The Nazi Party was not Right-Wing

According to the logic of the OP and Jonah Goldberg, most American Conservatives are Leftists.

 

I wouldn't be so sure. This guy looks like he's almost ready to come all the way out of the closet.

 

While the things he argued are all untrue. Again it is authoritarian spectrum. Need I have to remind you that Stalin and everyone else in his party did the same things? Castro a big fan of immigration? What was the wall in Berlin for? Etc...

Now, left v right wing economic policy. Who is up for the I name two similarities between occupy caught on film, and you only have to name 1 contest? Game?

No tea party infiltrator movies though. You know the ones. Game? Yes or no. Let me get an answer you big ole dodgers.

- - - Updated - - -

How so? How are the republicans left of the nazis? How are the democrats left of the nazis?

 

According to the OP and Jonah Goldberg, most Republicans are Authoritarians and NOT Libertarians.

 

The Christian Right is semi authoritarian. That is true.


FDR was on the left right? Can we all agree there?

 

above is a decent political compass.




here's the test

http://www.politicalcompass.org/test

 

Thanks! I posted it 30 pages go and you kept disagreeing. Now post the blurb they have about hitler on that page. I disagree with where they plotted him, but I do agree with their statements.

So...FDR... Left wing?

 

I said until WWII began. The Russo-Finish war of 1939 and the partition of Poland were both after the outbreak of WWII.

 

Within 9 years of their revolution they were squashing the Ukranians, and in 17 years they would be invading and taking territory and didnt stop their spread until they couldn't anymore. That is no great track record of anti imperialism.

 

The Ukraine had not been an independent nation since it's final partition between Russia and the Austro-Hungarian Empire in 1795, it attempted to re-establish it's independence during the Russian Revolution, but was quickly crushed by the Red Army. Poland had also been partitioned in 1795 by Russia and Prussia and it only regained it's independence as a result of the WWI. Neither the USSR nor Germany considered Poland to be a legitimate independent state.

 

The people there did.

So, 17 years of purging and mass starvation before imperialism makes them what?

 

Parts of the Traditional Russian State that it's successor State, the USSR believed it had long standing claim to.

 

Fascists post

 

No other interpretation......none. Period.

 

I think it's funny to listen to some Tea Party folks pretend as though they only had an economic agenda. I always have a good laugh when they claim to have no social agenda of any kind.

 

I don't really follow their social agenda stuff. I don't care about it. The economic and fiscal angles are all I care about, and since they are the ONLY people or organizations even trying to hold this borrow heavily, tax to excess, and spend crazy government's toes to the fire, than rah! rah! Tea Party. Well done that!

 

I am almost reluctant to respond to anyone so far outside the mainstream as a self-proclaimed communist is.

I will, however, say this: Some of your observations are essentially correct, whereas others are...well, less so. Substantially less so.

For instance, it is certainly true that I am an unabashed nationalist; and I believe, quite deeply, in the principle of American Exceptionalism. Moreover, I believe that most of my fellow conservatives believe similarly, as regarding these two matters.

I respect legitimate authority (which, I would assume, is what is meant by the term, "hierarchy," in your construction, above). As for "[c]ultural purity," it seems evident to me that not all cultures are created equal--that, say, fundamentalist Sunni culture (as epitomized by Saudi Arabia or Pakistan) is hardly the equal of Western culture. (By your inserting the loaded term, "purity"--thereby evoking thoughts of the ethnic "purity" envisioned by Hitler--you would appear to be attempting to prejudice the argument at hand.)

Again, I would imagine that most other conservatives would agree with me on these issues.

The term, "[a]ncestor's worship," is rather dicey. In fact, I really have no idea as to what it might imply. Would you care to elucidate, please?

As for "[r]eligious fundamentalism," it is only a subset of social conservatives--more precisely, it is only religious conservatives--who fit this description. (For the record, I am not a religious fundamentalist; and neither are most other conservatives.)

And the charge that conservatives wish to "[r]efuse or ban any sign of social evolution" seems rather amorphous, to say the least. What sort of "social evolution" do you have in mind, exactly? (Note: If it is of the Marxian variety, I most certainly do reject the very idea of its existence. The same goes for the Hegelian variety--the entire thesis/antithesis/synthesis thing.)