canada is the child of the United Alternative (popularly, the 'Unite the Right') movement. While consolidating various conservative interests under a single party banner has reaped its supporters many benefits -- not least a federal minority government -- it does leave the Conservatives open to accusations that they harbour a secret 'far-right' (typically social) agenda, à la (the more extreme factions of) the Reform Party. Does it, in reality? I dunno -- they never invite me to their super-secret Evil Policy meetings.

In any case, the Conservatives are currently in power, and if they want to stay that way, then insofar as one can conceive of a political 'middle', they have to move there. It's the great reality of governing in federalist Canada -- he (or she) who occupies the centrist role wins the day. But PM Harper knows this -- think income trust tax, think Clean Air Act II.

I happen to agree that a two-dimensional left-right axis is insufficient to characterize one's politics. I assume most people here took that famous quiz with the two axes. I came out as a kind of libertarian, which isn't far off--and in pretty august company, too: Mandela was just a shade away.

But look how this thread got started. Kate put the cat among the pigeons with her post.

Both "left" and "right" are pejoratives, in the hands of each other. But I see in these differing politics a constellation of values and the positions that flow from them. If someone is anti-abortion, anti-gay, pro-individualist, anti-equality, explicitly racialist (and I'm not talking Harper on the last of these, by the way)--how is that person likely to vote, what political alignments would they choose, where would you find them? Not, generally speaking, on the Left.

Let's not obfuscate this further. Yes, the Left has much to answer for, making excuses for the likes of Stalin and Mao (although I never did encounter much love for Pol Pot on the Left, 4except for the circus freaks in CPC-ML). But let's not be ridiculous. Hitler was right-wing, and Canadian neo-Nazis tried to enter the Reform Party--not the NDP.

We all have our crosses to bear, so let's carry them and try to do better, if that isn't doing violence to the image.

"I happen to agree that a two-dimensional left-right axis is insufficient to characterize one's politics."

"But let's not be ridiculous. Hitler was right-wing"

Umm...

Yup. Right-wing vis-a-vis that constellation of values I was talking about. Again: who on the Left shares those values?

Hitler was a statist. I'm not. But there are conservatives who are. More importantly, though, are those pesky values.

As I have said before. When it comes to socialism or communism if you will, compared to nazism of the so called "right".

It really is only a red herring. Both are totalitarian with an earthly Utopia as a paradise forever by social evolution combined with the idea of human transformation into a new form.

Both eat the minds of the young in their Nations. Hitler youth. The young communists Pioneers. Here its done in schools by the mainly leftist school board. Since they don't have absolute power yet.

In the end both destroy capitol , while nationalizing all in collectives. Both for ideology with the surveillance of the population easier as a by product.

As Simon Weisenthal said when he was "Liberated" seven times by both. The Communists first destroy Industry than the intellectuals. Nazis kill the intellectuals first. Than take over Commerce.

Both kill whom ever disagrees with them. One for racial purity the other ideological purity.

I go with the idea their both evil, anti-human systems of mass murder to achieve Utopia at all costs, by all forms of power being in the hands of one individual or cadre of elites. Can we say Chavez, Fidel, Stalin, Mao, Pol pot, & on & on it goes. Monsters in the charnel house of history all.

So in effect you have two similar systems that end up in with the blood of millions writ in suffering. These dogmas have exhausted Europe in a semi-religious conflict based on heaven on Earth stupidities. I see little difference at the outcome for either. They both do not work long term because they deny basic human nature if not genetics.

Remember Both Hitler & Stalin both signed a treaty to destroy Poland. Both made it a killing factory. Both persecuted their own people. One for conformity to terror. The other for “racial cleanliness”

Just my opinion.

One model, the Political Compass (http://politicalcompass.org/analysis2) puts Hitler slightly right of center on the X-axis (Collectivism vs. Libertarianism) just slightly to the right of the axis, but way up the Y axis (Authoritarian vs. Libertarian).

I think most would find this a much better model (though not perfect) than simply Left vs. Right.

I have seen on the web more time wasted per Goodwin's law than anything else, thus I generally decline to get involved in such discussions. However, I do read all the threads at SDA, and I just noticed elsewhere that today's Day by Day cartoon is humerously relevant to the discussion here. I hope you enjoy it:

www.daybydaycartoon.com/2007/02/20/#a004018

Heh... the meanings of "left wing" and "right wing" are purely subjective.

Open to interpretation. And whatever.

Everyone has their own take on the meanings.

Opinions are like arseholes... everybody's got one.

This whole left-right bafflegab fest is silly.

We who use our brains know what's what and who's what.

I see the self-serving, myopic, mentally-disordered opponents of the Conservative government attempting to create a diversion here. To what end... who knows? Who knows what happens in the space within the crania of those opposed to good government, such as the Conservatives are indubitably delivering against all odds?

I laugh at the opponents of the Conservatives. I wish they'd get a bloody life already.

oh yes Dr Dawg just give the liberals more time and history will be revised as it is being done now. Who discovered the new world?. Now it is being seen as more of an invasion/intrusion on the part of those who were once omly aim was looking to explore the world as well as well as looking for other means of trade and commerce.

We're talking about genocide as a tool of the megalomaniacs to attain or retain power. The pathology that enables one to use such a tool does not strike me as being exclusively of the domain of the right, or of the left. Power is power, whether it's accreted through a right, center or left wing ideology. If concentrated in the hands of a sociopath, we've seen the results enough times.

I'm disappointed with the discussion on this post thus far. Whether we are left, right, or center, we should be vigilant about recognizing the conditions under which genocide becomes possible. In my opinion, that is a useful debate. Trying decide if the Hitler smear is better applied to this part of the spectrum or that is futile, and misses the important point. My 1/100 of a toonie.

If someone is anti-abortion, anti-gay, pro-individualist, anti-equality, explicitly racialist .... where would you find them? Not, generally speaking, on the Left(/i>

But even these labels are biased; what you call "anti-gay" may not be anti-gay as such but anti-language-distortion (gay "marriage"), anti-advocacy-in-the-schools (the BC gay couple now vetting school curriculum for good queer vibe).

And as to "explicitly racialist" I consider affirmative action to be "explicitly racialist" but you might call me a "racist" for being against racial preferences.

As for "anti-equality" it would depend on whether you mean "outcomes" or "status before the law". I would say you are anti-liberty if you force me to contribute to someone else's outcomes against my will. So, I "on the right" and might accuse you "on the left" of being "anti-equality".

Labels and semantics.

Who discovered the new world?

Native people, I assume. About 40,000 years BC (Before Columbus).

Your point?

"If you said YES, you just killed Beethoven."

I just love those clever Austrians...for years now, they've managed to convince the world that Beethovan was an Austrian and that Hitler was German...

Dawg said:

"Who discovered the new world?

Native people, I assume. About 40,000 years BC (Before Columbus)."

And you're right. And I can buy into the complaints from the native people that they've been hard done by through government policies (although I think that for $8-10 billion a year we should have seen more prograss...

THat said, all I'm looking for is a simply "thank you" for the introduction of the wheel :)...

Fine thinking, me no dhimmi. Thanks.

"A social system is a code of laws which men observe in order to live together. Such a code must have a basic principle, a starting point, or it cannot be devised. The starting point is the question: Is the power of society limited or unlimited?

Individualism answers: The power of society is limited by the inalienable, individual rights of man. Society may make only such laws as do not violate these rights.

Collectivism answers: The power of society is unlimitied. Society may make any laws it wishes, and force them upon anyone in any manner it wishes." - Ayn Rand

Ok, so now that Canada has had the collectivism crap, and all of its ugly warts and defects, rammed down our throats for the last 40 years, let's try the individualism approach.

Starting with the CWB. Heh.

Maude Barlow will be holding a press conference shortly, she expects the NDP women's caucus to help her comment on how bad this is.

Pakistani minister killed for refusing to wear veil

The Australian
A PAKISTANI government minister and woman's activist has been shot dead by an Islamic extremist for refusing to wear the veil.

"
I've never read meinkomf. But I can provide references in Mein Kampf for every one of the quotations provided, and not one of them is out of context.

In fact, I could link to an English-language version, but out of respect for Kate I won't. Easily found on-line, though.

Posted by: Dr.Dawg at February 20, 2007 3:00 PM
"

"
Incidentally, "bryceman," I have
indeed read Mein Kampf, and I found those quotations, hardly selective, for myself--quotations that all the bluster and name-calling here (such phenomena are always in inverse proportion to the facts available to conservatives, it appears)will not erase from history.

Posted by: Dr.Dawg at February 20, 2007 3:40 PM
"

hmmm...

Incidently - I didn't see anyone answer the trivia(i may have missed it, but it should be pointed out again if that's the case); it's the Liberal Party of Canada

There's a current member of the US Senate,

that was a former member, and GRAND DRAGON, no less, of the KKK.

Guess which party he belongs to? (sorry if it's been pointed out already).

Aw, Jordan, come on. Zundel ran for the leadership of the Liberal Party in 1968. How many votes did he get? Give me a break.

PS: Jordan, I don't understand your commentless juxtaposition of two quotations from me. Do you have a point? If so, spit it out.

Evidence of the oldest occupants in North America are entirely Clovis peoples. - they are not related to the "First Nations" who claim it now. More likely from northern Spain.

Consistantly the oldest fossiled bones in North America are Caucasoid. check out Kennewick man and Clovis . There is always a push for the current "first nations" to reclaim those bones and bury the evidence.

Kate, please kill this thread...this is nauseating.

There is a famous apology regarding Hitler - that "at least he made the trains run on time".

That quote undermines any attempted link to Hitler and the right.

An extreme "right-winger" wouldn't make the trains run on time. He'd consider making the trains run on time to be the proper domain of a competitive free market.

And had Nazi Germany been a true "right wing state", the only Jews who would have been loaded on cattle cars would have been those willing to pay the freight charges up front.

I wish I knew how Paul Bernardo voted. It would do my heart good to be able to describe him as a "left wing" serial killer in the same irrelevant manner the media and the left attach "right wing" to anti-semitic Holocaust deniers.

If nothing else the South American "natives" were in Canada long before the current crop invaded across the Siberian land bridge.

Anybody remember the compensation that was paid?

CBCpravda tonight on the drive home.

Announcement of 140 million on AIDS research. they end it with some "critic" saying it is just an election ploy.CBCpravda is much more free with the radio version of its slant because people dont tend to record it.The website makes sure the election is mentioned first in denial.

If Peter Pansbridge got to be deputy Governor General tommorrow CBCpravda would complain that the "Harper Regime" should have done it yesterday.
I have noticed in the past few days either Borat Dion has said anything or even CBCpravda is afraid to show it. Despite their constant stumping for him, he is down in the polls and he is becoming a glaring error for the lieberals.The Paul Martin story of soliciting party memberships from a declared terrorist group as reported in the Herald this morning didnt make Pravda - they are still keen on the 0.5 ppm of mercury in Tuna.

They [Hitler's National Socialist Party) are most assuredly on the right and share - albeit to an extreme most on the right don't go - far more ideology than anyone on the left.
Hitler might have been to the left of communism but he and his party were unquestionably socialist/leftist. Here's a few reasons:

- Hitler's distaste for Jews
- Hitler's speeches sounded much like Friedrich Engels', an avowed leftist
- the National Socialists adapted their Swastika from the Soviet Swastika worn by the Red Army during and after WWI
- Hitler's distaste for the bourgeois
- his passion for the arts
- he and his gf lived common-law, a rarity back then
- he disliked smoking and took steps to combat it
- he was a vegetarian
- he enacted tough gun control laws
- he advocated euthanasia for the incurably ill
- he thought capitalism was unjust and brutal
- he championed the rights of workers
- he disliked the Catholic Church
- he favored Islam over Christianity
- he imitated the Bolshevist tactics of seizing power
- he favored a one-party state
- he imprisoned political adversaries
- he had concentration camps
- he favored relentless propaganda
- he favored price controls
- he completely removed the bourgeois from control of their businesses--which then came under the control of the state
- his use of the slogan "Gemeinnutz vor Eigennutz" (Common use before Private use)
- he was pro-homosexual; a number of his friends and collaborators were homosexual, and some scholars think he was at least bisexual
- he banned medical experiments on animals
- he signed a non-agression pact with Stalin in 1939--agreeing to invade and "split" Poland

Whose Party policy manifesto do you think this came from?

- The first duty of every citizen must be to work mentally or physically. The activities of the individual may not clash with the interests of the whole, but must proceed within the frame of the community and be for the general good.

Therefore we demand:

- That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished.

- Since every war imposes on the people fearful sacrifices in life and property, all personal profit arising from the war must be regarded as a crime against the people. We therefore demand the total confiscation of all war profits whether in assets or material.

- We demand the nationalization of businesses which have been organized into cartels.

- We demand that all the profits from wholesale trade shall be shared out.

- We demand a land reform in accordance with our national requirements, and the enactment of a law to confiscate from the owners without compensation any land needed for the common purpose. The abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in land

They [Hitler's National Socialist Party) are most assuredly on the right and share - albeit to an extreme most on the right don't go - far more ideology than anyone on the left.
Hitler might have been to the left of communism but he and his party were unquestionably socialist/leftist. Here's a few reasons:

- Hitler's distaste for Jews
- Hitler's speeches sounded much like Friedrich Engels', an avowed leftist
- the National Socialists adapted their Swastika from the Soviet Swastika worn by the Red Army during and after WWI
- Hitler's distaste for the bourgeois
- his passion for the arts
- he and his gf lived common-law, a rarity back then
- he disliked smoking and took steps to combat it
- he was a vegetarian
- he enacted tough gun control laws
- he advocated euthanasia for the incurably ill
- he thought capitalism was unjust and brutal
- he championed the rights of workers
- he disliked the Catholic Church
- he favored Islam over Christianity
- he imitated the Bolshevist tactics of seizing power
- he favored a one-party state
- he imprisoned political adversaries
- he had concentration camps
- he favored relentless propaganda
- he favored price controls
- he completely removed the bourgeois from control of their businesses--which then came under the control of the state
- his use of the slogan "Gemeinnutz vor Eigennutz" (Common use before Private use)
- he was pro-homosexual; a number of his friends and collaborators were homosexual, and some scholars think he was at least bisexual
- he banned medical experiments on animals
- he signed a non-agression pact with Stalin in 1939--agreeing to invade and "split" Poland

Whose Party policy manifesto do you think this came from?

- The first duty of every citizen must be to work mentally or physically. The activities of the individual may not clash with the interests of the whole, but must proceed within the frame of the community and be for the general good.
Therefore we demand:
- That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished.
- Since every war imposes on the people fearful sacrifices in life and property, all personal profit arising from the war must be regarded as a crime against the people. We therefore demand the total confiscation of all war profits whether in assets or material.
- We demand the nationalization of businesses which have been organized into cartels.
- We demand that all the profits from wholesale trade shall be shared out.
- We demand a land reform in accordance with our national requirements, and the enactment of a law to confiscate from the owners without compensation any land needed for the common purpose. The abolition of ground rents, and