Until he learns to interpret the word “right” in the appropriate political context, perhaps Seamus O’Regan should stick to cooking segments.
“… what’s with the kid gloves Seamus? If Dion uses language to describe Canadian conservatives that CTV reserves for Holocaust denial, aren’t you supposed to call him on that? The proper response would have been “now wait one second there, Mr. Dion…”
When the day comes that these intellectually vacant talking heads throw around “left wing” as freely as they do “right wing” as a political perjorative, when they begin to properly attribute to the “left wing” the tens of millions of human beings systematically eradicated in the pursuit of socialist utopia – then, perhaps they’ll have earned the privilage to misapply the term “right wing” to deniers of the Holocaust – despite the apparently forgotten fact that the Nazi brand of human eradication scheme was also conducted in the name of socialist eugenics.
Holocaust Denier Trivia Question: Ernst Zundel run for the leadership of which party in 1968?
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.