Nazis are not lefties ... they are accounted to extreme right on worldwide consensus!!!

Oups previous reply was meant to be me

Last Edited by JADR on 04/22/2009 11:26 AM

>>Just like the 'worldwide agreement' about the Nazis.... right? Just because somebody says so... right?

Are you even the same who I quoted in my OP?
Did you change sides or what?

Not only patience - they are much more interesting then you as well!!!! :)

>>Not anymore... as soon as Bush left office.. the LEFTIES became the shills around here...

True!!!

>>Heya Shen.. you are the only intelligent one on this thread arguing with JADR. Keep up the good debate.

Yeah the US rednecks think they are self-righteously allowed to ignore the rest of the world.

It's not just 'someone' that agrees on that but the whole historical analyst world, pickles ...

Hitler hated liberals and bleeding hearts and artist and most writers and thinkers and all those identified as "socialist" LOL ..go figure huh ?

Hitler was a homosexual who loved the flesh. All those warmongers like HItler are very much into the flesh. They loveeeee the flesh. They could care less for the spirit. DNA is all that matters to them. Because they are weak and gay.


*


---V---

I don't feel inferior only cause a well known right wanker apologist says this, pffffht ...

Yes, of course. Let's do that.

So my first salvo will merely be the idea that 'individual' and 'collective' are not merely oppositional, but part and parcel of the other. That is, there are no 'individuals' without 'collectives' and vice-versa. I think most people will intuitively accept that an imbalance one way or the other leads to trouble.

The question is, how successful is this balance? Under what terms and frameworks is this designed? Can it be a 'disinterested' approach? I would be inclined to think that anything called 'politics' cannot be 'interest free' as much as we'd like to believe it. After all, politics is precisely the arena where 'interests' are advanced and resisted.

What did the bleeding hearts and artist and most writers and thinkers from soviet union identify with - once they were sent to the Gulag???

Hey Shen Long can you answer this?

The thread was not about Stalinist Russia it was about Hitler.

Stalin was a nut job to. Him and Hitler really wanted to have sex with each other.


*


---V---

I'm not that right wing - I'm all for gay rights, orgies and abortions!!!

Wow something is extremely fishy here, can the NSA spoof IDs at their will or what?

Last Edited by FreeFlow on 04/22/2009 11:35 AM

I think that originally, the terms "Left Wing" & "Right Wing" came from the French general assymbly of 1791/92, where the old order monarchists sat to the right of the speaker, and the republicans sat to the left. Republican as in government by the people as opposed to the King or the aristocracy. Now, left generally means any kind of social, political, or economic ideology that is counter to the established one. If anyone wants to get more in depth with this, please feel free.

I always looked at the extremes of left and right like a clock, not much difference as you approach midnight irregardless of which direction.

'Left wing' and 'right wing' are wings on the same 'collectivist dirty bird'. Wake up!

What the American people need is to learn the doctrine of a free will people - such as is in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. And a thorough indoctrination into the thoughts and writings of Thomas Paine.

Debating 'left wing' and 'right wing' is about as useless to humanity as is a debate on last year's Super Bowl.

For me as soon as the supreme value shifts from the individual to the collectivity, then totalitarianism is on it's way.

The perfect system might be a 52/48 ratio of individualism vs collectivism.

As far as I am concerned, It is more moral to capitalize on people's greed then to force them to share.

It Seems your 'worldwide agreement' is falling apart - and all you can do is pitifully explain it away with a conspiracy...

Hitler was a left-wing vegetarian.

Sorry truth twister agents, you're attempts are too ridiculous ...


The term far right is mostly used to describe fascism, Nazism and other ultra-nationalist as well as reactionary ideologies and movements
[link to en.wikipedia.org]

Last Edited by FreeFlow on 04/22/2009 11:52 AM

Yes, I am one and the same.

I would not say that I've "changed sides". In my opinion taking sides in a forum like this doesn't amount to much of anything. Getting all hot and bothered is a waste of energy with little real benefit to me. In truth, while I may disagree with a few or even many of the "other side's" basic premises, I do not in anyway see myself as locked in some kind of 'eternal battle over truth' with them when I participate in discussions here.

I refuse to view others only one-dimensionally. That is I can accept that JADR and Sinanju have quite different political opinions than I do without condemning their entire character. Sinanju and I have sparred a few times, sometimes it's even gotten a little prickly between us, but I do appreciate his sense of humor and as well I feel he is a "worthy adversary" in that when he speaks, he has forced me to really look at some of the beliefs I've held and even change a few. I would even like to think he may do same from time to time.

And same with your post. I appreciated it. I do believe a discussion of this is important. So I replied in agreement with the basic statement that pinning Nazism on the left is unfair and in my opinion, historically inaccurate. But its not like I've spent a lifetime studying all this, and I'm hesitant to simply dismiss opposing views cause they don't fit with my own analysis (after all, what good is an analysis that conveniently overlooks or ignores those things that don't fit with it?)

If I really wanted pump myself up, I would say that I've moved beyond political binarism's in favour of a more holistic approach. OF course, this can appear fickle or even hypocritical at times, but I refuse to believe the "other side" is always wrong or inherently mean-spirited and evil.

Dialogue is more interesting to me than shouting matches and more enjoyable (and maybe even productive) to boot.

GLP is community (a pretty fucked up community, but a community nonetheless) and inspite of incredibly divergent opinions regarding particulars, I do believe the majority of us share something in common which needs to be brought to light and discussed.

Cheers, FreeFlow.

Vegetarianism is definitely a left wing value

however abstinence from booz, smoking and sex is very right wing!

Last Edited by JADR on 04/22/2009 11:55 AM

Nazi was neither right or left
It borrowed the worst elements of each


Right and left are outdated labels used to avoid critical thought as most modern civilization requires blends of these different approaches for different aspects of their society (ie education, sanitation, religion, business)


nice summary in wiki:


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nazism, officially National Socialism[1][2][3][4] (German: Nationalsozialismus), refers to the ideology and practices of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party under Adolf Hitler, and the policies adopted by the dictatorial government of Nazi Germany from 1933 to 1945.[5][6][7][8]
Nazism is often considered by scholars to be a form of fascism. While it incorporated elements from both left and right-wing politics, the Nazis formed most of their alliances on the right.[9] The Nazis were one of several historical groups that used the term National Socialism to describe themselves, and in the 1920s they became the largest such group. The Nazi Party presented its program in the 25 point National Socialist Program in 1920. Among the key elements of Nazism were anti-parliamentarism, Pan-Germanism, racism, collectivism,[10][11] eugenics, antisemitism, anti-communism, totalitarianism and opposition to economic liberalism and political liberalism.[12][13][11]
In the 1930s, Nazism was not a monolithic movement, but rather a (mainly German) combination of various ideologies and philosophys which centered around nationalism, anti-communism, traditionalism and the importance of the ethnostate. Groups such as Strasserism and Black Front were part of the early Nazi movement. Their motivations were triggered over anger about the Treaty of Versailles and what was considered to have been a Jewish/communist conspiracy to humiliate Germany at the end of the World War I. Germany's post-war ills were critical to the formation of the ideology and its criticisms of the post-war Weimar Republic. The Nazi Party came to power in Germany in 1933.
In response to the instability created by the Great Depression, the Nazis sought a Third Way managed economy that was neither capitalism nor communism.[14][15] Nazi rule effectively ended on May 7, 1945, V-E Day, when the Nazis unconditionally surrendered to the Allied Powers, who took over Germany's administration until Germany could form its own democratic government.

Thanks for clearing it up Shen Long, you should just be aware that your approval of Sinjanu's mocking post made you appear completely different, I just don't think that lefties got their asses handed here like you seemingly agreed with sin, your own posts I quoted in the OP rather made the right wingers look stupid.

back at you anyway!!!

Don't be insulting, Nazis were, and are, nowhere near the right wing, let alone the far right. About their only policy which was right wing was a belief and advocacy of Germanic superiority.

The rest of their politics was simply "f**ked-up". They borrowed heavily from the left wing, in terms of their currency policies and social work policies, and unemployment policies. This is recorded fact I'm afraid.

I am no Nazi sympathizer, please be clear. I don't even particularly like the Germans and do in fact concede how difficult they made the work of many other Governmental organizations who are properly right wing. However, that is the nature of the right wing: contrary to popular beliefs on the matter, most nations were predominantly right wing all the way up to the 1960's, definitely prior to World War 1, and most definitely during World War 2. The key factors in the right wing's composition is a sense of nationalism, of national superiority (very common in the 19th century I might add, what with Empires over the black and yellow men, not to mention the Redskins), of patriotism, and a pride in one's nation and heritage.

This is in contradistinction to the more international focus of a form of Communism, I have heard.

On to the question of Genocyde, for this is where the real objections to the Nazis are levelled - not in terms of their economic policies (except perhaps from certain factions involved in banking; which may be why they sought to arrange opposition to Stalin in the first place?), nor in terms of their war strategies (which were too centred on a single individual who, as time wore on, proved weak; initially they did work quite well, and were innovative for the time, in a workable manner) - this is the real reason they are viewed as "screwed up". I happen to agree wholeheartedly with that assesment.

The lesson would be: it is inadvisable to kill women and children in war, especially civilian women and children. Unfortunately, this is a lesson which is being wholly ignored in many parts of Africa, and other locations worldwide.

We can at least rest in peace in our beds knowing that international institutions are around to prevent that sort of thing happening to white people. Except in the former Yugoslav republics. And maybe also were Haliburton was building civilian internment camps. And perhaps other places too.

So, I suppose, it matters not what's fair and legal in war, when it comes down to the end of the day, war is war and all is unfair, for that is the nature of war nowadays, it seems.

I would add that it is international arms and financial cartels who are to blame for this current state of affairs regarding the nature of warfare. However, in their defence, I do not think they wholly realise this, and view themselves as victims of the time and people "just working with how the world actually is nowadays".

Extra Dry White.

Your point is partly correct, JADR. It IS about collectivists vs individualists. Dave MacGowan puts it the best in "Understanding the F-Word." He considers the dichotomy as Authoritarian vs. Non-authoritarian (that is, a totalitarian govt. vs. one with individual freedom). And there is a collective vs. individual type of society in each main type:

Non-authoritarian collectivism = socialism
Authoritarian collectivism = Communism
Non-authoritarian individualism = capitalism
Authoritarian individualism = Fascism

In Communism, the state owns the means of production, the capital.

In Fascism, the corporations (capitalists) own the state.

The recent Gerald Celente videos posted here make the point very well.