“French Spree Shooter is a Muslim Named Mohammed Who Fought With the Taliban in Afghanistan Other Than That He Fits The Media’s ‘Far-Right’ Profile Perfectly.”
“French Spree Shooter is a Muslim Named Mohammed Who Fought With the Taliban in Afghanistan Other Than That He Fits The Media’s ‘Far-Right’ Profile Perfectly.”
shamrock – you are citing ‘the political spectrum’ as an authority for your opinion that fascism is a ‘right wing ideology’.
What exactly is this ‘political spectrum’ and how does it achieve its authority of definition? I’m afraid I’ve never come across this authority.
As just about everyone else has pointed out to you, the definition of a politically left ideology is its focus on empowering the collective over the individual. Political types that do this include fascism, socialism and communism.
The focus on empowering the individual rather than the collective is the defining characterist of a political ideology of the right. This includes constitutional democracy, and its economic mode of capitalism – which is focused around private ownership of production.
Fascism is a collectivist ideology of the left that considers the individual to be subsumed within a homogeneous ethnic identity.
Socialism/communism is a collectivist ideology of the left that considers the individual to be subsumed within a classless societal order.
In both cases, unlike the ideologies of the right, the individual merges with the collective.
Fascism will permit private corporations (and these will be large corporations) but these are aligned with the government; that is, they are expected to SERVE the nationalist interests of the government. They are not, therefore, independent in their economic agendas. This means that fascism is an ideology of the left.
Islamism is, for example, fascist. It focuses on a collectivist homogeneity of type, in this case, religion. So – rather than ethnic purity, or class purity, fascist Islam has ‘religious purity’ so to speak. All – ideologies of the left.
Shorter version:
Communism is on the left wing of authoritarian collectivism.
Fascism is the right wing of authoritarian collectivism.
Obviously on the full spectrum from radical individualism (anarchy, libertarianism) to radical collectivism (fascism, communism) Nazism can’t be on the right.
I use the qualifier “authoritarian” to distinguish it from voluntary collectivism which has been tried from time to time (see Hippie communes which failed due to human nature).
ET: Sorry, OT but –
http://www.learnalberta.ca/content/sspes/index.html
This the typical/theoretical political spectrum, where “dictatorship” resides on both left and right. For example, fascism is on the right side of the spectrum, not the left as you stated.
ET I’m surprised you haven’t come across this “authority;” it’s Politics 101.
If you prefer a more modern definition of the political spectrum (not only ideologies, for example Islamism as a subset of fascism), it’s on the same website where political freedom and control and combined with economic control and freedom. That’s what the spectrum seeks to define, freedom vrs control. BTW fascism still on the right but down from democratic capitalism.
“I use the qualifier “authoritarian” to distinguish it from voluntary collectivism which has been tried from time to time (see Hippie communes which failed due to human nature).”
Posted by: Me No Dhimmi at March 21, 2012 5:25 PM
And don’t forget monks and nuns.
I love telling innocent, brainwashed young lefties what NSDAP stands for (everyone needs a hobby). That being said, “right” and “left”, politically, are not absolutes like “dark” and “light”, or “north” and “south”, or, um, “right” and “left” (orientationally). In the 1930s it was understood that “right-wing” meant non-communist, i.e. national, as opposed to international (which was in practice to say directed from Moscow), socialism. National Socialism or Fascism. It was right-wing only in a very specific, and now entirely archaic, socio-political context.
I wish someone would put that more concisely than I just did, because it is very important not to let the establishment define “right wing” as “just part of the way along the road that leads to Hitler”. (The fact that “left wing” can accurately be defined as “just part of the way along the roads that leads to Stalin” never seems to bother anyone, for some reason.)
I believe that right-wing extremes and left-wing extremes are not straight line opposites but more similar to a circle,with the extremes meeting directly below personal freedom.
shamrock – just because you’ve found a site that sets up ideologies in a Cartesian quadrant, doesn’t make the definition of those ideologies accurate!
No, that quadrant isn’t ‘politics 101’. It’s a point of view that I suggest is totally and absolutely inaccurate.
Capitalism, by definition, can’t be dictatorial, for that requires moving authority over the economy out of private and multiple individual control – to the singular dictator. Capitalism, by definition, rests on multiple individual free control of investment and production.
There is therefore no such thing as a ‘rightwing’ dictatorship. That’s because the individual will and freedom disappears in a dictatorship.
What, operationally, would lead one to define fascism as a right wing ideology? [Apart from that quadrant which I claim is fallacious.] Well?
I think that a more valid politics 101 defines all the collectivist political systems as left wing ideologies. Whether the homogeneity of this collective is to be defined within ethnicity (fascism) or class (socialism, communism) or religion (Islamic fascism) – the basic infrastructure is that the collective is privileged and dominates and nullifies any individual freedoms.
Black Mamba said: “I wish someone would put that more concisely than I just did, because it is very important not to let the establishment define “right wing” as “just part of the way along the road that leads to Hitler”.
Anybody who says your kid has to go to a gun-free school is a Lefty. How’s that? Hitler did it, Stalin did it, Pol Pot and Mao did it, and the stupid French socialist b@st@rds did it too. Nazi-ism and communism, a shovelful taken out of either side of the same manure pile.
Knight 99 said it at 1:24pm. “The Liberal Left killed the Jewish children & soldiers.” Yes, they did. They stripped those people of all defense and let this freakshow live down the street like he was just a regular guy.
I even did a blog post on it, because this incontrovertible fact is utterly lost in the Joooos! vs. Moooooslims! bullroar clogging up the conversation.
This guy was identical to Brevik. He’s the same guy, with the same motivations and the same MO. In all the ways that matter they are twins. They’ve been around for all of recorded history, and THEY ARE NOT THE PROBLEM.
Who made sure those soldiers were unarmed? LIBERALS. Who made that school a gun-free zone? LIBERALS. Who made sure a known fruitloop had the run of the city? LIBERALS.
So who’s fault is this again? Oh and by the way, who is being entirely successful at distracting everybody from this fact? Liberals.
Less time spent watching the libs spin and dance, more time spent kicking them in the b@11$ would be my suggestion.
Wretchard, in a few words, delineates the left-liberals’ multiculturalism/dhimmitude/appeasement in obeisance to Mohammedanism.
Cf. O’s Hope/bow* to the Mohammedan Saudi King.
“He [Mohammed Merah] was in other words, what the French government and polite society hoped he wouldn’t be. What they fervently prayed he wouldn’t be. And now that he appears to be what he is, they can only hope for the cover of the Rhythm of the Night.”
http://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2012/03/21/the-rhythm-of-the-night/#more-21129
*O’Hope Bow:
http://weeklyworldnews.com/politics/7330/obama-bows-to-saudi-king/
Phantom – do you really believe that IF someone, an adult, had a gun at that Jewish school, this situation wouldn’t have occurred?
Do you mean that the gunman, driving up on his scooter and shooting, from the scooter, at various people outside the school – including three children – wouldn’t have been able to do so if someone inside the school, had a gun? I’m presuming you aren’t including the three children in your list of gun-owners.
I certainly think that the left’s toleration of multiculturalism and its concomitant lack of integration; the left’s support for the false notion of western imperialism as a cause of Islamic anger – had a role to play in the radicalization of this young man.
And I think that the Muslim community’s silence about radical Islam, its refusal to constantly, openly and angrily reject radical Islam – has a vital role to play in the actions of this young man.
ET, please provide evidence “that a more valid politics 101 defines all the collectivist political systems as left wing ideologies.”
Furthermore please provide evidence, not your opinion, that fascism is on the left side of the political spectrum with socialism and communism.
ET >
“…do you really believe that IF someone, an adult, had a gun at that Jewish school, this situation wouldn’t have occurred?”
Do you really believe that it would not have gone differently?
Able people, teachers and bystanders, could very well have stopped this guy, scooter or not. They may have missed him, but at least there would have been an ounce of potential to stop him.
Armed citizens prevent crime physically and psychologically. Criminals do not like the idea of mugging people or breaking into homes with the added risk of being shot. Even granny’s can be dangerous with a gun.
Had this guy even been wounded by a bystander and escaped, he would have sought medical attention and at the very least not made any further attacks until caught. A good blood trail is an asset for any animal hunt.
shamrock – I’m using logic, reason and textual assertions in my analysis. There can’t be any empirical evidence for a Name!
I am defining ALL political ideologies that are based around privileging the collective, as ‘left wing’. With this basic axiom, all I need to do is research those political ideologies that focus on and privilege the collective as having authority in the society rather than the individual.
These are, based on their texts, communism, socialism and fascism. I’ve explained the different descriptions of the collective (class, ethnicity, religion). You can read various socialist texts from Marx on, you can certainly read the Islamic texts which demote the individual, you can read fascist texts which include the infamous Mussolini 1932 definition of fascism:
“this will be the century of collectivism and hence the century of the state…The foundation of Fascism is the conception of the state…Fascism conceives of the State as an absolute, in comparison with which all individuals..are relative..only to be conceived of in their relation to the State….The Fascist State is itself conscioius and has itself a will and a personality…The Fascist State organizes the nation but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom…the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual but the State alone…”
I’m defining all political ideologies that empower the freedom and will of the individual, societally and economically, as democratic. Economically, the term is: capitalism.
A democracy acknowledges that the individual lives within a society; that there are certain communal, collective concerns and thus, there is a common rule of law (agreed to by the people), etc. But the rule of law is not collectivism but the will of the people for that law – which they have the right to change.
Now, if we want to set up a Cartesian analytic frame, [why?] to picture political ideologies, or, even a linear scale, then, it would be more accurate to move from collectivism to individualism (from left to right on the scale). The extreme right would then be the disappearance of any societal awareness! Anarchy! Not a right wing dictatorship – but NO leader!
Knight99 – I do see your point, and I’m unsure if your suggestion would really work. I don’t know if radicalism and that includes martydom (suicide bombers) is stopped by gun ownership. I think the Muslim community has to publicly, constantly, loudly, condemn this whole agenda; they have to admit that radicalism IS existent within their community, and they have to reject it.
shamrocket
U do well at raising the stupid flag
Hitler was Stalins good buddy till they had a peeing contest over Poland
Hitler was the head of the National socislist party
Hitler was a fan of that other Kommy Joo, Marx
Hitler was 1/4 Joo himself, his grandfather was jooish
U erred, now eat it and STFU
NMW666 where did you get your politics degree?
Hitler planned to invade USSR all along. He loathed communists and considered Russians subhuman, to be used as slave labour and their land as space for the Aryan people.
East Germany was called the German Democratic Republic. So, what’s your point?
ie – you don’t know what you’re talking about, so eat that.
You don’t get to change political theory to suit your problem with extreme right wingers being collectivists.
ET >
“I don’t know if radicalism and that includes martydom (suicide bombers) is stopped by gun ownership”
That’s because again we are looking at things through different lenses, Apples & Oranges.
Gun ownership will not stop Islam; it will not stop any criminal from being a criminal. Gun ownership allows individual citizens to protect themselves and others during a crime, making them harder targets for criminals. It allows citizens to participate in protecting their communities and aiding law enforcement, nothing more.
Do you notice that criminals generally do not commit crimes in front of policemen?
This is one cornerstone of a strong and healthy society, the ability to defend itself.
ET >
Side note:
Phantom and I are talking about treating an existing disease; you are discussing the cause and I think suggesting a theoretical cure.
I look at this as a problem now, which needs to be dealt with immediately. The biggest obstacle that western society has is Liberal Progressivism with Islamic colonization and its violent cultural underbelly as a symptom of the Liberal disease.
If we can beat back the Liberal progression, we can beat back Islam and any other problem Liberalism lays at our feet.
We start with regaining our basic rights of freedom & liberty along with deregulating unnecessary government control in our society. If we take away the strangleholds the Left has put on us, including gun ownership etcetera, we begin to stop our cultural destruction.
The more obvious the Islamist tie, the more Jews/Christians/Americans/conservatives will be blamed. As we all know, shouting makes it true.
> Shamrock…the German Democratic Republic. Suggest you check your history a bit. EVERY country using Democratic in its name for the last 1000 years,has been a commie/facist/socialist dictatorship.
Sorta like you know the Toronto Star is leftie because it use “Star”. Same as “Free”,i.e Winnipeg Free press.
Justthinkin, I understand GDR was not democratic state. I used this example to show how parties and states get misnamed all the time, that just because Nazis called themselves socialist, they were not; in fact they loathed socialism.
Another example is communist government, it should be non-democratic socialism because as we all know communism means the state withers away and we all get along and commune. Perhaps communism could be renamed utopian socialism because it has never actually existed, except in Marx’s flawed theories.
“…The Liberal Left killed the Jewish children & soldiers…”
(said Knight 99)
Exactly.
And that is far from the first time they have blood on their hands
Shamrocket
You are really a communist dupe…..and a vexation to the soul.
The originators of the notion that Nazi’s were far right originated from the Kremlin, just after the German attack…..when the Russian Communists were flailing around for an ideological tool….before they successfully hitched their wagon to Russian Nationalism…..
The Russians then called that emotional event….
“THE GREAT PATRIOTIC WAR”
Knight 99
While the fools deny the efficacy of armed self defence, there is one indisputable fact. These attacks would not have been possible in Isreal…especially near a school…where even the janitors are armed.
Well said ET; I don’t think that any amount of logic will serve to convince Shamrock who seems to believe that nothing is more important than which side of the chamber French deputies sat over 100 years ago.
Fascism makes people uncomfortable enough that we have criminal laws preventing people from disputing the official history of WWII and “Godwin’s law” is another attempt to stifle debate on this issue. The fact that statists are attempting to conceal was that Adolf Hitler was democratically elected and that in no country in the world, aside from the US, are there any checks to prevent a similar occurrence. The US solution to preventing a totalitarian having free reign was the 2nd Amendement to the constitution and having an armed populace drastically reduces the speed with which totalitarianism can take root.
If one has to plot political attitudes on a linear scale, then one has maximual statist interference with individuals on the left side and zero state interference on the extreme right – AKA anarchy. I think that the Libertarian party’s worlds smallest political quiz is a bit more informative as it also looks at the degree that individuals believe that the state should have the right to interfere in peoples personal affairs. From this standpoint, islam is by far the most totalitarian socially conservative belief system in existence as it believes in the total subordination of the individual to the demented rantings of a 7th century epileptic pedophile. People opposing abortion of religious grounds are radical free thinkers in comparison.
Thus, the label of islamofascism is a valid one and islamofascists are at the far left of the 1D mapping of political views but distinct when one does a 2D mapping of political views. They differ from US “liberals” only in that the US “liberals” feel it’s their right to have sex with anyone they wish with the state dealing with unwanted products of conception. From a statist coercion point of view, US “liberals” believe the state should prosecute anyone who doesn’t think like them (except for islamofascists but then who said “liberalism” needs to have any internal logical consistency). RINO’s are, for the most part, indistinguishable from “liberals” as both are statists.
One of the reasons that islamofascist violence hasn’t taken root in the US is the widespread firearms ownership among the population. Any lunatic islamofascist who started shooting on a US city street in a state with widespread concealed carry would likely be dead in short order. From the concealed carry standpoint, a US military base is the equivalent of a “gun free zone” which makes little sense. Widespread carriage of firearms by the population won’t mean a total cessation of deaths as a result of lunatics deciding to go on a shooting spree, but it does mean far fewer dead as Lott found out in his analysis of multiple homicides which were far fewer in states with concealed carry in comparison to states that prohibited people from expressing this fundamental constitutional right.
Statists hate individualists and a few decades ago being called a “Nazi” might have ended the debate for statists but no longer.
Thank you Loki, very well illustrated.
Since we are all Breitbart now, I think anytime we hear the old Kremlin originated nonsense about Nazi=right wing etc, we can counter with the above provided points.
The most salient truth is of course that the left wants control over the individual, and sacrifice them for the common good. And they will decide what that good is, and what you need to sacrifice. Not them of course…their contribution is showing you the way to enlightenment, a la the fruit fly guy.
Whereas our side tends to want the individual to have a choice. Pro choice, to coin a phrase.
The fear of lefties is it means developing enough character to go make it on your own merit. That is just too scary to consider, and at the core of why they are lefties.
Given that the first couple of victims were Muslim and black, and the most recent were Jewish, a neo-Nazis perpetrator would logically be the first possibility to rule out. But it apparently turned out to be wrong. The situation is similar to the Oklahoma City bombing, where it was logical to assume radical Islamists were behind it, which also turned out to be wrong.
Sasquatch / Loki / Trappedintrudopia
Nice summaries all!
nv53>
I don’t know about “logically” assuming it was “Neo Nazi” in the sense of White Nazi. How many white Neo Nazi murder sprees do we really see outside of the movies?
Islamic killing sprees much more common.
That said, Arab Islamists are Neo Nazi’s and have never had an issue using swastika’s to taunt or threaten Jews. People always assume (with racial bigotry) that it’s some white kid scribbling on the local bus shelters.
There’s no way of telling if this guy thought the soldiers were Muslim. Most probably he did not.
His Jihadi activities were reported, they did nothing, He went to train with the savages ala Taliban they did nothing. Now after he’s killed innocents, they’ll do nothing. I guess in the quest not to offend Muslims we must die quietly and painfully lest we offend those planning on the Jihad.
Our prophesy about the French has been proved and disproved.
After 30+ hours (remarkable patience for French security) the perp is dead……..
Sasquatch: You are a judgemental twit. Your logic flies in the face of accepted political science teachings for the last 100 years.
If you knew me you would know that I’m so Conservative that if cut I bleed blue. Because you can’t handle the idea that collectivism resides on the left and the right, you call me a communist dupe.
Don’t pretend you know anything about me you pretentious idiot.
Shamrock @9:02 – “I understand GDR was not democratic state. I used this example to show how parties and states get misnamed all the time, that just because Nazis called themselves socialist, they were not; in fact they loathed socialism.”
So, just to be clear, your position (not original, BTW; I’ve heard this verbatim from other lefties, and therefore assume it is a standard talking point) is that the Nazis claimed to be socialist, and ran on a national socialist platform, in order to trick people into believing they were socialist, but in fact they secretly were the exact opposite. “Ja, Fritz, ve haff vooled zem into zinking ve are zosialist! In vact ve intend to inztitute vree market revorms und libertarianism!” Only… they didn’t institute those things, did they? And the very fact that they called themselves socialist indicates that they were never viewed, and never intended themselves to be viewed, as conservatives or libertarians, i.e., anything to do with the modern right-wing spectrum.
“Democrat”, as in “The People’s Democratic Communist Dictatorship of Yadda Yaddastan” basically just means “nice”. These places are labelling themselves “The Good Guys Party”. There is no declaration of political philosophy in the use of the word “democratic” in this context.
Whatever Hitler became does not detract from the road that was paved by socialist intentions.
Hitler did not build his immense modern empire from the ashes of WW1 in less than 20 years by his will alone. He had help, lots of big money help from foreign investors and big business. This was a globalist, fascist endeavor sold to the public through nationalism and a socialist ideology.
Troubling yourself with the semantics in labeling the final dictatorship is moot. It’s the road to the dictatorship that matters.
ET asks: “Phantom – do you really believe that IF someone, an adult, had a gun at that Jewish school, this situation wouldn’t have occurred?”
Yes. I do. Because there’s evidence for this contention. Israel.
The entire reason the PLO switched from “gunmen” to suicide bombers was that their attacks were getting squelched before they could cause any casualties. The IDF has a robust response to gunfights, but it was random armed passersby that really stopped the small-unit attacks by PLO. A couple old ladies and the guy who stopped at the gas station for a pack of smokes would have the shooters pinned down or dead by the time the cops got there. It just didn’t pay, so they switched to suicide bombers. (Now that the supply of idiots has run dry, they stick to rockets from Iran.)
If you read much about the recent shooting of Gabrielle Giffords and the other people who died in Arizona, you’ll discover the person who actually stopped the shooter was Joe Zamudio, some random dude who happened to be at the drugstore with a gun. Zamudio stuck a pistol in his face and made him quit.
And what is it that would have actually stopped this Mohammed character? The fact that somewhere in the building there might be somebody who might shoot back? Nope. He’d go for it anyway because he was a whack job.
What would stop him before he even started is the certainty that he would LOSE. His thing, the same as all these mass murder shooters, is to get a big body count and go out in a blaze of glory. So would Mohammed Monkey Boy have tried it if he knew there was an even chance his first victim would smoke him before his killing spree even got off the ground? No way.
So can you stop one guy from ambushing some other guy by arming everyone? Probably not, chances are low. Can you stop ambush boy from thinking it would be a good idea by arming everyone? Definitely.
ET also said: “And I think that the Muslim community’s silence about radical Islam, its refusal to constantly, openly and angrily reject radical Islam – has a vital role to play in the actions of this young man.”
No more than our conservative community had to do with Brevik, I’d hazard. Because if the “Muslim community” in France were actively engaged with this kind of thing, some guy would be pulling one of these every weekend, right? It would be like Gaza.
Liberal gun control, liberal revolving-door criminal “justice”, liberal immigration policy, liberal’s fault. And by Liberal I mean soft-brained central planning leftists of all stripes.
Shamrock – you claim”
“that collectivism resides on the left and the right”. This is your opinion but you’ve yet to provide any evidence that this is a valid opinion.
What is missing in your claims is a definition of what it means to be politically ‘left wing’ and ‘right wing’. I provided a definition that claimed that a political ideology that privileged the collective over the individual was leftwing, while one that privileged the individual over the collective was rightwing.
You haven’t provided any definitions – and that Cartesian quadrant map is functionally meaningless, as is the linear scale.
How about telling us what you understand by the terms of left and right politics?
Shammy
“Here’s howda owda”
Right wing = individual
Left wing = STATE