# When the left fights the left...with hammers...



## billc (May 26, 2012)

Over the weekend of the NATO summit here in Chicago, a group of far left nuts stormed a restaurant  and attacked another lefty nut group of white supremacists with hammers, bats and other hard objects.  The lefties didn't discriminate though and also attacked everyone else who was unlucky enough to have been at that particular restaurant...

http://www.suntimes.com/news/127764...iolence-of-tinley-park-restaurant-attack.html



> A horde of masked figures stormed the restaurant in a single-file line, wielding bats, claw hammers and metal batons &#8212; their presence announced when one shouted, &#8220;&#8216;Hey, bitches, the ARA is going to f--- up this place.&#8217; &#8221;
> With that, the shrouded thugs went on a rampage, clubbing diners at The Ashford House restaurant on May 19 in Tinley Park. They did not discriminate as to the targets of their violence, even pushing an 80-year-old woman to the ground, according to an eyewitness who&#8217;s a former Chicago police officer.
> &#8220;Although the terrorist assault lasted only about a minute, it was the longest minute of my life,&#8221; the eyewitness said.
> Authorities have said the attackers were targeting a group that believes in white supremacy and calls itself the Illinois European Heritage Association. At least 10 people were hurt during the attack, with three taken to a hospital for treatment.





> The Anti-Racist Action Group (ARA) is a &#8220;radical left-wing group&#8221; that often resorts to violent acts, said Mark Potok, a senior fellow at The Southern Poverty Law Center, a nonprofit civil rights organization based in Montgomery, Ala. The attack, he said, &#8220;did more harm to the cause of fighting racism than almost anyone can imagine.&#8221;





> &#8220;I stood up and grabbed a wooden chair as one of the assailants approached from the left. I started swinging the chair to protect my family and other elderly patrons in our corner,&#8221; the man says in a written statement. &#8220;Suddenly, another assailant charged at me from the right. He was violently swinging a metal baton. The terrorist swung two or three times at my head and face. Thank God I was able to block the brunt (of) his attack with the chair.&#8221;
> The witness said he shared his account because he wants people to patronize The Ashford House, 7959 W. 159th St. He suffered a gash to his head, and one of his hands was still swollen days after the attack. But his injuries did not prevent him from dispensing some justice of his own.


And by the way, our President's good friend, domestic terrorist bomber, Bill Ayers and his wife, convicted domestic terrorist bomber, Bernadine dorhn have ties to the ARA.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/how...zi-group-at-the-center-of-chicago-mob-attack/



> The group that has claimed responsibility for a mob attack at a Chicago-area restaurant over the weekend is the same group that hosted former Weather Underground terrorists and Barack Obama associates Bernadine Dohrn and Bill Ayers last year, according to fliers published on the organization&#8217;s web site.
> 
> ​


----------



## Sukerkin (May 26, 2012)

This bit has truth:

The Anti-Racist Action Group (ARA) is a &#8220;radical left-wing group&#8221; that often resorts to violent acts, said Mark Potok, a senior fellow at The Southern Poverty Law Center, a nonprofit civil rights organization based in Montgomery, Ala. The attack, he said, &#8220;did more harm to the cause of fighting racism than almost anyone can imagine.&#8221;

Now, how is it that White Supremacism is a trait of the Left?  Of course, by the political yardsticks of Europe, in the USA you only have the Right and the Extreme Right (thus making everything, including racism, Right Wing in American Politics) but let's leave that aside and just define things in American terms.


----------



## billc (May 26, 2012)

As the white supremacists are known by the term, neo-nazis, and nazis are in fact socialists, and left wing, the supremacists are lefties.  They believe in the state having the power to discriminate against groups of people they don't like.  The "right," here in the states believes in the freedom and equality of individuals and the protections afforded all individuals as given to us by our Creator and codified in the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. 

The left has a tendency to divide people into groups, select out those groups they don't like, and oppress them.  For most leftists, they really don't like the wealthy, or Jewish people, for these leftists they don't like Jewish people, the wealthy or people of color.

For example, here is a clip from the film, "the Soviet Story," the point about not liking certain groups comes in at the 30 second mark...






The Eugenics movement was also from the left.  Margaret Sanger, John Maynard Keynes, all believed in the elimination of lesser people...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/feb/17/eugenics-skeleton-rattles-loudest-closet-left



> *Eugenics: the skeleton that rattles loudest in the left's closet*
> 
> Socialism's one-time interest in eugenics is dismissed as an accident of history. But the truth is far more unpalatable





> Such talk repels us now, but in the prewar era it was the common sense of the age. Most alarming, many of its leading advocates were found among the luminaries of the Fabian and socialist left, men and women revered to this day. Thus George Bernard Shaw could insist that "the only fundamental and possible socialism is the socialisation of the selective breeding of man", even suggesting, in a phrase that chills the blood, that defectives be dealt with by means of a "lethal chamber".





> Yet what looks kooky or sinister in 2012 struck the prewar British left as solid and sensible. Harold Laski, stellar LSE professor, co-founder of the Left Book Club and one-time chairman of the Labour party, cautioned that: "The time is surely coming &#8230; when society will look upon the production of a weakling as a crime against itself." Meanwhile, JBS Haldane, admired scientist and socialist, warned that: "Civilisation stands in real danger from over-production of 'undermen'." That's_Untermenschen_ in German.
> I'm afraid even the Manchester Guardian was not immune. When a parliamentary report in 1934 backed voluntary sterilisation of the unfit, a Guardian editorial offered warm support, endorsing the sterilisation campaign "the eugenists soundly urge". If it's any comfort, the New Statesman was in the same camp.





> Except this was no accident. The Fabians, Sidney and Beatrice Webb and their ilk were not attracted to eugenics because they briefly forgot their leftwing principles. The harder truth is that they were drawn to eugenics for what were then good, leftwing reasons.
> They believed in science and progress, and nothing was more cutting edge and modern than social Darwinism. Man now had the ability to intervene in his own evolution. Instead of natural selection and the law of the jungle, there would be planned selection. And what could be more socialist than planning, the Fabian faith that the gentlemen in Whitehall really did know best? If the state was going to plan the production of motor cars in the national interest, why should it not do the same for the production of babies? The aim was to do what was best for society, and society would clearly be better off if there were more of the strong to carry fewer of the weak.


the guys mentioned in the article aren't even socialists of the nazi kind...

And a nice article on John Maynard Keynes...

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/05/george_will_john_m_keynes_and_totalitarian_eugenics.html



> In addition to being both an anti-Semite and a pedophile, John Maynard Keynes, whose work
> 
> 
> 
> ...





> The state, according to Keynes, will even decide on the optimal level of population. Regarding eugenics, Keynes at times gave the appearance of indecision: "the time may arrive a little later when the community as a whole must pay attention to the innate quality as well as to the mere numbers of its future members."
> ​Shortly before his death, Keynes would call eugenics "the most important and significant branch of sociology."  Additionally, he served on the governing council of the Eugenics Society from 1937 to 1944.  Needless to say, his fascination with central planning went far beyond the "socialization of investment."
> Despite clothing itself in the garb of egalitarianism and tolerance, the [COLOR=#009900 !important]progressive[/COLOR] movement, which draws much of its influence from Keynes, has a nasty history of fostering the perfect society through government dictum.




From Wikipedia on John Maynard Keynes...



> *John Maynard Keynes, 1st Baron Keynes*,[SUP][1][/SUP] CB FBA (
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What was Keynes again...:angel:




> *Support for eugenics*
> 
> Keynes was a proponent of eugenics. He served as Director of the British Eugenics Society from 1937 to 1944. As late as 1946, shortly before his death, Keynes declared eugenics to be "the most important, significant and, I would add, genuine branch of sociology which exists."[SUP][135][/SUP]


*[edit]
*
Soooo...you have these socialists, the non nazi kind, who support eugenics which probably would target all sorts of people, including people of color, and I imagine if you believe in eugenics, but of course not for yourself or your own buddies,  I imagine you believe in supremacy, at least for you and your friends.  Hence, they are of the left...

(I am not using the "you" in this statement to mean you Sukerkin, but in the general "you." I do not believe you, Sukerkin, believe or support eugenics and I state this to make sure there is no thought that this statement is directed at you or others here on martialtalk)


----------



## Sukerkin (May 26, 2012)

I am tempted to say "Wronger than a wrong thing on a wrong day in the year of the wrong" but of course I'm an over-educated working class oik from England whose risen above his station in that nest of Communist Nazi Anarchists :lol:.  

It somewhat disturbs me that you talk and read so much about politics and yet do not demonstrate an understanding of the basic spectrum upon which to hang your ideas.  I'm not going to try and persuade you again of what an objective viewpoint looks like.  It's been tried too many times and, whilst having the courage of your convictions is a positive trait, not being able to amend and adapt your views in the light of reason is fanaticism; which is not so positive a thing.

Do you not see though, that merely repeating the output of less than rigorously neutral internet talking heads does your credibility no good at all?  Over here in Blighty, in one of the great London parks, there is a place called Speakers Corner, where those with extreme views can harangue the passers by with their opinions and speeches. It's a laudable idea but, sadly, because of the general 'lunatic fringe' tenor of those that choose to speak there, it is not a place where many have their moment of epiphany.  The same concept applies here, I fear.

EDIT:  I see that you added quite a bit into that post#3, Bill, after I posted the above.   The Eugenics topic is a very interesting and thought provoking one in it's own right (no pun intended) but it has not much to do with the topic at hand, other than the general sense of one 'strand' of humanity having more 'worth' than another.


----------



## Tez3 (May 26, 2012)

Sukerkin said:


> I am tempted to say "Wronger than a wrong thing on a wrong day in the year of the wrong" but of course I'm an over-educated working class oik from England whose risen above his station in that nest of Communist Nazi Anarchists :lol:.
> 
> It somewhat disturbs me that you talk and read so much about politics and yet do not demonstrate an understanding of the basic spectrum upon which to hang your ideas. I'm not going to try and persuade you again of what an objective viewpoint looks like. It's been tried too many times and, whilst having the courage of your convictions is a positive trait, not being able to amend and adapt your views in the light of reason is fanaticism; which is not so positive a thing.
> 
> Do you not see though, that merely repeating the output of less than rigorously neutral internet talking heads does your credibility no good at all? Over here in Blighty, in one of the great London parks, there is a place called Speakers Corner, where those with extreme views can harangue the passers by with their opinions and speeches. It's a laudable idea but, sadly, because of the general 'lunatic fringe' tenor of those that choose to speak there, it is not a place where many have their moment of epiphany. The same concept applies here, I fear.



He shoots, he scores, nice one son, lets have another one!


----------



## billc (May 26, 2012)

Wellll...you did ask how white supremacism is a trait of the left and I showed you how eugenics was embraced by the socialist left.  Since most of those socialists were white, and believed that inferior people should be culled from humanity, many of whom would in their opinion be people of color no doubt, it does tend to support the notion that they were...white supremacists.  They were of the left, they were socialists and they were white and supremacists.

I didn't even have to bring in the nazis to show this.  The people mentioned above were all socialists of the non nazi persuasion, and believed in eugenics.  Some very smart people, like John Maynard Keynes.


----------



## Steve (May 26, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> He shoots, he scores, nice one son, lets have another one!


Well, if "left" is the new term for anyone not an American Republican, then we'll have to come up with a new term for what used to be "left."  I vote we use Conservative, because if we're rewriting history and redefining terms, we might as well consolidate and keep things simple.  If so, and because most everyone is left, we can begin saying correctly that everyone in the world is "conservative."


----------



## billc (May 26, 2012)

Hmmm...my sources have been Economists with Ph.Ds and one a nobel prize winner, political scientists, with ph.ds, other equally knowledgable people who didn't just throw their ideas together one morning during breakfast.  They looked beyond the surface differences and saw that the nazis, facists and communists were in fact socialists.   At the same time you yourself have refused to budge in the face of men of more experience in their field than you, sooo...who is the one unwilling to move in the light of reason...hmmmm....


----------



## Steve (May 26, 2012)

I'm a hippy leftist.  What can you expect?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## WC_lun (May 26, 2012)

<sigh> The purposeful ignorance is stunning.


----------



## Tez3 (May 27, 2012)




----------



## Big Don (May 27, 2012)

WC_lun said:


> <sigh> The purposeful ignorance is stunning.



Does that include the endless repetitions of (variations of) "In Europe, left and right are different."
We know, we get it, we got it.


----------



## Tez3 (May 27, 2012)

Big Don said:


> Does that include the endless repetitions of (variations of) "In Europe, left and right are different."
> *We know, we get it, we got it.[/*QUOTE]
> 
> 
> Don, you know it, I know it but Bili doesn't. When he does his homework, when he stops repeating what others say ( you and I have our differences but what you say is what _you_ think, you do your own thinking). when he starts to realise that a Phd in economics and a Nobel prize _doesn't_ make one right and when he finally stops posting endless streams of paid commentators drivel then we will be able to have what the politicians like to call meaningful dialogue.


----------



## Sukerkin (May 27, 2012)

billcihak said:


> Hmmm...my sources have been Economists with Ph.Ds and one a nobel prize winner, political scientists, with ph.ds, other equally knowledgable people who didn't just throw their ideas together one morning during breakfast.  They looked beyond the surface differences and saw that the nazis, facists and communists were in fact socialists.   At the same time you yourself have refused to budge in the face of men of more experience in their field than you, sooo...who is the one unwilling to move in the light of reason...hmmmm....



An important side of research, Bill, is to gauge the relative credibility of sources in order to assign appropriate weight to them.  It's one reason why, when you first started linking sources in support of your argument, I looked them up.  Not just the articles but their actual academic backgrounds and their considered status amongst their peers.

Another, equally important, part of research is not just to cleave to those experts in a field that say what you want to hear.  Such a narrow vision gives an illusion of certainty and reduces complex issues to the point where they become so 'simplified' that they lose their relevance - for politics is a human endeavour and the one thing we are not is simple and one-dimensional in our thinking and interactions.

A yet further important part of research is not to take an experts research that is along one, quite specific, path and reinterpret it to fit your own  ideas when there are no grounds to do so.  The introduction of the idea that JMK was in favour of eugenics and that means that all racial supremacists are Left Wing is an example of the latter. A + B = C only works if A and B actually have a meaningful, functional, relationship.


----------



## billc (May 27, 2012)

One of my sources...

http://democraticpeace.wordpress.com/2009/05/23/hitler-was-a-socialist/



> *On Rudy Rummel*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



yes, quite the intellectual slacker isn't he...

His contribution...


> Hitler Was A Socialist, (And Not A Right Wing Conservative


)



> What is socialism? It is a politico-economic philosophy that believes government must direct all major economic decisions by command, and thus all the means of production for the greater good, however defined. There are three major divisions of socialism, all antagonistic to each other. One is _democratic socialism_, that places the emphasis on democratic means, but then government is a tool for improving welfare and equality. A second division is _Marxist-Leninism_, which based on a &#8220;scientific theory&#8221; of dialectical materialism, sees the necessity of a dictatorship (&#8220;of the proletariat&#8221 to create a classless society and universal equality. Then, there is the third division, or _state socialism_. This is a non-Marxist or anti-Marxist dictatorship that aims at near absolute economic control for the purpose of economic development and national power, all construed to benefit the people.Mussolini&#8217;s _fascism_ was a state socialism that was explicitly anti-Marx and aggressively nationalistic. Hitler&#8217;s _National Socialism_ was state socialism at its worse. It not only shared the socialism of fascism, but was explicitly racist.  In this it differs from the state socialism of Burma today, and that of some African and Arab dictatorships.
> Two prevailing historical myths that the left has propagated successfully is that Hitler was a far right wing conservative and was democratically elected in 1933 (a blow at bourgeois  democracy and conservatives).  Actually, he was defeated twice in the national elections (he became chancellor in a smoke-filled-room appointment by those German politicians who thought they could control him &#8212; see &#8220;What? Hitler Was Not Elected?&#8221;) and as head of the National Socialist German Workers&#8217; Party, he considered himself a socialist, and was one by the evidence of his writings and the his economic policies.
> To be clear, National Socialism differs from Marxism in its nationalism, emphasis on folk history and culture, idolization of the leader, and its racism. But the Nazi and Marxist-Leninists shared a faith in government, an absolute ruler,  totalitarian control over all significant  economic and social matters for the good of the working man, concentration camps, and genocide/democide as an effective government policy (only in his last years did Stalin plan for his own Holocaust of the Jews).
> I&#8217;ve read Hitler&#8217;s Mein Kampf (all online here) and can quote the following from Volume 2:


----------



## Jenna (May 27, 2012)

to the left or to the right?  It is not simple I agree..  Tho the only really important thing for me is how easy is it to unbutton in a hurry


----------



## billc (May 27, 2012)

Another source...from wikipedia



> Jump to: navigation,                    search
> Austrian School
> 
> 
> ...




Yes, another intellectual slacker...here is his contribution to the discussion...

http://www.brookesnews.com/091910hayeknazis.html



> The persecution of the Marxists, and
> of democrats in general, tends to obscure the fundamental fact that National
> "Socialism" is a genuine socialist movement, whose leading ideas are the final
> fruit of the anti-liberal tendencies which have been steadily gaining ground in
> ...


----------



## billc (May 27, 2012)

And another source...



> *BIOGRAPHICAL NOTE FOR JOHN RAY
> 
> My full name is Dr. John Joseph RAY
> (JR for short). I was born of Australian pioneer stock in 1943 at Innisfail in
> ...



Yes, I know, another slacker...but here is one of his many contributions...
http://ray-dox.blogspot.com/2006/08/this-article-is-published-on-internet.html



> *The context of Nazism*
> "True, it is a fixed idea with the French that the Rhine is their
> property, but to this arrogant demand the only reply worthy of the German nation
> is Arndt's: "Give back Alsace and Lorraine". For I am of the opinion, perhaps in
> ...



For emphasis...



> So let that be an introduction to the idea that Hitler not only called himself a
> socialist but that he WAS in fact a socialist by the standards of his day. Ideas
> that are now condemned as Rightist were in Hitler's day perfectly normal ideas
> among Leftists. And if Friedrich Engels was not a Leftist, I do not know who
> would be.


----------



## billc (May 27, 2012)

Perhaps Sukerkin you are just jealous that someone made a rap video on Hayek and not on you...:angel:


----------



## Sukerkin (May 27, 2012)

Bill, a source can have expertise, doctorates not generally coming free with breakfast cereal {} but still lack credibility or lack of relevance when sited inappropriately.  

Maybe I wasn't clear about the points I was trying to make?  

At base level, determining the applicability and reliability of sources and dealing with how you weave them into a supporting structure for an argument are probably two of the most fundamental tenets of all under-graduate level study, regardless of core subject (I don't recall what yours was Bill, my apologies).  I suppose expecting such rigour is a bit much for a message board {ROFL whilst blushing} but building a cogent argument for a controversial position is what demarcates interesting debate from mere trolling.  I cannot really express it any balder or more simply than that.

Happily, the world continues to turn and Left continues to be clear from Right; and at the end of the day it's not like I have any responsibility for having to either change or defend that state of affairs :chuckles:.

And if I were to try ...

{/Canute gesture "Go back tide!"  ...} :lol: {/Canute has wet feet}


----------



## Tez3 (May 27, 2012)

Yawn.   Academics have theories, they argue them, disagree with each other. All you are doing is picking out the very few who happen to agree with you. If you say the world if flat you can find someone somewhere with academic qualifications who also said the world is flat in his opinion, it does not make it correct. They can write a PhD espeousing their view the world is flat, as long as it was set out correctly and followed the set criteria to satisfy the academic awarding body they will earn their PhD, it still doesn't mean the world *is* flat.


----------



## Sukerkin (May 27, 2012)

billcihak said:


> Perhaps Sukerkin you are just jealous that someone made a rap video on Hayek and not on you...:angel:



Now that was one of the high spots of the past couple of years :tup:.  It even made it into some Radio 4 economics discussions .


----------



## Tez3 (May 27, 2012)

billcihak said:


> One of my sources...
> 
> http://democraticpeace.wordpress.com/2009/05/23/hitler-was-a-socialist/
> 
> ...



His opponent's contribution.....http://tallarmeniantale.com/GS-rummel.htm


----------



## billc (May 27, 2012)

Here is Rummels chapter on Turkey...

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP5.HTM


> Finally, the table presents the many estimates of the overall genocide's toll during 1915 to 1918 (lines 151 to 186). These I order from the lowest to the highest figures. As can be seen, they vary from a low of 300,000 (lines 151 to 152) to a high of 2,000,000 (line 163), which anchor the consolidated range (line 187). Consistent with the estimates 1,000,000 dead (see lines 157, 160, 164 to 178) appears the most prudent mid-value.
> Next I independently check this consolidation against the sum (line 188) of those Armenians murdered during the deportations (line 123) and otherwise (line 148). As can be seen, the alternative totals (lines 187 and 188) are divergent, the mid-value alone being off by 808,000 dead. To compensate for this, I give the final genocide range (line 189) the lowest low and highest high of the two and average their mid-values. Thus, given all these estimates, the Turks murdered most likely 300,000 to 2,686,000 Armenians, probably 1,404,000 of them. A critical question is then whether this is consistent with the Armenian population, itself a contentious estimate. This I will later consider.





> The Young Turks did not confine their democide to Turkey. When they invaded Caucasia, their soldiers massacred Armenians and other Christians and also encouraged Kurds and Azerbaijanis to do so. Overall, Turks possibly killed (lines 212 to 220) 10,000 Christians, most of them probably Armenians--there were very few Greeks in Caucasia. (It is difficult to keep this number in perspective when other figures are in the tens and hundreds of thousands; but imagine the contemporary enraged and horrified outcry were the highest American, British, or French authorities to be responsible for the murder of 10,000 Moslem citizens--the responsible government would fall or be impeached.) For this genocide the table also lists some specific estimates (lines 224 to 227). These I consolidated (line 228) and then add (line 229) an assumed 4/5ths of the Christian dead determined above. The table then sums the two ranges (lines 228 and 229) to get the genocide (line 232).
> As noted, the Turks also massacred Nestorian Christians, for which there are also a few estimates (lines 235 to 238). From my assumption that 1/5th of the Christian dead previously determined (line 218) were Nestorians, I calculate a final genocide (line 241).
> Only one estimate of Moslem Azerbaijanis killed is available (line 244).
> I now can calculate the overall foreign genocide (line 249), which probably ranges from 105,000 to 157,000 killed, most likely 131,000.
> Turkey's Armenians also massacred Moslems. Claims that this may have amounted to at least 1,000,000, or even 1,500,000 Moslem dead (table 5.1A, lines 106b and 106e) however, have no substantiation beyond former Young Turks or their officials.





> Finally, I can bring together these various totals (lines 268 to 271). Domestically and during their foreign military actions and occupations, the Young Turks probably murdered at least 743,000 and perhaps as many as 3,204,000 people, probably 1,883,000 Armenians, Greeks, Nestorians, and other Christians (line 273). Altogether, likely 3,947,000 died or were killed during the war (line 274). When I add this to the toll I will determine below for the next period, we will be able to test the overall total against the population deficit and unnatural death).


----------



## Tez3 (May 27, 2012)

Does it make it correct because he said it? You obviously believe it does. Personally I don't know who is correct, I prefer to not believe someone *just* because they have an academic career, it doesn't make them any less politically biased or any the less ambition for fame and glory in their field. They are are likely to skew data as any politician for much the same reasons. Perhaps they genuinely believe something but it may still not be true. Merely parrotting what they say doesn't make it true anyway.


----------



## billc (May 27, 2012)

Hmm...



> Thus, given all these estimates, the Turks murdered most likely 300,000 to 2,686,000 Armenians, probably 1,404,000 of them. A critical question is then whether this is consistent with the Armenian population, itself a contentious estimate. This I will later consider.



some more numbers on the armenian genocide...

http://www.kaloustian.eu/Armeense Genocide/index The Armenian Genocide page.htm

There is a table here that shows one figure for the population of Armenians in 1914 and then in 1922.


> A 2002 study by the International Center for Transitional Justice (ICTJ), a New York-based human rights organization, ruled that the slaughter of some 1.5 million Armenians fits into the internationally accepted definition of genocide. The study was commissioned by TARC - a group of Armenians and Turks set up by the US State Department.​


----------



## Tez3 (May 27, 2012)

The two 'sides' will pose counter arguments but how do we decide who is correct? We need to retain a critical frame of mind when reading these things, not just accept one side blindly because they say something you like the sound of. Don't be blinded just because you think the guy has 'good' qualification, if you think a qualification from a university means they are experts you then have to accept that Sukerkin knows what he's talking about! (which he does!) 

This guy is a professor, does his academic career mean he's correct? http://www.rense.com/general54/fromm.htm you'll pardon me while I throw up however.


----------



## billc (May 27, 2012)

My point is simply that there are people, who have experience in Economics, Political Science, Behavioral Science who disagree with the common portrayel of the nazis as "right wing" and not their not being socialists.   The same people who told you they were right wing and weren't  socialists are just as prone to error and mistakes as the people you are saying are prone to error and mistakes.

Well, my sources are a lot more main stream than the nut denying the Jewish Holocaust and the Armenian Genocide.


----------



## billc (May 27, 2012)

I also have multiple sources from multiple fields of study.  I even have the author of Monster Hunter International discussing this topic with an e-mailer.

http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2...-mail-and-i-godwin-the-hell-out-of-this-post/



> *In fact, in the comments section of the last Hate Mail post several of my readers went through a bunch of facts about how the Nazis were socialists, just like they said that they were. The response by Hanna was to link to Wikipedia where somebody said they were like totally not. Because if you read it some place on the internet then it totally must be true. Especially Wikipedia, which as everyone knows is never biased or wrong.*
> *This Nazis are right wing is something that needs to get put to bed once and for all.*
> *Okay, so let&#8217;s look at this Hanna cited Wiki article. It says that &#8220;a majority of scholars identify Nazism as being a far right form of politics&#8221; (Not that modern leftist academics would try to sweep the idea that their fellow travelers were embarrassing horrific murder machines under the rug or anything biased like that). Okay. So the academics agree!*
> *So let&#8217;s take a look at some more things from this very same article.*





> The radical Nazi Joseph Goebbels hated capitalism, viewing it as having Jews at its core and stressed the need for the party to emphasize both a proletarian and national character, these views were shared by Otto Strasser who later left the Nazi Party in the belief that Hitler had betrayed the party&#8217;s socialist goals by allegedly endorsing capitalism.[SUP][31][/SUP] Large segments of the Party staunchly supported its official socialist, revolutionary, and anti-capitalist positions and expected both a social and economic revolution upon the Party gaining power in Germany in 1933.[SUP][33][/SUP] Of the million members of the SA, many were committed to the Party&#8217;s official socialist program.[SUP][33][/SUP]The leader of the Party&#8217;s paramilitary organization the SA, Ernst Röhm, supported a &#8220;second revolution&#8221; (the &#8220;first revolution&#8221; being the Nazis&#8217; seizure of power) that would entrench the Party&#8217;s official socialist program and demanded the replacement of the nonpolitical German army with a Nazi-led army.[SUP][33][/SUP]
> *Well. Huh.  Ain&#8217;t that something?*
> *But it says right there that Hitler changed his mind and decided to keep capitalism around! (surely that had nothing to do with the fact that socialism is a stupid economic failure and you can&#8217;t really build a super war machine with a broke *** economic system). I do believe I said repeatedly in that last post about how useful idiot idealist movements like OWS are always historically coopted by jerkoffs looking for more power.*
> Prior to becoming an anti-Semite and a Nazi, Adolf Hitler had previously served theBavarian Soviet Republic from 1918 to 1919 where Hitler was elected Deputy Battalion Representative of his communist-led battalion and attended the funeral of communist Kurt Eisner &#8211; who was a German Jew &#8211; where Hitler wore a black mourning armband on one arm and a red communist armband on his other arm.[SUP][34[/SUP]
> ...





> *All of those things sound eerily similar to things that my Hate Mailers post as being ideals.*
> *To be fair, the Nazis had plenty of other points too, including a lot of crazy eugenic racist garbage. I&#8217;m sure the academics will cite that as the right wing part, ignoring that the eugenics movement was universally loved by left wing politicians around the world during the early part of the century. All of the pro-big government, total control types thought eugenics was awesome.*
> *The eugenics movement was one of the most hideously evil things to ever exist. The communist/socialists/progressives ate it up. It gave them the &#8220;scientific&#8221; excuse they needed to implement controls on their populations. It was the global warming of the 1930s. But I digress.*
> *So in conclusion the National Socialists totally weren&#8217;t socialists because modern socialist academics said they aren&#8217;t, even though their party platform and policies were distinctly socialist. Does that much cognitive dissonance hurt?*


If you don't trust the author of the great book Monster Hunter International, I don't think you will trust anyone...:angel:


----------



## Tez3 (May 27, 2012)

billcihak said:


> My point is simply that there are people, who have experience in Economics, Political Science, Behavioral Science who disagree with the common portrayel of the nazis as "right wing" and not their not being socialists. The same people who told you they were right wing and weren't socialists are just as prone to error and mistakes as the people you are saying are prone to error and mistakes.
> 
> Well, my sources are a lot more main stream than the nut denying the Jewish Holocaust and the Armenian Genocide.



Arrogance? If they aren't American they aren't mainstream? The French Prof *is* mainstream. He's not alone in his beliefs and his academic 'studies', you miss the point every time. Just because someone puts professor in front of their name doesn't make them correct in their assertations.

We call a horse, a horse and a dog, a dog, we understand those definitions, just because some learned chap who wants to make a name for himself writes a thesis on why a dog is a horse and a horse a dog doesn't make him correct, your reliance on other people's opinions and views is leading you to stop thinking for yourself and come up with inane utterances that actually make no sense. Just because you want to see the Right as perfection personified doesn't make it so I'm afraid.


----------



## Sukerkin (May 27, 2012)

Come on now, Bill.  If you want to have a prayer of anyone who doesn't have 'big ole ears' and plays a banjo agreeing with your stance you've got to do a whole lot better than that.

Anyhoo, didn't I smash this (the notion that the Nazi's were not republican's ) with hammers of my own the last time you brought it up?  Or was that the time before the time before last?  I think the general conclusion was that Fascism is not exclusively a Right Wing phenomenon but it tends to be that way.  

I also seem to recall  that another conclusion was that confusion arises because you (or rather the mode of political thinking you embrace) see Right Wing as meaning 'less' government whereas it can quite often mean 'more' government.  I may be imagining that we covered this ground tho' as I might have gotten fed up with trying to help and put you on Ignore again .  

The basic dividing line, in theory at least, is that Right Wing means top-down governance (by the elite) and Left Wing means bottom-up governance (by the masses).  

Add Totalitarianism or Democracy into the mix and you get other flavours too.  For example, the Soviet Union was an Elite lead Totalitarian regime that pretended it was Communist in it's rhetoric but was really Centrist.  That is ever a recipe for economic disaster when writ over such a large mass and why I think socialism would not work well in America (other than maybe at the State level).  Britain gives a really confused picture because we had a Democratic Right Wing *and* Left Wing mixed socialist-capitalist system (depending on whether the Toffs or the Oiks had power at the time).  Sadly for us, we slid quickly into a Right-of-Centre, non-democratic, mode, where the plutocrats run the game and try to tell us it's a democracy.


----------



## Sukerkin (May 27, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> Just because you want to see the Right as perfection personified doesn't make it so I'm afraid.



That is the root of the past few years of wasted photons on this site I am sad to say.  Fanaticism, whether religious or political is the inverse of reason.  You have to be able to see the ill as well as the good in your ideology otherwise you are it's slave rather than it's master.


----------



## billc (May 27, 2012)

I don't see the 'right' as perfect.  I always simply point out that the left's desire for the government to control great swathes of peoples lives leads to really bad things.  From the eugenics movement of the demorcatic socialists to the outright genocide of the totalitarian socialists, the lefts belief in government control over people heads down a really bad road.

As I have stated before, nazism, facism, and communism are different types of socialism, adjusted for the realities on the ground in the countries where they came about. The fabian socialists believed in eugenics, they were non nazi socialists, and were never able to implement their stated desires of population control.  The nazis, and communists, on the other hand, were able to kill the people they didn't like.  The realities on the ground hemmed in the one type of socialist and couldn't stop the other kind of socialists.

Hmmm...I believe the communist party represented the ruling elite.  If you didn't belong to the party, your ability to advance was limited.  Socialism is the intermediate step toward communism where the government controls the means of production until true communism can be achieved.  The Italians, and Germans found that this international socialism didn't work for them, so they nationalised their socialism just for italians and just for germans.  Government control in Germany meant you had a business but you only ran it at the pleasure of the nazis.  

If you have a car, but your neighbor tells you what kind you can have, what color, make and model, when you can drive it, where you can drive it, who you can drive in it and if they don't like what you do with your car, they can arrest and even kill you, here is the question.  Who really owns the car, you or your neighbor?


----------



## Sukerkin (May 27, 2012)

If you truly think that the Right does not believe in control of the people from above for the benefit of a plutocratic elite, then there is no purpose in my wasting any more of my time with you.  Enjoy your illusions for as long as you can.


----------



## Steve (May 27, 2012)

I think where I come down is that it's clear hitler and the nazis were a very bad idea.  While I tend to think of fascism as extreme right wing and communism as extreme left wing, I also view it as just a simple model.  Call it red and blue or infinite shades of gray and it's still just a aimplistic model.  Ulyimately, it seems like a collossal waste of time going back through history and painting anyone evil as left only so you can draw meaningless but very insilting comparisons and anyone good as right, only so you can identify with them.  The world is complicated, and I'd prefer to spend time thinking about other things.  I don't need that kind of bs validation. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Tez3 (May 27, 2012)

Sukerkin said:


> If you truly think that the Right does not believe in control of the people from above for the benefit of a plutocratic elite, then *there is no purpose in my wasting any more of my time with you*. Enjoy your illusions for as long as you can.




That goes for me too.


----------



## Tez3 (May 27, 2012)

Steve said:


> I think where I come down is that it's clear hitler and the nazis were a very bad idea. While I tend to think of fascism as extreme right wing and communism as extreme left wing, I also view it as just a simple model. Call it red and blue or infinite shades of gray and it's still just a aimplistic model. Ulyimately, it seems like a collossal waste of time going back through history and painting anyone evil as left only so you can draw meaningless but very insilting comparisons and anyone good as right, only so you can identify with them. The world is complicated, and I'd prefer to spend time thinking about other things. I don't need that kind of bs validation.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk




I've had enough to be honest and now he's on ignore, as you say there's other things to do and think about. I enjoy a good political debate and can enjoy a good argument from someone who's views are the complete opposite to mine if it's well presented and gives you something to think about. A good debate should make you think about your own arguments, how you understand what you believe and why you believe it. A passionate well thought out pitch is a pleasure to argue against. You can't argue when there's only one rigid belief that right is everything good and left everything bad, human nature doesn't work that way. You can't argue against something when all you get are endless links to inane television 'personalities' and obscure professors. I wouldn't even mind but I'm not on the 'left'!


----------



## WC_lun (May 27, 2012)

I am left of center and it is just as annoying, Tez 

Intellectual arguement is a good thing, even when heated, because it makes us examine our beliefs.  When someone is fanatical in thier beliefs, in this case to the point ofjust posting links and rarely submitting an arguement of thier own, it is frustrating.

As far as government being smaller under the right's rule, that isn't how things have worked out.  If you don't think the right is for controlling people, just ask a gay person about governmental control of marriage.  Or a Muslim in Kansas that would submitt to Sharia law to settle disputes before using the courts.  Oh, or maybe a woman in a red state that believes she needs an abortion without government interferance.  Both the left and right have thier issues they would like government to help control.  The right just denies they do it.


----------



## Tez3 (May 28, 2012)

WC_lun said:


> I am left of center and it is just as annoying, Tez
> 
> Intellectual arguement is a good thing, even when heated, because it makes us examine our beliefs. When someone is fanatical in thier beliefs, in this case to the point ofjust posting links and rarely submitting an arguement of thier own, it is frustrating.
> 
> As far as government being smaller under the right's rule, that isn't how things have worked out. If you don't think the right is for controlling people, just ask a gay person about governmental control of marriage. Or a Muslim in Kansas that would submitt to Sharia law to settle disputes before using the courts. Oh, or maybe a woman in a red state that believes she needs an abortion without government interferance. Both the left and right have thier issues they would like government to help control. The right just denies they do it.




That's it exactly, I'm an old fashioned British Liberal, that's probably a bit to the left of centre for some things, on the centre for others, perhaps even a bit right now and again, it depends on the issue. A lot of people make a lot of noise about not having government telling people what to do, what they actually mean is they don't want government telling *them* what to do but they are fine with being the government and telling other people what to do!

Lots of media friendly bite sized words have crept into politics these days, 'big government' is one, what on earth does that mean? It sounds like a description of something that some spin doctor has thought too difficult for the public to understand ( like using gee gee for horse when talking to kids), it uses the word 'big' to imply bad  as in the big bad wolf is coming to get you. Their tactics are to scare the public into voting for them because they don't  actually have any policies or manifesto so they have to make the other guy look worse than them so they don't wote for them!  

The word I like best to describe politics most things in politics these days comes from a series here than uses swear words levery other word but is brilliantly satirical, they came up with 'omnishambles'! Here's a bit of it, a very big language warning! Many of us think this is how things are really run!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=0MSScBIopM8&NR=1

The plot http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thick_of_It


----------

