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

Someone please side with Free Flow ... It pains me to see him so alone...

Only on GLP can you find such astounding ignorance.

Or is it more sinister. I do see straw man after straw man.

With humans like this in the world, there's no wonder it's in such a state.

It's your right disagree with me..

Yeah he has studied in straw man argument academy indeed.

coming from someone who can't even contribute to his own thread...

More psi warfare wankery please!!!

you mean ..more facts!!

What have you contributed to this thread..besides 1 definition and insults?

JADR it's clear for all to see you behave like a jelly puppet!

I just wish the fucker would stop whining for once.

Radical left-wing wacko progessive moonbats facists because they can't stand it that someone would disagree with their politically correct point of view.

Case in point: left-wing wacko Peretz Hilton giving zero points to Miss California because he disagreed with her personal opinion

Case in point: left-wing wacko shoutdown of Anne Coulter

Case in point: left-wing wacko shoutdown of Minuteman Founder

Case in point: left-wing wacko censorship attempts aimed at Rush Limbaugh

Case in point: left-wing wacko support for criminal charges against Bush administration officials for following the guidelines passed by Congress in 2001, and ratified by the United Nations - that defined torture, and was cited and relied upon by Bush lawyers.

case in point: left-wing wacko GLP members who make straw man arguments to support their demented and irrational view of the earth

case in point: 911 truthers who ignore physics and engineering based upon science (math) in favor of conjecture and speculation from rumor control, foreign intelligence sources, and left-wing wackos suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome.

Exactly, as one reaches max, it approaches min of the other side and really...neither is ever pure even in extremes. It used to be that the extremist leftwing anti-war crowd was very anti-govt, now they seem more socialist in that regard. The right was more tilted toward interventionalism, now bending more toward isolationism, so there is always some constant flux. Just making a broad blanket statement like I did is never going to fit 100%.

I'm fine with jelly puppet - but you're a cunt!

(excuse my French)

Last Edited by JADR on 04/22/2009 01:50 PM

They are sorcerers who keep up this false reality with lies, this thread is full of them, they ignore everything that contradicts them, that's their job.

Now I'm a sorcerer..

Ummm...and where might that statement by the "Rest of world" be? besides a wiki article saying something like, "The term is used mostly to descibe"? and please show me where Anarchy and Zero govt control somehow equates to "Far left"? and "Far right" equates to total control as you say?

Oh and most of the world doesn't know what the "C" means in E=MC^2 while most know who Britney Spears is so I don't give really give a whole lot of muscle to what the masstards have to say about political science since most couldn't spell it, much less understad it.

Here ya go see where various leaders fall on the Political compass, it's a pretty good page and might surprise a few people. Nazis and Hitler have more far left traits than people are willing to admit mostly because they are being babies over being associated with them, but really, we are all human and all have that in common with Hitler and and every other psychopath since the dawn of time, and nobody can cry their way out of that commonality...even you.

>>>>>>>>>

Both an economic dimension and a social dimension are important factors for a proper political analysis. By adding the social dimension you can show that Stalin was an authoritarian leftist (ie the state is more important than the individual) and that Gandhi, believing in the supreme value of each individual, is a liberal leftist. While the former involves state-imposed arbitary collectivism in the extreme top left, on the extreme bottom left is voluntary collectivism at regional level, with no state involved. Hundreds of such anarchist communities exisited in Spain during the civil war period

You can also put Pinochet, who was prepared to sanction mass killing for the sake of the free market, on the far right as well as in a hardcore authoritarian position. On the non-socialist side you can distinguish someone like Milton Friedman, who is anti-state for fiscal rather than social reasons, from Hitler, who wanted to make the state stronger, even if he wiped out half of humanity in the process.

The chart also makes clear that, despite popular perceptions, the opposite of fascism is not communism but anarchism (ie liberal socialism), and that the opposite of communism ( i.e. an entirely state-planned economy) is neo-liberalism (i.e. extreme deregulated economy)

The usual understanding of anarchism as a left wing ideology does not take into account the neo-liberal "anarchism" championed by the likes of Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman and America's Libertarian Party, which couples social Darwinian right-wing economics with liberal positions on most social issues. Often their libertarian impulses stop short of opposition to strong law and order positions, and are more economic in substance (ie no taxes) so they are not as extremely libertarian as they are extremely right wing. On the other hand, the classical libertarian collectivism of anarcho-syndicalism ( libertarian socialism) belongs in the bottom left hand corner.

In our home page we demolished the myth that authoritarianism is necessarily "right wing", with the examples of Robert Mugabe, Pol Pot and Stalin. Similarly Hitler, on an economic scale, was not an extreme right-winger. His economic policies were broadly Keynesian, and to the left of some of today's Labour parties. If you could get Hitler and Stalin to sit down together and avoid economics, the two diehard authoritarians would find plenty of common ground.

A Word about Neo-cons and Neo-libs
U.S.neo-conservatives, with their commitment to high military spending and the global assertion of national values, tend to be more authoritarian than hard right. By contrast, neo-liberals, opposed to such moral leadership and, more especially, the ensuing demands on the tax payer, belong to a further right but less authoritarian region. Paradoxically, the "free market", in neo-con parlance, also allows for the large-scale subsidy of the military-industrial complex, a considerable degree of corporate welfare, and protectionism when deemed in the national interest. These are viewed by neo-libs as impediments to the unfettered market forces that they champion.


[link to www.politicalcompass.org]

Very interesting thread. Had me scrambling for my Kuehnelt-Leddihn.

Anyhow, with all due respect to you FF, if the intention of this thread is to suggest that our liberty is at peril only from the right side of the ideological spectrum, I am not in the least bit convinced.

Furthermore, this being a conspiracy site, I would think that an alleged world-wide consensus on any subject, would be a challenge to all of us to see who/what is behind it. For if there ever was any such consensus, I would suspect that it was manufactured.

Yes, its quite apparent that one's attitude toward a particular government is going to depend on whether or not one views that government as being aligned with one's own interests or not - which are then of course played off as being in the "national interest" of everyone (whatever the fuck that is).

In your case the title fits.....and this spin as you call it is nothing new you can go back to right after the war(you know the one where we kicked your Nazi asses) and this ideal was around and valid

BTW did your country get invaded or did you rat bastards jump at the chance to join the Reich... we know the answer don't we

Last Edited by Crusader on 04/22/2009 02:50 PM

I didn't say anything about current peril nor where I think it could come from, did I?

I don't know what's up with the US educational system or whatever confused your brains, everywhere else the terror from nazis was called coming from the extreme right and terror from communist groups like the Baader-Meinhof gang was named coming from the extreme left.

It probably has to do that far 'right' suggests they must be always right lol.

Here are some search results on nazis and extreme right:
[link to clusty.com]

Last Edited by FreeFlow on 04/22/2009 03:20 PM

And there you have it.

I never thought I had to even explain that, it's just in every definition book and lexicon ...

Again I don't know what's up with the US regarding this topic, or is it just the extreme right apologists are alarmed about this thread?

How do you think you're going to make a case about something from seventy years ago that also has been discussed a zillion times and even more I had no influence on at all?

Last Edited by FreeFlow on 04/22/2009 03:29 PM

only ignorants or literate idiots associates the nazis with the left. nazism is a derivation of fascism, with some characteres of socialism but, rigth in escence, at least technically.

Yeah very likely that fits to some at least ...
They always announce they won regardless of what was posted against them lol ...sounds like the notoriouly necessary self-appeasement they obviously need.

Last Edited by FreeFlow on 04/22/2009 04:10 PM

Or those in the right who are out to deflect like the AC I quoted in the OP nailed it.

There are a lot of things being said here, but as I see it we're on about a few things in particular.

1. For whatever reason understanding Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia seems to be an important reference point. In reference to what? The present situation I imagine. These 19th century inventions (brought up to speed with 20th century technology) garner a great deal of influence and tend to dominate our understandings of 'authoritarianism' and modern political struggles. It is my assumption that the assumption is that by referring to our "historical checklists" and comparing them to the present, we can some how identify and explain what is occurring today. However, as the point has already been made, the march of history has only confused things to a great degree. To argue whether or not "self-interest" or "collective interest" has done more damage is about as productive as arguing about whether or not religious fervor or atheism is more dangerous. They are all dangerous! They are all beneficial!

In other words, does is really matter to me whether or not I'm told that boot in my face is for my own good or for someone else's? I think not. What is at stake is that there's a fuckin' boot in my face!


2. The 'axis' of economy and culture. Right-wing economics can get along nicely with left-wing cultural values. Indeed the two are in fact ideally suited to each other - the more culturally permissive a culture is, the more opportunity for consumption and social invention. The most conservative cultures in the world are some of the most destitute in economic terms at least - precisely because they don't allow for the 'play of the market' (which would be disruptive of existing social orders). There are various combinations of each and as SHR has mentioned you can't look only at a economic model, or just even social vision. The two (at least) must be taken into account together.

I think there's something about romanticism involved here - in the US the struggle isn't really between 'right' and 'left' but between two different visions of liberalism - one romantic and the other protestant. In a word, this is the perceived hypocrisy of the "champagne socialist". The "lefties" have since the 60s been fighting a cultural agenda that goes hand in hand with the free market ideology - they just don't want to admit it.

The mistake I think for 'neo-liberals' and even libertarians is their assumption that the "market = society". This isn't true either. The market is a wealth creation engine, nothing more. Market values cannot be called upon to create a good society. A good society needs a market, but not the other way around. Smith's "invisible hand" wasn't some magic property of the market to always distribute wealth fairly and efficiently (anyone can see the idea of an always rational and efficient marketplace is a total fiction - markets are swept up in all sort of irrational behavior). Rather his invisible hand were the subtle and unamable forces of culture which would mediate the markets effects. To the average neo-liberal of today, Smith would sound incredibly "socialist" in his writings.

The neo-liberal 'heresy' is that they supplant civil society with the market. Smith never once assumed that the market alone could bring freedom or stability or even happiness. The market was one component among many. The 'authoritarianism" in this case is the one the declares all human concerns subservient to the economy.


There's something else but it fell outta me head. Something about resisting the idea of the presumed totality of large nation-states....

well that is always the problem when trying to fit particular realities into universal models.

A part of the problem in understanding the position of NAZIism in the political spectrum, is that there is a huge difference between the original National Socialism of Hitlers Germany and the Neo-NAZI movements in parts of Germany and the United States. The Neo-NAZIs are not socialist movements, but rather anti-authoritarian and racist movements that use the banner of NAZIism, because it is perceived with horror and revulsion by many people.

So they changed sides from one end of the spectrum to the other?

You can tell that to grandma, maybe she will believe you cause her hearing isn't that good anymore ...