View Full Version : Nelson Mandela
was a 'terrorist'
who killed many people
indiscrimnately - he did not do his prison sentance for nothing
still - that's all over now then
Yet people bitch constantly about Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness .. it's almost sinful.
He was a murderer and terrorist, and should have been executed a long time ago. He is a communist and supporter of Castro and Mugabe. He should be shot.
This is a post from me about a year ago in response to someone's question about Mandela on a different forum:
We all remember his absolutely brilliant speech concerning Iraq outputting "40% of the world's oil."
Once you read up on Mandela, and I have, you see that he is just another communist... Read this: http://home.wanadoo.nl/rhodesia/goodcom.html
"his greatest friends are communists and dictators like Fidel Castro, Moammar Qaddafi, Yasser Arafat and Saddam Hussein" (all of whom are enemies of the United States)
Mandela should have been executed when whoever in authority had the chance. He committed horrible crimes and instead of capital punishment they gave him a lame life sentence.
Here is another link: http://southafricathetruth.netfirms.com/themandelafiles.htm -- They have a copy of the book HOW TO BE A GOOD COMMUNIST by Nelson Mandela
Yet another link: http://secure.mediaresearch.org/news/mediawatch/1990/mw19900701stud.html -- What the media doesn't tell you about Mandela.
Here is a quote from his book:
"The victory of Socialism in the U.S.S.R., in the Peoples Republic of China, in Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland and Rumania, where the living conditions of the people were in many respects similar and even worse than ours, proves that we too can achieve this important goal. "
From Mandela's beliefs and actions, he is clearly a left-wing fanatic. A communist. He is most definitely over there on the left with the rest of the gang: Stalin (communist-left), Mau (communist-left), Pol Pot (communist-left), Hitler (fascist-left), Mussoleni (fascist-left), and so forth. He may not have been responsible for quite that much misery in this world, but he is one marble short.
and later a follow up post
He was a murderer and terrorist, and should have been executed a long time ago. He is a communist and supporter of Castro and Mugabe. He should be shot.
This is a post from me about a year ago in response to someone's question about Mandela on a different forum:
and later a follow up post
At least us 'lefties' can spell "Mussolini" :p
downquark1
02-12-2003, 07:49
Hitler (fascist-left) I thought being fascist was a characteristic of the right wing?:shrug:
downquark1
02-12-2003, 09:06
Is this another of those america arguments, they criticise you so you discredit them.
Here's a news flash - nobody is perfect see here:
Bush, George W:
Founder of oil company Arbusto Energy. Former shareholder oil company Spectrum 7 Energy. Former director of Harken Oil and Gas. Son of oil magnate George H W Bush.
Cheney, Richard †œDick⠃¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚ :
Former CEO oil company Halliburton Industries. Customers included Unocal, Exxon, Shell and Chevron. Plus Saddam Hussein, Colonel Gadaffi, Ayatollah Ali Khameini.
Rice, Condoleeza:
Former director of oil company Chevron. Chevron are partners in a massive new Caspian oil venture, had a 129,000 ton oil tanker named after her.
Hmm so it's easy to see why people say the have alteria motives
Here's a news flash - nobody is perfect see here:
Hardly in the same league, don't you think?
downquark1
02-12-2003, 12:35
Hardly in the same league, don't you think?
:D Indeed I'm only gettting started. Let the character assasinations begin:
Meet Thomas White, former Vice Chairman of Enron Energy Services. While he was in the job Enron rigged and exploited Californiaââ ¬â„¢s electricity market, causing chaos, power cuts, and unemployment, in what the Senate investigator called, †œA mob style protection racketÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šà ¬Ã‚ÂÂ. He doesnÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šà ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t work there any more. Heâ₠¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢s now Secretary of the US Army. Meet Larry Thompson. He headed up the audit and compliance committee of Providian. This insurance firm was forced to pay $400m in fines and compensation after swindling itâ₠¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢s investors, the frail and elderly, of most of their savings. Larry later faced personal claims of insider trading, after selling $4m of Providian stock just before the share price dropped. But he doesnÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šà ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t work there any more. Heâ₠¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢s now George Bushââ‚ ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s fraud buster, charged with restoring faith in American business ethics. And meet Dick Cheney, head of the Republican Committee to find a Vice Presidential candidate. He found himself! He sold £30m of his shares as Chief Executive of an engineering company Halliburton, after accounting changes allegedly inflated the share price by £234m. The shares later collapsed, and Halliburton are now under investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission. [George Bush] been arrested 3 times for different offences, and only got off with $800,000 oil shares trading charge when the investigator, appointed by his father said there was insufficient evidence to proceed.
as you can see there is dirt on everyone - that's why these black and white morals can't stand.
I thought being fascist was a characteristic of the right wing?
No downquark1. Fascism and Nazism are both left-wing philosophies. Why do you think is it called the National Socialist Party?
Socialism is the doctrine that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that his life and his work do not belong to him, but belong to society, that the only justification of his existence is his service to society, and that society may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own tribal, collective good.
From: For the New Intellectual, by Ayn Rand, C. 1961
The essential characteristic of socialism is the denial of individual property rights; under socialism, the right to property (which is the right of use and disposal) is vested in 'society as a whole,' i.e., in the collective, with production and distribution controlled by the state, i.e., by the government.
Socialism may be established by force, as in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics--or by vote, as in Nazi (National Socialist) Germany. The degree of socialization may be total, as in Russia--or partial, as in England. Theoretically, the differences are superficial; practically, they are only a matter of time. The basic principle, in all cases, is the same.
The alleged goals of socialism were: the abolition of poverty, the achievement of general prosperity, progress, peace and human brotherhood. The results have been a terrifying failure--terrifying, that is, if one's motive is men's welfare.
Instead of prosperity, socialism has brought economic paralysis and/or collapse to every country that tried it. The degree of socialization has been the degree of disaster. The consequences have varied accordingly.
From: The Monument Builders, from The Virtue of Selfishness, by Ayn Rand, C. 1964
There is no difference between communism and socialism, except in the means of achieving the same ultimate end: communism proposes to enslave men by force, socialism--by vote. It is merely the difference between murder and suicide.
From: Foreign Policy Drains U.S. of Main Weapon, by Ayn Rand, pub. in Los Angeles Times, 9/9/62 G2
Read the next four quotes. It highlights fascism and socialistm
Both 'socialism' and 'fascism' involve the issue of property rights. The right to property is the right of use and disposal. Observe the difference in those two theories; socialism negates private property rights altogether, and advocates 'the vesting of ownership and control' in the community as a whole, i.e., in the state; fascism leaves ownership in the hands of private individuals, but transfers control of the property to the government.
Ownership without control is a contradiction in terms: it means 'property,' without the right to use it or to dispose of it. It means that the citizens retain the responsibility of holding property, without any of its advantages, while the government acquires all the advantages without any of the responsibility.
From: The New Fascism: Rule by Consensus, from Capitalism, the Unknown Ideal, by Ayn Rand, C. 1966
The difference between [socialism and fascism] is superficial and purely formal, but it is significant psychologically: it brings the authoritarian nature of a planned economy crudely into the open.
The main characteristic of socialism (and of communism) is public ownership of the means of production, and, therefore, the abolition of private property. The right to property is the right of use and disposal.
Quoting Ayn Rand from: The Fascist New Frontier, pamphlet, p. 5
Adolf Hitler on Nazism and socialism: Each activity and each need of the individual will thereby be regulated by the party as the representative of the general good. There will be no license, no free space, in which the individual belongs to himself. This is Socialism--not such trifles as the private possession of the means of production. Of what importance is that if I range men firmly within a discipline they cannot escape? Let them then own land or factories as much as they please. The decisive factor is that the State, through the party, is supreme over them, regardless whether they are owners or workers. All that, you see, is unessential. Our Socialism goes far deeper.
Why need we trouble to socialize banks and factories? We socialize human beings.
Adolf Hitler to Hermann Rauschning, quoted in The Ominous Parallels, by Leonard Peikoff C. 1982
Under fascism, men retain the semblance or pretense of private property, but the government holds total power over its use and disposal.
The dictionary definition of fascism is: a governmental system with strong centralized power, permitting no opposition or criticism, controlling all affairs of the nation (industrial, commercial, etc.), emphasizing an aggressive nationalism[The American College Dictionary, New York: Random House, 1957.]
Under fascism, citizens retain the responsibilities of owning property, without freedom to act and without any of the advantages of ownership. Under socialism, government officials acquire all the advantages of ownership, without any of the responsibilities, since they do not hold title to the property, but merely the right to use it--at least until the next purge. In either case, the government officials hold the economic, political and legal power of life or death over the citizens.
Needless to say, under either system, the inequalities of income and standard of living are greater than anything possible under a free economy--and a man's position is determined, not by his productive ability and achievement, but by political pull and force.
Quoting Ayn Rand from: The Fascist New Frontier, pamphlet, p. 5
Contrary to the Marxists, the Nazis did not advocate public ownership of the means of production. They did demand that the government oversee and run the nation's economy. The issue of legal ownership, they explained, is secondary; what counts is the issue of control. Private citizens, therefore, may continue to hold titles to property--so long as the state reserves to itself the unqualified right to regulate the use of their property.
If ownership means the right to determine the use and disposal of material goods, then Nazism endowed the state with every real prerogative of ownership. What the individual retained was merely a formal deed, a contentless deed, which conferred no rights on its holder. Under communism, there is collective ownership of property de jure. Under Nazism, there is the same collective ownership de facto.
From: The Ominous Parallels, ch. 9, pb.18, by Dr. Leonard Peikoff, C. 1982
Here's a news flash - nobody is perfect see here:
How is that bad?
was a 'terrorist'
who killed many people
indiscrimnately - he did not do his prison sentance for nothing
still - that's all over now then
Yep didn't he go to Scotland recently to see how the PAN AM bomber was,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/2166394.stm
Showing his true colours
downquark1
02-12-2003, 20:50
by your philosophy Fascism may be left wing but my dictionary defines
Fascism: A philosophy or system of government that advocates or exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with an ideology of belligerent nationalism.
Doesn't this seem to fit George W?
Indeed that was the definition I had read :erm:
Seems this quote from Blackadder is ever revelant
The world cries out for peace, freedom, and a few less fat *******s eating all the pie
------------------------------------
How is that bad? Indeed when I hear that Mandela was a friend to communists I think - how is that bad. But it seems to me that american opinion (or indeed the media) has only turned against him since he spoke out against the war.
by your philosophy Fascism may be left wing but my dictionary defines
Fascism: A philosophy or system of government that advocates or exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with an ideology of belligerent nationalism.
That is because your dictionary is probably written by a socialist who can't wait to try to shift some of the misery in the world to the right and don't want to admit that all the nutbars in history were lefties.
Left = total government
Right = no government
You have to be careful where you put anarchy on this scale, because communism can actually equate anarchy since there is no government. I do put myself on the right though, far, far on the right. A anarcho-libertarian if you will.
According to your fancy dictionary's definition though, I must be a centrist. Which I can assure you, I am not. If you want to put me down as a right-wing extremist, well, then I'm by your definition a fascist. Fascism likes a big government. I do not. The Nazis nationalized everything. I hate that.
Regardless, Webster's give a better definition:
a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
That is more accurate.
Doesn't this seem to fit George W?
No? How?
A philosophy or system of government that advocates or exercises a dictatorship
He is not a dictator. Congress (legislative branch) and the Supreme Court (judicial branch) are there to balance him (executive branch).
of the extreme right
Lol. No.
typically through the merging of state and business leadership
Really. And what did he nationalize?
together with an ideology of belligerent nationalism.
Except that we are not waging war in the name of the American people. Have we attacked Canada? Mexcio? Europe? Um... no?
Showing his true colours
Yup. Damn terorrist.
Indeed when I hear that Mandela was a friend to communists I think - how is that bad.
Indeed.
Africa: 1,700,000 deaths
Cambodia: 2,000,000 deaths
China: 65,000,000 deaths
Eastern Europe: 1,000,000 deaths
Latin America: 150,000 deaths
North Korea: 2,000,000 deaths
USSR: 61,000,000 deaths
Vietnam: 1,000,000 deaths
Zbigniew Brzezinski in his book Out of Control: "Global Turmoil on the Eve Of The Twenty-first Century" puts the total between 167 to 175 million people [deaths from government: includes the Nazis and lesser atrocities]. Professor Rudolph J. Rummel in his book: "Death By Government" gives a total of over 258 million.
Indeed. What is wrong with communism? It only killed a 100 million people! Lets give it another chance!! And how is that bad? I mean, those people probably had it coming!
downquark1
02-12-2003, 21:05
No? How? No your right - the government isn't controlling the wealth owners- the wealth owners are controlling the government
Yup. Damn terorrist.Yep, black and white again, as I said nobody is perfect, he is a hero for solving apartide, but may have controversial opinions, you can't hate him for that everyone has bad sides as I mentioned in post 8 - which you seem to have ignored.
downquark1
02-12-2003, 21:07
Indeed.
Africa: 1,700,000 deaths
Cambodia: 2,000,000 deaths
China: 65,000,000 deaths
Eastern Europe: 1,000,000 deaths
Latin America: 150,000 deaths
North Korea: 2,000,000 deaths
USSR: 61,000,000 deaths
Vietnam: 1,000,000 deaths
Zbigniew Brzezinski in his book Out of Control: "Global Turmoil on the Eve Of The Twenty-first Century" puts the total between 167 to 175 million people [deaths from government: includes the Nazis and lesser atrocities]. Professor Rudolph J. Rummel in his book: "Death By Government" gives a total of over 258 million.
Indeed. What is wrong with communism? It only killed a 100 million people! Lets give it another chance!! And how is that bad? I mean, those people probably had it coming!
Nope, I said Friend a communist isn't going to listen to someone whom he knows hates them. Well America has let bigons be bigons (spell??) with cuba haven't they :rolleyes:
EDIT I meant that being a friend of communists doesn't mean you support them - but it puts you in a better position to advise them against bad actions.
No your right - the government isn't controlling the wealth owners-
Good.
the wealth owners are controlling the government
How?
Yep, black and white again, as I said nobody is perfect,
That is the lamest excuse yet for a murderer and terrorist. I give it a 1.
he is a hero for solving apartide
He didn't solve anything. He was in jail. The country got out of it by itself. The NP was the principal party responsible for it.
but may have controversial opinions,
Such as supporting the Lockerbie bombings.
you can't hate him for that
Of course I can. Sick man, he is.
everyone has bad sides as I mentioned in post 8 - which you seem to have ignored.
And that is, as I have mentioned, not an excuse.
Why do you seem so intent on supporting the communists? Don't know know of all the deaths due to communism and communists and terrorists like Mandela? Or do you support those deaths? I mean, it sure looks like it!!
Nope, I said Friend a communist isn't going to listen to someone whom he knows hates them.
That made no sense whatsoever.
Well America has let bigons be bigons (spell??) with cuba haven't they
What exactly do you mean?
downquark1
02-12-2003, 21:17
Good.
How?
That is the lamest excuse yet for a murderer and terrorist. I give it a 1.
He didn't solve anything. He was in jail. The country got out of it by itself. The NP was the principal party responsible for it.
Such as supporting the Lockerbie bombings.
Of course I can. Sick man, he is.
And that is, as I have mentioned, not an excuse.
Why do you seem so intent on supporting the communists? Don't know know of all the deaths due to communism and communists and terrorists like Mandela? Or do you support those deaths? I mean, it sure looks like it!!
Don't you dare put words in my mouth :afire:
Many consider Mandela and hero - some a terriorist - you seem to think they are mutually exclusive.
Churchhill was voted the greastest Britian - yet people don't know that he was the first person to bomb civilians :dozey:
Could such a company possibly fit with a European trendy Leftie?
Um, YES?
And, you conveniently avoided answering all my other questions. So go and read them again and answer them. I'm real anxious to see where you would put me on the left-ride scale. Come on. I'm an anarcho-libertarian. Am a bang in the middle? Neither left or right? Because as you portray it, the more I move to the left and right, the bigger the government gets, and I support a minimal government.
Many consider Mandela and hero - some a terriorist - you seem to think they are mutually exclusive.
They are. Do you consider Stalin a hero?
Please explain to me how someone can be a hero and terrorist. Please.
Churchhill was voted the greastest Britian - yet people don't know that he was the first person to bomb civilians
Lol, the first person? You have much to learn from history.
downquark1
02-12-2003, 21:24
Many consider Mandela and hero - some a terriorist - you seem to think they are mutually exclusive.
They are. Do you consider Stalin a hero?
Please explain to me how someone can be a hero and terrorist. Please.
Lol, the first person? You have much to learn from history.
I'm not refering to the 2nd world war :rolleyes:
Churchhill was voted the greastest Britian - yet people don't know that he was the first person to bomb civilians :dozey:Churchill was a complete and utter bas*ard. What he did after WW2 to Europe was unforgivable and lets not get started on the Cossacks that he sent back to certain death(and he knew it). He may have been voted the greatest Britain but he did many other peoples a grave disservice. I think that history will not treat him kindly in the long run. :afire:
We already know that the peoples vote in the UK is worth b*gger all....you just need to look at the pop charts most weeks....or at the govornment :D
I'll shut up now.....
downquark1
02-12-2003, 21:33
It seems noone watched the program I posted in an earlier thread so I will point you to one of the important points:
http://www.channel4.com/news/2003/special_reports/iraq_hard_place1.ram
8min into the program
rest of the program here:
http://www.channel4.com/news/2003/special_reports/iraq_hard_place.html
downquark1
02-12-2003, 21:33
So Jerrek, Churchhill - Hero or terriorist?
It seems noone watched the program I posted in an earlier thread so I will point you to one of the important points:
http://www.channel4.com/news/2003/special_reports/iraq_hard_place1.ram
8min into the program
rest of the program here:
http://www.channel4.com/news/2003/special_reports/iraq_hard_place.htmlI don't want to watch it....Whats the upshot downquark?
downquark1
02-12-2003, 21:39
I don't want to watch it....Whats the upshot downquark?
Basically when Britian occupied the area of Iraq then, the local civilians uprose against us, so the RAF bombed the civilians and the Colonial Secretary at the time was, Winston Churchill. This was the first systematic bombing of civilians in history
Basically when Britian occupied the area of Iraq then, the local civilians uprose against us, so the RAF bombed the civilians and the Colonial Secretary at the time was, Winston Churchill. This was the first systematic bombing of civilians in history
Thanks downquark.
...so the Iraqis have the same opinion of Churchill that I have.... :D
I meant that being a friend of communists doesn't mean you support them - but it puts you in a better position to advise them against bad actions.
Now you are playing with words. As O'Reilly would say, "This is the no-spin zone." Being called a friend of communism and communists, and of those people I mentioned above, is NOT a good thing in my book.
downquark1
03-12-2003, 07:46
Now you are playing with words. As O'Reilly would say, "This is the no-spin zone." Being called a friend of communism and communists, and of those people I mentioned above, is NOT a good thing in my book.
Nelson mandela also supported the original war on terror (Aufghanistan): http://members.aol.com/sberen2000/mandela.htm (sorry I googled) I guess you could have called him a friend of Bush then.
When did this character assasination of mandela start?
I guess you could have called him a friend of Bush then.
You have a funny concept of friendship when you define it as agreeing with a person.
downquark1
03-12-2003, 16:02
You have a funny concept of friendship when you define it as agreeing with a person.
So you are condemning him for being a friends - a chum with some you consider unfit, isn't that a bit like Jesus and the tax collectors.
NOTE: I'm am in no way implying Nelson Mandela is worthy as a messiah
Atomic22
03-12-2003, 18:28
when did mandela end apartheid? he was in prison and the government at the time ended apartheid and released him and set in motion the abolition...
he was a terrorist hiding behind politics just the same as adams and mcguinness are now..
once a murdering terrorist always a murdering terrorist no matter how many times you say your sorry , count rosarys , pray to allah , etc etc etc
hell is waiting for them all to burn there
So you are condemning him for being a friends
No. He IS a terrorist (he was sentenced to jail because of murder), and he is a communist! Not because he is friends with one (which is bad), but because he IS a damn communist.
downquark1
04-12-2003, 16:57
No. He IS a terrorist (he was sentenced to jail because of murder), and he is a communist! Not because he is friends with one (which is bad), but because he IS a damn communist.
seems to be a conflict, this bbc report says he was sentanced because of sabotage: http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/june/12/newsid_3006000/3006437.stm
The Rivonia trial - named after the suburb of Johannesburg where the defendants were arrested - began eight months ago, with Mandela, 46, and his co-defendants proudly confessing their guilt to plotting to destroy the South African state by sabotage.
He also says:
"I do not deny that I planned sabotage. I did not plan it in a spirit of recklessness nor because I have any love of violence. I planned it as a result of a calm and sober assessment of the political situation that had arisen after many years of tyranny, exploitation and oppression of my people by the whites."
downquark1, you're separating fly**** from pepper. My parents remember the Rivonia trial, and he was on trial for murder and sabotage. I don't have time now to counter the Baathist Broadcasting Corp's claims since I have a final in 5 hours, but I will post something later on.
Regardless, he is still a terrorist.
And regardless of that, he is still a communist.
What were you arguing again?
downquark1
04-12-2003, 18:05
downquark1, you're separating fly**** from pepper. My parents remember the Rivonia trial, and he was on trial for murder and sabotage. I don't have time now to counter the Baathist Broadcasting Corp's claims since I have a final in 5 hours, but I will post something later on.
Regardless, he is still a terrorist.
And regardless of that, he is still a communist.
What were you arguing again?
Last I checked being a communist wasn't a crime.
"one man's terrorist is another man's..... (edited due to graham's post)" We can't all remove fascist governments by getting into tanks parading them down streets and demanded the leader comes out. They did what they could with the resources available to them.
The americans wanted the people of Iraq to rise up against Saddam after the gulf war - would you say they were encouraging them to become terrorists?
Regardless, he is still a terrorist.
And what was that expression? "One man's terrorist is...?" (The answer is left as an exercise for the student)
And regardless of that, he is still a communist.
Astonishingly enough, being a communist is not *necessarily* a crime!
Last I checked being a communist wasn't a crime.
Nope, and I didn't say anything to the contrary, did I? But it is a BAD thing. He admired Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, and the rest of the crazy bunch. He is part of that crazy club.
"one man's terrorist is another man's..... (edited due to graham's post)"
Thats nice, but I don't buy that.
We can't all remove fascist governments by getting into tanks parading them down streets and demanded the leader comes out. They did what they could with the resources available to them.
So, tell me, do you think it was right of him and his cronies to plant bombs in churches? Please. I WANT AN ANSWER from you. You seem to support him and his actions, so please tell me.
The americans wanted the people of Iraq to rise up against Saddam after the gulf war - would you say they were encouraging them to become terrorists?
Nope. There is a difference between planting bombs in churches and aiming to kill women and children and walking into a dictator's office and shooting him.
From the Sierra Times
Letââ‚ ¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢s look a bit deeper and Nelson Mandela and the ANC. Let us ponder his statement about heaven as if our own eternal destiny depended on it. Pretend it is "Judgment Day" and you are in Nelson Mandelaââ‚à ‚¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s shoes.
A. Nelson Mandela personally has blood on his hands from the Church Street bombings, which, if you can believe this, were set off at rush hour to maximize casualties. Nice touch! Killing the women, children and babies was a GREAT idea Nelson. Oh and by the way, did the ANC branch in heaven know about this? But you like to kill babies donââ‚ ¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢t you? And like Hillary Clinton you are actually obsessed with it. Iâ₠™ll get to that in a moment.
The Church Street bombing happened despite Mandelaââ‚à ‚¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s public statement that the "Armed struggle must be a movement intended to hit at the symbols of oppression and not to slaughter human beings." Oops!
But at least in his autobiography Long Walk to Freedom, Mandela had the courage and sanity to admit that his being hung would have been the logical outcome of his actions. (Possession of enough explosives to blow up half of Johannesburg and a document in his own handwriting on how to be a good communist were I suppose, just another case of the Afrikaners "playing the evidence card." It was like O.J. long before O.J.)
B. Mandela has blood on his hands from the massacre of unarmed Zulus at Shell House, the ANC TAC-HQ. Nelson directly worked to cover that up. Even after prison he showed "the watchers" meaning "those who understand the evil of the ANC" that he was and is STILL just another murderer comfortable with the KGB/Soviets and Maoists.
C. Praised MPLA-led Angola and thus, in effect, its ANC Quatro/Mobokodo gulags. Mbokodo is the Xhosa word for "The grinding stone." One must read Mwesi TwalaÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šà ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s book Mbokodo. The ANC kept their own black cadres in the most brutal and inhumane concentration camps at Quatro. I dare people to read Mbokodo, written by an ex-ANC soldier, and see if they can EVER view Mandela and the ANC the same way again. Oh and by the way, South African President Thabo Mbeki visited this camp and did NOTHING to stop the evil going on there. What does that tell you? My mother had a work for this kind of wickedness. And that word is E-V-I-L.
downquark1
04-12-2003, 19:03
Jerrek,
Would you have preferred apartide in Africa?
Did he continues his crimes when the struggle was over?
It would seem Africa forgave him as they elected him president
also you never answered:
Was Winston Chruchilll a terrorist?
[being a communist] is a BAD thing. He admired Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, and the rest of the crazy bunch. He is part of that crazy club.
This is utter nonsense and you are just using a very big brush to tar anyone whose politics you don't agree with.
This is utter nonsense and you are just using a very big brush to tar anyone whose politics you don't agree with.
Nelson Mandela, such a bad man they awarded him the Nobel Peace Prize .. I can't see GWB getting that any time soon.
Nelson Mandela, such a bad man they awarded him the Nobel Peace Prize .. I can't see GWB getting that any time soon.
one thing to reflect on is that Alfred Nobel invented dynamite
amongst other things
he was a rich norwegian cat
by your philosophy Fascism may be left wing but my dictionary defines
Fascism: A philosophy or system of government that advocates or exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right
The Oxford English Pocket Dictionary agrees:
Fascism
noun
1. An authoritarian and nationalistic right wing system of government.
2. extreme right-wing authoritarian or intolerant views or practice
As to the question of Nelson Mandela. I don't believe he personally achieved the end of Apartheid. I believe he was a figurehead. Other people achieved the end of Apartheid, he just got the publicity.
Oh, and Jerrek, you asked about terrorists who where heros. What about the Franch Resistance (I believe there was some) in the Second World War? I don't know of any individual heros, but they were undoubtedly considered "terrorists" by the Nazis, but helped us when the war. They also saved a lot of lives.
one thing to reflect on is that Alfred Nobel invented dynamite
amongst other things
he was a rich norwegian cat
True, but it's supposed to be awarded to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses
But of course, he's apparently a communist so according to our American loving chum, better dead than red.
one thing to reflect on is that Alfred Nobel invented dynamite
Yes, he did.
He devised the Nobel Peace Prize to promote peace and attempt to atone for his sin in inventing Dynamite. Does knowing that make the prize itself any less valid?
Yes, he did.
He devised the Nobel Peace Prize to promote peace and attempt to atone for his sin in inventing Dynamite. Does knowing that make the prize itself any less valid?
no - I was just going to point out that dynamite smells like marzipan
in an attempt to be smart arsed at this time of year
no - I was just going to point out that dynamite smells like marzipan
in an attempt to be smart arsed at this time of year
:erm: Ok...
homealone
05-12-2003, 00:27
Nelson Mandela, such a bad man they awarded him the Nobel Peace Prize .. I can't see GWB getting that any time soon.
I like you - you can take an opposite opinion, but not ignore all sides?
jomo kenyatta was President of Kenya, even though he had been part of the 'mau mau' - a bad man turned good? - I may have seen evidence of his regime when I lived there 1962-1964?....
I like you - you can take an opposite opinion, but not ignore all sides?
jomo kenyatta was President of Kenya, even though he had been part of the 'mau mau' - a bad man turned good? - I may have seen evidence of his regime when I lived there 1962-1964?....
apparently the 'meek'
will inherit the earth
but when?
Do you remember those signs on railway bridges:
FREE Nelson Mandela
Well I bought loads of crisps and Jamboree bags but i never got one :(
Do you remember those signs on railway bridges:
FREE Nelson Mandela
Well I bought loads of crisps and Jamboree bags but i never got one :(
yeah I never saw one in the packet either
(no purchase required etc)
if whites had been booting blacks off farms in zimbabwe we would never hear the end of it
if you ask me this is a disgrace
homealone
05-12-2003, 01:00
no - I was just going to point out that dynamite smells like marzipan
in an attempt to be smart arsed at this time of year
dynamite is tnt & Kieselguhr - tnt does smell of almonds - as does cyanide - don't attempt to be a smartarse - unless you can carry it off?
Would you have preferred apartide in Africa?
Oh no you don't! Don't f*cking change the subject. This has nothing to do with Mandela. This has no bearing on this subject.
For the record, I don't think apartheid was right, but it was better for most people, not just white.
Did he continues his crimes when the struggle was over?
Let me think. Um, YES?
As soon as he was out of his cage he flew to Red China, Cuba, and Libya to see his genocidal friends. His people are murdering the white farmers like hunting rabbits. His friend Mugabe is committing genocide and he refuses to condemn it.
It would seem Africa forgave him as they elected him president
Africa is a continent and has no bearing on the subject at hand.
Was Winston Chruchilll a terrorist?
Nothing to do with the subject at hand. Let us stick to Mandela, which is what this thread is about.
This is utter nonsense and you are just using a very big brush to tar anyone whose politics you don't agree with.
We're all in awe of such a revelating post.
Nelson Mandela, such a bad man they awarded him the Nobel Peace Prize .. I can't see GWB getting that any time soon.
Arafat also got the Nobel Peace Prize. The prize has the credibility of a honest thief.
The Oxford English Pocket Dictionary agrees:
Oh glory, another left-wing source.
Instead of sourcing more liberal sources, answer my questions. I am a right-winger. Are you saying I'm a fascist? Or am I a centrist? Where do you fit anarchy on the scale? Come on. Please explain.
Oh, and Jerrek, you asked about terrorists who where heros. What about the Franch Resistance (I believe there was some) in the Second World War? I don't know of any individual heros, but they were undoubtedly considered "terrorists" by the Nazis, but helped us when the war. They also saved a lot of lives.
I really know nothing about them, but if they killed innocent women and children, then they are not heroes. If they targetted military personnel, they might be heroes.
the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses
And Arafat is a prime example of promoting peace, and reduction of standing armies.
The predominant trend in this thread seems to be bashing my posts with insults and poorly written sentences in the form "you're wrong" and "you're stupid" and "that's dribble." Instead of creating such revealing posts, just maybe, MAYBE, you people should consider writing a post with real content that answers the points I have raised. You're ignoring the facts because the truth is hurting. Don't.
Bring some facts and arguments to the table. I've lived in that country, lived under him, and my parents have been telling me about life under apartheid for years. I've read his autobiography, and I have experienced apartheid first hand.
Oh glory, another left-wing source.
Instead of sourcing more liberal sources, answer my questions. I am a right-winger. Are you saying I'm a fascist? Or am I a centrist? Where do you fit anarchy on the scale? Come on. Please explain.
Actually, I wasn't commenting on your political views at all. BTW, the OED is apolitical (i.e. it is neither left nor right wing), and AFAIK is usually considered the definitive dictionary in the english language.
Jerrek, you can be right wing without being a fascist. If you were extreme right wing, you would be a fascist.
And I personally don't consider Anarchy (true anarchy anyway) to be either left or right wing. My reasoning being that if you have true anarchy, you have no government and no law. Therefore, you have no political system, and with Left and Right wing being political concepts, nothing can be left or right wing.
downquark1
05-12-2003, 09:54
Oh no you don't! Don't f*cking change the subject. This has nothing to do with Mandela. This has no bearing on this subject.
For the record, I don't think apartheid was right, but it was better for most people, not just white.
People always use that on me when I oppose the war on iraq, so I thought I would try it out.
et me think. Um, YES?
As soon as he was out of his cage he flew to Red China, Cuba, and Libya to see his genocidal friends. His people are murdering the white farmers like hunting rabbits. His friend Mugabe is committing genocide and he refuses to condemn it.
Source?Africa is a continent and has no bearing on the subject at hand.
I was referring to south africa
Nothing to do with the subject at hand. Let us stick to Mandela, which is what this thread is about.
I think it does, I trying to prove that things cannot be defined as good and bad - as right and wrong all the time. These people are prime examples of Humanity, people with good intentions but wrong methods.
Oh glory, another left-wing source.
Instead of sourcing more liberal sources, answer my questions. I am a right-winger. Are you saying I'm a fascist? Or am I a centrist? Where do you fit anarchy on the scale? Come on. Please explain.
:rofl: :rofl: Since England is the origin of English I think we should be the ones to define definitions
And I would have never thought of oxford as left wing.
The predominant trend in this thread seems to be bashing my posts with insults and poorly written sentences in the form "you're wrong" and "you're stupid" and "that's dribble." Instead of creating such revealing posts, just maybe, MAYBE, you people should consider writing a post with real content that answers the points I have raised. You're ignoring the facts because the truth is hurting. Don't.
IMO all the sources you have provided are blatantly right wing. I read the online encarta entry for mandela and nothing negative:
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761556825/Nelson_Mandela.html
It seems people are willing to forgive the benefits he brought, a bit like Christianity.
downquark1
05-12-2003, 17:12
That is because your dictionary is probably written by a socialist who can't wait to try to shift some of the misery in the world to the right and don't want to admit that all the nutbars in history were lefties.
Left = total government
Right = no government
You have to be careful where you put anarchy on this scale, because communism can actually equate anarchy since there is no government. I do put myself on the right though, far, far on the right. A anarcho-libertarian if you will.
According to your fancy dictionary's definition though, I must be a centrist. Which I can assure you, I am not. If you want to put me down as a right-wing extremist, well, then I'm by your definition a fascist. Fascism likes a big government. I do not. The Nazis nationalized everything. I hate that.
Regardless, Webster's give a better definition:
That is more accurate.
No? How?
A philosophy or system of government that advocates or exercises a dictatorship
He is not a dictator. Congress (legislative branch) and the Supreme Court (judicial branch) are there to balance him (executive branch).
of the extreme right
Lol. No.
typically through the merging of state and business leadership
Really. And what did he nationalize?
together with an ideology of belligerent nationalism.
Except that we are not waging war in the name of the American people. Have we attacked Canada? Mexcio? Europe? Um... no?
Yup. Damn terorrist.
from dictionary.com:
Left Wing
n.
1. The liberal or radical faction of a group.
________________________________________________
lib·er ƒÆ’‚·al ( P ) Pronunciation Key (lbr-l, lbrl)
adj.
1.
1. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
2. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
3. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
4. Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.
2.
1. Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor.
2. Generous in amount; ample: a liberal serving of potatoes.
__________________________________________________ __
rad·ià ƒÆ’‚·cal ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rd-kl)
adj.
1. Arising from or going to a root or source; basic: proposed a radical solution to the problem.
2. Departing markedly from the usual or customary; extreme: radical opinions on education.
3. Favoring or effecting fundamental or revolutionary changes in current practices, conditions, or institutions: radical political views.
4. Linguistics. Of or being a root: a radical form.
5. Botany. Arising from the root or its crown: radical leaves.
6. Slang. Excellent; wonderful.
__________________________________________________ _
right wing
n.
1. The conservative or reactionary faction of a group.
__________________________________________________ ____
con·ser ·vaà ƒâ€šÃ‚·tive ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kn-sÃÃ*’»rv-tv)
adj.
1. Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.
__________________________________________________ _____
re·acà ƒÆ’‚·tionà ƒâ€šÃ‚·arÃƒÆ Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â·y ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-ksh-nr)
adj.
Characterized by reaction, especially opposition to progress or liberalism; extremely conservative.
__________________________________________________ _______
As you can see no mention of government, or otherwise lack of.
Also:_____________________________________________ _________________
ter·ror ·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tr-rzm)
n.
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
_______
As you can see it would be hard to protest against a repressive government without performing 'terrorism'.
DQ1, was that for Me or Jerrek?
Those definitions would place Anarchy as a left wing idea (getting rid of the government would be a radical change).
downquark1
05-12-2003, 17:31
DQ1, was that for Me or Jerrek?
Those definitions would place Anarchy as a left wing idea (getting rid of the government would be a radical change).
Indeed - it would seem that either Jerrek has got his definitions wrong- or there are fundamental differences in dictionarys.
dynamite is tnt & Kieselguhr - tnt does smell of almonds - as does cyanide - don't attempt to be a smartarse - unless you can carry it off?
Dynamite can also use sawdust/wood pulp instead of infusorial earth to absorb the nytroglycerine, perhaps next time you attempt to pick someone's argument apart you'll be in full receipt of the facts first.
homealone
05-12-2003, 18:01
Dynamite can also use sawdust/wood pulp instead of infusorial earth to absorb the nytroglycerine, perhaps next time you attempt to pick someone's argument apart you'll be in full receipt of the facts first.
'hoist with my own petard' eh ;) - you are quite right, on both counts, my apologies to you & the OP.:)
was a 'terrorist'
who killed many people
indiscrimnately - he did not do his prison sentance for nothing
still - that's all over now then
Yes, and did you know the ANC were sponsoring members children to go overseas to study degrees in subjects like heavy Engineering, Electronics and Chemistry etc for arms purposes?
I have not followed the thread that well, but someone who I know that met president Mugabee (Saw him mentioned) of Zimbabwe when the 5 African presidents met, said he was a very nice charming chap!
I dont think I would of trusted his charm though. :erm:
The MDC party are also not as goody good as they try to come across either.
Jerrek, you can be right wing without being a fascist. If you were extreme right wing, you would be a fascist.
scastle, that does not make sense. Let me explain.
When you are on the left, the absolute left, we both agree you can be a full-blood real communist. There is total government. Government owns everything. Everyone produces what they can and everyone receives what they need. Thats the theory anyways. Keyword here is total government.
To the right of that lies liberals and socialists. They advocate big governments and lavish welfare systems. High taxation on the rich to redistribute more wealth.
Continue to the right, and you get conservatives. People in favor of smaller governments, lower taxes, and less welfare and social spending.
Keep going, and you get libertarians and anarcho-libertarians. People like me that recognize that government is a necessary evil. We advocate a tiny government, low income taxes, no redistribution of income, and little or no government interference in society and in the economy.
Keep going and government disappears and it is everyone for himself.
Now how does keep going to the right suddenly become facism, when facism advocates total government? No government ownership, but the government gains the benefits of property. That isn't right-wing. That is not what I stand for.
If you tell me facism and nazism is right, and communism is left, then I'm dead right in the middle of things because I'm opposed to both. And pretty much most people will agree that I am NOT a centrist. I DO take sides, and you won't be able to tell me that I'm taking sides of facism.
Unless you can prove it.
Facism and nazism have more in common with left wing communism and socialism. The Nazi party was the National Socialist Party. Socialist! Left-wing! They nationalized the banks. They nationalized the mail system. They banned guns. They nationalized electricity generating companies, and started a national welfare and health care program. That is not right-wing!
Now for the rest of the story...From ex-Communist anti-War Jew, David Horowitz...
"Nazism was inspired by Italian Fascism, an invention of hardline Communist Benito Mussolini. During World War I, Mussolini recognized that conventional socialism wasn't working. He saw that nationalism exerted a stronger pull on the working class than proletarian brotherhood. He also saw that the ferocious opposition of large corporations made socialist revolution difficult. So in 1919, Mussolini came up with an alternative strategy. He called it Fascism. Mussolini described his new movement as a "Third Way" between capitalism and communism. As under communism, the state would exercise dictatorial control over the economy. But as under capitalism, the corporations would be left in private hands.
Hitler followed the same game plan. He openly acknowledged that the Nazi party was "socialist" and that its enemies were the "bourgeoisie" and the "plutocrats" (the rich). Like Lenin and Stalin, Hitler eliminated trade unions, and replaced them with his own state-run labor organizations. Like Lenin and Stalin, Hitler hunted down and exterminated rival leftist factions (such as the Communists). Like Lenin and Stalin, Hitler waged unrelenting war against small business.
Hitler regarded capitalism as an evil scheme of the Jews and said so in speech after speech. Karl Marx believed likewise. In his essay, "On the Jewish Question," Marx theorized that eliminating Judaism would strike a crippling blow to capitalist exploitation. Hitler put Marx's theory to work in the death camps.
Lets go back to Ayn Rand. She has good explanations:
Adolf Hitler on Nazism and socialism: Each activity and each need of the individual will thereby be regulated by the party as the representative of the general good. There will be no license, no free space, in which the individual belongs to himself. This is Socialism--not such trifles as the private possession of the means of production. Of what importance is that if I range men firmly within a discipline they cannot escape? Let them then own land or factories as much as they please. The decisive factor is that the State, through the party, is supreme over them, regardless whether they are owners or workers. All that, you see, is unessential. Our Socialism goes far deeper.
Why need we trouble to socialize banks and factories? We socialize human beings.
Adolf Hitler to Hermann Rauschning, quoted in The Ominous Parallels, by Leonard Peikoff C. 1982
That is socialism. National Socialism. Also known as, Nazism.
http://snow.prohosting.com/rights/flagswastika.gif
Under fascism, citizens retain the responsibilities of owning property, without freedom to act and without any of the advantages of ownership. Under socialism, government officials acquire all the advantages of ownership, without any of the responsibilities, since they do not hold title to the property, but merely the right to use it--at least until the next purge. In either case, the government officials hold the economic, political and legal power of life or death over the citizens.
Needless to say, under either system, the inequalities of income and standard of living are greater than anything possible under a free economy--and a man's position is determined, not by his productive ability and achievement, but by political pull and force.
Quoting Ayn Rand from: The Fascist New Frontier, pamphlet, p. 5
I repeat: "In either case, the government officials hold the economic, political and legal power of life or death over the citizens."
The GOVERNMENT! LEFT! Not right.
Now look at socialism:
Socialism is the doctrine that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that his life and his work do not belong to him, but belong to society, that the only justification of his existence is his service to society, and that society may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own tribal, collective good.
From: For the New Intellectual, by Ayn Rand, C. 1961
And bring it into perspective with Nazism
Socialism may be established by force, as in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics--or by vote, as in Nazi (National Socialist) Germany. The degree of socialization may be total, as in Russia--or partial, as in England. Theoretically, the differences are superficial; practically, they are only a matter of time. The basic principle, in all cases, is the same.
The alleged goals of socialism were: the abolition of poverty, the achievement of general prosperity, progress, peace and human brotherhood. The results have been a terrifying failure--terrifying, that is, if one's motive is men's welfare.
Instead of prosperity, socialism has brought economic paralysis and/or collapse to every country that tried it. The degree of socialization has been the degree of disaster. The consequences have varied accordingly.
From: The Monument Builders, from The Virtue of Selfishness, by Ayn Rand, C. 1964
And now for direct comparison:
Both 'socialism' and 'fascism' involve the issue of property rights. The right to property is the right of use and disposal. Observe the difference in those two theories; socialism negates private property rights altogether, and advocates 'the vesting of ownership and control' in the community as a whole, i.e., in the state; fascism leaves ownership in the hands of private individuals, but transfers control of the property to the government.
Ownership without control is a contradiction in terms: it means 'property,' without the right to use it or to dispose of it. It means that the citizens retain the responsibility of holding property, without any of its advantages, while the government acquires all the advantages without any of the responsibility.
From: The New Fascism: Rule by Consensus, from Capitalism, the Unknown Ideal, by Ayn Rand, C. 1966
And
The difference between [socialism and fascism] is superficial and purely formal, but it is significant psychologically: it brings the authoritarian nature of a planned economy crudely into the open.
The main characteristic of socialism (and of communism) is public ownership of the means of production, and, therefore, the abolition of private property. The right to property is the right of use and disposal.
Quoting Ayn Rand from: The Fascist New Frontier, pamphlet, p. 5
And finally
Fascism and communism are not two opposites, but two rival gangs fighting over the same territory--both are variants of statism, based on the collectivist principle that man is the rightless slave of the state.
From: 'Extremism,' or the Art of Smearing, Capitalism the Unknown Ideal, by Ayn Rand, C. 1966
This all leads to False Alternatives:
For many decades, the leftists have been propagating the false dichotomy that the choice confronting the world is only: communism or fascism--a dictatorship of the left or of an alleged right--with the possibility of a free society, of capitalism, dismissed and obliterated, as if it had never existed.
From: The Presidential Candidates 1968, by Ayn Rand, in The Objectivist, June 1968, 5.
[Some 'moderates' are trying to revive that old saw of pre-World War II vintage, the notion that the two political opposites confronting us, the two extremes are: fascism versus communism.
The political origin of that notion is more shameful than the 'moderates' would care publicly to admit. Mussolini came to power by claiming that that was the only choice confronting Italy. Hitler came to power by claiming that that was the only choice confronting Germany. It is a matter of record that in the German election of 1933, the Communist Party was ordered by its leaders to vote for the Nazis--with the explanation that they could later fight the Nazis for power, but first they had to help destroy their common enemy: capitalism and its parliamentary form of government.
It is obvious what the fraudulent issue of fascism versus communism accomplishes: it sets up, as opposites, two variants of the same political system; it eliminates the possibility of considering capitalism; it switches the choice of 'Freedom or dictatorship?' into 'Which kind of dictatorship?' --thus establishing dictatorship as an inevitable fact and offering only a choice of rulers. The choice--according to the proponents of that fraud--is: a dictatorship of the rich (fascism) or a dictatorship of the poor (communism).
It is too obvious, too easily demonstrable that fascism and communism are not two opposites, but two rival gangs fighting over the same territory--that both are variants of statism, based on the collectivist principle that man is the rightless slave of the state--that both are socialistic, in theory, in practice, and in the explicit statements of their leaders--that under both systems, the poor are enslaved and the rich are expropriated in favor of a ruling clique--that fascism is not the product of the political 'right,' but of the 'left'--that the basic issue is not 'rich versus poor,' but man versus the state, or: individual rights versus totalitarian government--which means: capitalism versus socialism.
From: 'Extremism,' or The Art of Smearing, Capitalism, the Unknown Ideal, by Ayn Rand C. 1966
The main characteristic of socialism (and of communism) is public ownership of the means of production, and, therefore, the abolition of private property. The right to property is the right of use and disposal. Under fascism, men retain the semblance or pretense of private property, but the government holds total power over its use and disposal.
From: The Fascist New Frontier, pamphlet, 5, by Ayn Rand
Now once again. Those of you that insists on putting facism on the right, PLEASE clarify. And then PLEASE position me on the left-right scale, and PLEASE position libertarians. I'd be most interested to see.
philip.j.fry
05-12-2003, 22:08
Jerrek, I am sorry but you have it wrong, you are reducing what is essentially a 2 dimensional spectrum to just a linear one.
On the far left you have communism, on the far right you have fascism. Now you add to this 'up' and 'down'. I can't remember which direction is which, but in one direction lies liberalism, in the other direction lies authoritariansim.
From this you get four main 'camps'.
1. Liberal Socialism
2. Liberal Conservatism
3. Authoritarian Liberalism
4. Authoritarion Conservatism
(NB. these may not be the correct terms)
Fascism would be the far point of 4 and Communism would be the far point of 2.
Your claims of anarcho-liberalism would put you somewhere in 1.
Try out the test here http://www.politicalcompass.org/
http://www.politicalcompass.org/
I am one 'square' to the left of the midline on the horizontal axis :eek: (so I'm slightly to the left of centre) and I am exactly halfway between libertarian and authoritarian
Well, I'm shocked! I always thought I was rabidly right wing and authoritarian!
...now, wheres that CND badge :D
Jerrek, I am sorry but you have it wrong,
That is a brilliant argument. I've changed my mind now.
/sarcasm off
I just love how you brush aside all that I've written with one sentence. No arguments, no facts, nothing.
you are reducing what is essentially a 2 dimensional spectrum to just a linear one.
No. We were discussing a ONE dimensional scale, NOT a two dimensional scale. If you want to discuss a two dimensional scale, then things get a little more complicated with more factors. Let us stick to a ONE dimensional scale, which is what the original tangent in this thread was about.
Changing the subject does not change the facts. The two dimensional picture complicates things, and so does the three dimensional picture. You can add as many dimensions as you want, and each change it a bit.
What the classic "right" and "left" refers to is the one dimensional picture, not a two dimensional picture.
I am one 'square' to the left of the midline on the horizontal axis :eek: (so I'm slightly to the left of centre) and I am exactly halfway between libertarian and authoritarian
Well, I'm shocked! I always thought I was rabidly right wing and authoritarian!
...now, wheres that CND badge :D
Sadly, that test is rather baised. It isn't an accurate representation.
Sadly, that test is rather baised. It isn't an accurate representation.
Phew! :D
homealone
05-12-2003, 23:46
Sadly, that test is rather baised. It isn't an accurate representation.
I havn't done it either
Jerrick do you really believe "that apartheid was better for most people not just white?"
How can you believe this? :(
Incog.
homealone
05-12-2003, 23:59
Jerrick do you really believe "that apartheid was better for most people not just white?"
How can you believe this? :(
Incog.
good question Incognitas - spell the name right, though?
- sorry, not trying to divert - I know 'it began in Africa'
Ma'am, it is rather simple. Although the black people had their freedoms restricted, the white government build schools for them, gave them hospitals, and subsidized housing. Those able were allowed into South Africa (from their own countries of Bophuthatswana, Transkei, Ciskei, Venda, and a few others) to work. Traveling between these borders made was subject to health tests. The governors of these nations were independent from the white government, and they could vote in their own elections. White people were not allowed to vote in these nations.
The culture there is very different from elsewhere in the world. It resembles that of Kenya more than that of Britain. Most of them were happy because they had their land, their sheep, their corn, a school, hospitals, and paid no taxes.
This is not an excuse for apartheid. I do believe apartheid was wrong, but Southern Africa has a fundamental problem that no other nation has had to address.
Compare this with what is going on now:
- Currency used to be worth as much as an American dollar. It now deflated and is worth nothing.
- Crime capital of the world. It used to be that a murder would catch the main news and would disturb everyone in the country.
- People are killing people at an alarming rate. Not just white/black conflict, but also black/black conflict.
- Disease is spreading uncontrollably. Half the people have AIDS. TB and cholera are widespread and common. Before the crash of apartheid, there was virtually no TB and cholera was nonexistant, in BOTH the white land and the black land. Now the president is saying that AIDS is not caused by HIV and that no one has died of AIDS.
- The education system is collapsing. No more free education for black people. Everyone has to pay now.
- South Africa was 7 months away from launching a satellite into orbit. Now there is no R&D.
- South Africa had a good helicopter (Rooivalk). Comparable with the Apache of the Americans.
- South Africa had nuclear weapons. Developed jointly with Israel. One test was done. Now there is nothing.
With the apartheid government, there were order. Yes, it was a fascist government, but more people had food, more people had an education, and there was substantially less crime.
I don't know what the solution is to southern africa. Black rule is causing the region to go back to a tribal era. Just look at Zimbabwe. After the British left Rhodesia, the country went down the toilet, and South Africa is about 5 years behind Zimbabwe.
I do believe apartheid was wrong, but Southern Africa has a fundamental problem that no other nation has had to address.
I'm sorry to snip that much of your post, but what is the fundamental problem Southern Africa has?
philip.j.fry
06-12-2003, 00:52
That is a brilliant argument. I've changed my mind now.
/sarcasm off
I just love how you brush aside all that I've written with one sentence. No arguments, no facts, nothing.
I believe that I followed up that sentence with an argument, so please don't misrepresent my statement. If it makes it better move that first sentence to the end of the post and read it as the conclusion.
[snip]
What the classic "right" and "left" refers to is the one dimensional picture, not a two dimensional picture.
A few points about that:
a) The classical picture was found to be unable to cope with the spectrum of political philosophies, hence the adding of the second dimension. It does not confuse the issue, it seeks to clarify it.
b) Ignoring the second dimension does not change the fact that fascism lies on the right of the scale.
I did not seek to 'change the subject', the original topic was in fact about Nelson Mandela, which I cannot comment on because I simply do not know enough about it. Fascism is defined as right wing, from the sources that you have quoted it simply appears that the authors are attempting to manipulate the facts to fit their own socio-political theories (imho).
I am sorry if you take offense at my disagreement with you :)
philip.j.fry
06-12-2003, 01:07
Sadly, that test is rather baised. It isn't an accurate representation.
Semi-agreed, simple questions with simple answers can never uncover true opinion. For instance, at times I found myself agreeing with parts of a question and disagreeing with other parts.
downquark1
06-12-2003, 13:29
Left wing is also liberalism - How were the nazi's liberal? They believe Germans were the superior race. Anyone half German was frowned upon and that is not even mentioning the Jews.
Right-wing is the older conservative ideals - which was slavery, empires (hmmm total government), biggotry and orthodox religion. Many of the characteristics of Nazim.
I suggest that instead or arguing for your definitions you use a dictionary.
downquark1
06-12-2003, 14:16
When you are on the left, the absolute left, we both agree you can be a full-blood real communist. There is total government. Government owns everything. Everyone produces what they can and everyone receives what they need. Thats the theory anyways. Keyword here is total government.
To the right of that lies liberals and socialists. They advocate big governments and lavish welfare systems. High taxation on the rich to redistribute more wealth.
No extreme left doesn't necessarily mean communist. It means "liberal" (as in liberty) which the Oxford Dictionary defines (amoungst other things) as:
open-minded, not prejudiced (hmmm nazi's prejudice)
not strict or rigorous (something communists tend to be - lets call this an annomaly)
For general broadening of the mind not professional or technical
a favoring of individual liberty, free trade, and a moderate policital and social reform
Communism was a system that tried to guarantee equality, being 'liberal' with payments. The problem was the ownly way to ensure it was to be totalitarian. So it incorporated a few of the right wing methods (control) to impose some left wing ideals(Equality).
A true left-wing system would be one with no property and freedom to do what you will. The communists only did part of that.
If instead, you look at it as a circle, if you go too left you end up at right. the extremes merge together. I quite like that 2D field representation but you did ask for a linear one
Right wing (being the opposite of liberalism) supports individual power - money, companies or dictators etc. Supports strict laws and restrictions, go extreme right and you end up with double standards - bigotry etc.
The anglican (spell?) church compared to the catholic church is 'left'
downquark1
06-12-2003, 14:48
Now once again. Those of you that insists on putting facism on the right, PLEASE clarify. And then PLEASE position me on the left-right scale, and PLEASE position libertarians. I'd be most interested to see. You would be right of centre:
You are against abortions - favouring the right of the individual (child) rather than the society (over-population). Also restricting the mothers choice in the matter. Also this is related to orthodox religious beliefs
You were for the orthodox christian belief of no-sex before marriage- a typically right wing idea. But also for the pressuring of people to accept and swear to follow the idealism - a typically right wing opinion.
You also believe the US constition does and should only apply to US citisens - a double standard and prejudice - again right wing.
I seem to notice that americans have an irrational fear (simular IMO to homophobia) of comminism and have become prejudice against anything left - that's right wing on two accounts
I'm sorry to snip that much of your post, but what is the fundamental problem Southern Africa has?
Valid question.
Southern Africa has a lot of different tribes in a small area. These "tribes" all speak different languages and they all seem to dislike each other. There is no love lost between the Zulu's party (IFP - Inkhata Freedom Party), which owns a majority rule in KwaZulu-Natal, and the ANC (African National Congress, the Xhosa's party). The Xhosas are decendants of the Zulus. Outcasts really, because as the King of the Zulus at that time said, "they are dogs."
Now add the tens of other tribes all living in the same vicinity with different cultures and different languages, and then come the white man and messed things up a bit...
South Africa has 11 official languages, and that isn't even covering them all. Having an unemployment rate of 40% or more isn't helping either.
I can honestly not think of any other country in the world that had or have this problem. In North America, we exterminated the First Nations (for most part). :/
a) The classical picture was found to be unable to cope with the spectrum of political philosophies, hence the adding of the second dimension. It does not confuse the issue, it seeks to clarify it.
And the two dimensional one was found in-adequate, so a third, and fouth, and more dimensions were added. It doesn't change the topic at hand, which was a one dimensional scale.
b) Ignoring the second dimension does not change the fact that fascism lies on the right of the scale.
Yes. However you seem to conveniently have ignored ALL of the stuff I've written.
Fascism is defined as right wing, from the sources that you have quoted it simply appears that the authors are attempting to manipulate the facts to fit their own socio-political theories (imho).
And, you seem to be unable to counter any of the arguments. You cling to the precious Oxford definition. Many other dictionaries define it differently, and Ayn Rand provides solid arguments.
Come on. Take them one by one and refute them. Please. Continuously stating "the dictionary says ..." isn't helpful at all.
How were the nazi's liberal?
I have provided A GREAT MANY EXAMPLES in my posts. Go back and read them. I'm getting quite tired of repeating myself. There is a very lengthy post that everyone seems to have ignored. How damn convenient. Lets ignore the facts so we can continue believing what we want to believe.
Right-wing is the older conservative ideals - which was slavery, empires (hmmm total government), biggotry and orthodox religion. Many of the characteristics of Nazim.
WTF? So now I support slavery? Empires? What the hell?
As far as I remember, the communists enslaved everyone and tried to extend their empire. NOT the United States.
And Hitler didn't support slaves. Get your facts straight.
No extreme left doesn't necessarily mean communist.
You're wrong.
A true left-wing system would be one with no property and freedom to do what you will. The communists only did part of that.
Which is communism. You just defeated your prior statement. Congratulations.
Right wing (being the opposite of liberalism) supports individual power - money, companies or dictators
Really. So now I support a dictator? Or are you once again telling me I'm a centrist, when I know I'm a right-winger?
You would be right of centre:
You must be joking. All you can come up with is me being right of center? A moderate? Lol....
Now all of you. Go back to that Ayn Rand post of mine and read through it at least six times. You guys seem to be very persistant with the "no thats not how it is because baaa baa baa" and then everything goes downhill. No arguments. Nothing.
Jerrick do you really believe "that apartheid was better for most people not just white?"
How can you believe this? :(
Incog.
For a start, black people had the highest standard of living in all of Africa
I still think apartheid was wrong though.
downquark1
06-12-2003, 21:53
And the two dimensional one was found in-adequate, so a third, and fouth, and more dimensions were added. It doesn't change the topic at hand, which was a one dimensional scale.
You should know as a programmer is one engine is insufficient you improve it or make a new one
Yes. However, you seem to conveniently have ignored ALL of the stuff I have written.
Because you have posted quotes from people listing their opinions and who are trying to re-write the dictionary
In addition, you seem to be unable to counter any of the arguments. You cling to the precious Oxford definition. Many other dictionaries define it differently, and Ayn Rand provides solid arguments.
As I mentioned dictionary.com and hyperdictionary, agree with me - these sites apparently take multiple sources. Besides who are the Americans to re-write our language
Come on. Take them one by one and refute them. Please. Continuously stating "the dictionary says ..." is not helpful at all.
I have provided A GREAT MANY EXAMPLES in my posts. Go back and read them. I'm getting quite tired of repeating myself. There is a very lengthy post that everyone seems to have ignored. How damn convenient. Lets ignore the facts so we can continue believing what we want to believe.
You seem to have ignored many things in this thread and others continently dismissing the 2D political system which is entirely necessary IMO to separate idealisms
WTF? So now I support slavery? Empires? What the hell?
No you support power and wealth of the individual, corporate empires etc. Slavery was an example of extreme right wing where 2nd class citizens come into the picture
As far as I remember, the communists enslaved everyone and tried to extend their empire. NOT the United States.
Enslaved who? The people? They were suppose to pay everyone equal - no slaves no masters - of course it didn't work puts thats another debate.
And Hitler didn't support slaves. Get your facts straight. You can't define everything as left/right wing it's not that black and white. Besides hitler spread the believe that germans were above other races and that they should be masters of the lesser race - simular to slavery
You're wrong.
Didn't you just tell P J fry off for saying the same thing
Which is communism. You just defeated your prior statement. Congratulations.
NO communism was a dictatorship, there was little personal freedom as this was believed necessary to enforce the rules of communism.
Really. So now I support a dictator? Or are you once again telling me I'm a centrist, when I know I'm a right-winger?
Again your generallising, it's all a sliding scale extreme right are dictators
You must be joking. All you can come up with is me being right of center? A moderate? Lol.... Well I didn't want to insult you and unless you point me to a scale where I can say 5 miles left of hilter I can't get anymore accurate. Do you honestly think entire people can be defined as left or right all the time. Well I guess it is one step better than good and evil.
Now all of you. Go back to that Ayn Rand post of mine and read through it at least six times. You guys seem to be very persistant with the "no thats not how it is because baaa baa baa" and then everything goes downhill. No arguments. Nothing.
OK I will
downquark1
06-12-2003, 22:09
Adolf Hitler on Nazism and socialism: Each activity and each need of the individual will thereby be regulated by the party as the representative of the general good. There will be no license, no free space, in which the individual belongs to himself. This is Socialism--not such trifles as the private possession of the means of production. Of what importance is that if I range men firmly within a discipline they cannot escape? Let them then own land or factories as much as they please. The decisive factor is that the State, through the party, is supreme over them, regardless whether they are owners or workers. All that, you see, is unessential. Our Socialism goes far deeper.
Why need we trouble to socialize banks and factories? We socialize human beings. I'm beginning to think Americans define this whole thing differently and we have been debating apples and oranges but I try to explain:
Left: Equality - people working for themselves and each other
Right: People working for a superior- rich and poor - slave and master - lesser race for super race
Indeed what Hilter implemented looks like socialism but that source has missed one important fact - he took control for himself- to expand his empire to gain more power for himself ie. right wing.
A left wing dictator (it is actually possible to not have dictatorship in the left) controls everything to give everyone a far share, no master no slave, no rich no poor) Unfortunally this fails because of power corruption.
Why do you thing communists refer to each other as comrade and not sir
The other point being that Hitler didn't believe in equality - he wanted to kill or control the lesser races and produce a perfect german race, this is a fundamental conflict with communism and the left wing in general.
The other point being that Hitler didn't believe in equality - he wanted to kill or control the lesser races and produce a perfect german race, this is a fundamental conflict with communism and the left wing in general.
Replace 'Hitler' with 'Stalin', races with 'classes' and 'german race' with 'society' you have communism instead of fascism. Stalin believed in equality....some are more equal than others though.
In addition communism did try to eliminate whole 'races'. Mine was one of them.
downquark1
06-12-2003, 22:40
Replace 'Hitler' with 'Stalin', races with 'classes' and 'german race' with 'society' you have communism instead of fascism. Stalin believed in equality....some are more equal than others though.
In addition communism did try to eliminate whole 'races'. Mine was one of them.
Stalin imposed his own brand of communism, which incidently was not truely left.
Read animal farm ;)
Stalin imposed his own brand of communism, which incidently was not truely left.
Read animal farm ;)
um...if the absolute ruler of the soviet empire imposes his own (slightly changed from Marx's) brand of communism, that then becomes communism.
I am sick and tired if people saying 'ah but, that wasn't real communism' (as if that absolves communism from the blame). It's what passes for communism in most countries that have/have had communism. It was communism, in a communist state, imposed by a communist. Nuff said. :afire:
downquark1
06-12-2003, 23:06
um...if the absolute ruler of the soviet empire imposes his own (slightly changed from Marx's) brand of communism, that then becomes communism.
I am sick and tired if people saying 'ah but, that wasn't real communism' (as if that absolves communism from the blame). It's what passes for communism in most countries that have/have had communism. It was communism, in a communist state, imposed by a communist. Nuff said. :afire:
You mean if blair imposes his conservative views labour becomes conservative - even after blair is long dead?
We are falling in the trap of saying that communism is the definitive left wing. When as you said many things pass for communism.
You mean if blair imposes his conservative views labour becomes conservative - even after blair is long dead? You will agree that Blair is hardly in the same league as Stalin. Anyhow , he may impose whatever views he wants, it's still labour.
We are falling in the trap of saying that communism is the definitive left wing. When as you said many things pass for communism.I'm intrigued, what do you think is the definitive left wing, if not communism (especially stalinist communism with it's 'class war' and grand plans for social & economic reforms)
philip.j.fry
07-12-2003, 00:29
And the two dimensional one was found in-adequate, so a third, and fouth, and more dimensions were added. It doesn't change the topic at hand, which was a one dimensional scale.
Yes. However you seem to conveniently have ignored ALL of the stuff I've written.
And, you seem to be unable to counter any of the arguments. You cling to the precious Oxford definition. Many other dictionaries define it differently, and Ayn Rand provides solid arguments.
Come on. Take them one by one and refute them. Please. Continuously stating "the dictionary says ..." isn't helpful at all.
I can assure you that I have read your points and taken them on board, they have in fact made me think but to start again with my conclusion...nothing that I have read has made me change my opinion that on the classical left right scale, fascism lies at the right.
A simple search on google for "fascism vs. communism" (http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=fascism+vs+communism&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&start=40&sa=N) yields interesting results. I have not had time to read them all obviously but skim reading of a fair number show that some agree with your position, others disagree.
The main crux lies in it being argued that communism has much in common with fascism, i.e the state retains totalitarian control of individuals rights and freedoms. This is indeed a truth. Now, if we go back to my two-dimensional political spectrum, we can see that both political theories lie at the extreme of up, total authoritarian control.
The major difference for me is that communism attempts to create equal rights for all the population through enforcement, fascism enforces that all peoples do not have equal rights. With true communism, all property is shared between the people in the control of party. With fascism, people have ownership and control, though that right is bestowed (and withdrawn) by the party.
So, there are similarities in the degree to which ultimate power lies with the party, which is essentially what your sources seem to be arguing. Then we have the differences. It is these differences that put (imo) communism on the left, and fascism on the right, of the one dimensional scale if forced to make a statement in that context.
Finally to your initial point of adding more dimensions being irrelevant, it is not irrelevant. As downquark has stated, you cannot define anyone as left/right wing all of the time. There are so many more factors involved, of this I am sure that your quoted sources would agree with me, that left/right alone is subjective and cannot fully qualify any argument.
How damn convenient. Lets ignore the facts so we can continue believing what we want to believe.
...snip...
You guys seem to be very persistant with the "no thats not how it is because baaa baa baa" and then everything goes downhill. No arguments. Nothing.
People have offered arguments, you have offered arguments. Are you open to the possibility that you could be wrong? I am, there have been some arguments in your sources that have caused me to rethink a few things, but not anything to sway me (yet?!) on the left/right issue (I openly admit that I would rather not be swayed ;) ).
philip.j.fry
07-12-2003, 00:30
As a comedy aside, my collins dictionary does have a red (colour) cover :D
downquark1
07-12-2003, 09:47
I'm intrigued, what do you think is the definitive left wing, if not communism (especially stalinist communism with it's 'class war' and grand plans for social & economic reforms) Since the dictionary (sorry Jerrek) defines left as liberal, I would say that left wing is supposedly something with very few laws and control -but also equality. This system could never work that's why communists used control -which was originally suppose to be a democratic system.
To make a point look at the liberal democratics they apose strict laws on personal matters but would 'probably' raise taxes for the public services.
Thanks Phillip J Fry at least one person knows what I'm getting at
downquark1
07-12-2003, 11:00
I've been doing some research about this Ayn Rand person, and believe it or not she is not some historian or political analyst but a philosopher of all people. A particulary right wing philosopher.
It is quite clear to me that she is only attempting to put facistism in the left so that her philosophy called 'objectivism' is more attractive.
Jerrek if you are going to debunk all our sources as left wing dribble you could at least stay away from the right wing dribble.
She also looks remarkable like Margerate Thatcher
http://www.perfecteconomy.com/img-rand-ayn.jpg
She also looks remarkable like Margerate Thatcher
There's a certain amount of homo-erotic artwork involved as well. Rather reminiscent of certain totalitarian regimes ;)
http://www.aynrand.org
I would say that left wing is supposedly something with very few laws and control -but also equality. This system could never work that's why communists used control -which was originally suppose to be a democratic system.
OK but what do you consider to be the most left wing in the world today. ("something" as you put it, is not a current political system)
downquark1
07-12-2003, 21:26
OK but what do you consider to be the most left wing in the world today. ("something" as you put it, is not a current political system)
As I think scatle said anarchy. IE no laws or government no leaders and no underlings. This is why a 2nd or 3rd dimension is required when making this definitions.
Look at the ideals of communism or should I say marxism, equality being the main objective - how can a dictorship be equal :shrug: - the very notions are incompatible. This is why communist systems today have never been considered true communism the closest they have come to is all people are equal, but some are more equal than others. The pigs are walking on two legs IE the communists are just fascists under a different banner.
If Jerrek's definitions are correct McDonalds would be defined as left wing. Lots of resturants all dictated by a leader, all the same, all the same food, all equal with the exception of the headquarters. While privately owned british pubs would be right.
There have been small social experiments where a communist way of life has worked but only in small communities. When put on large scale it is people like this Ayn Rand who sees purpose in life as nothing but serving ones own interests that wreck the whole system. In communist Russia you could get away with anything by mentioning "comrade", "equality" and associating the other choice with "capitalism". In America you can get away with anything by mentioning "freedom", "patriotism" and associating the other choice with "communism".
downquark1
07-12-2003, 22:05
Furthermore, if we take Jerrek's:
Left wing: total government
Right wing: no government
We would have to reassess Jerrek's position, as he encourages governments to control abortion and sex before marriage, this would put him on the left in his own model.
So to recap, in this model we would have Jerrek and Mcdonalds on the left and hippies on the right.
:rofl:
Now if you excuse me I have to go to bed before the Americans redefine night as day.
...this is doing my head in :spin:
philip.j.fry
08-12-2003, 16:18
...this is doing my head in :spin:
why?
why?
Because I am used to a nice simple right/left, capitalist/communist way of thinking. :dunce:
...this is doing my head in :spin:
Mine was done in many postings back. :batty:
Incog. :)
downquark1
08-12-2003, 17:44
Because I am used to a nice simple right/left, capitalist/communist way of thinking. :dunce:
Where would regimes like the Nazi's and Sadam's Iraq go in your scale?
Where would regimes like the Nazi's and Sadam's Iraq go in your scale?
Nazis- slightly to the right of the middle.
Saddams Iraq- In a class of it's own. It's like a country being run by the mafia. It's not a political system any more than the mafia is.
downquark1
09-12-2003, 19:34
Do you think the drop in this thread is because I've explained it adiquately or becomes I'm obviously a nut and there's no point arguing with me?
Do you think the drop in this thread is because I've explained it adiquately or becomes I'm obviously a nut and there's no point arguing with me?
I think a thread drops off when it gets too long as new viewers can't be arsed to mug through all the comments
and you tend to end up with a couple of die hards slugging it out
ok, now this whole 'left right' thing got me thinking
...
where did it start?
now, to me, the FULL wording/expression is left wing and right wing...
now given that the term 'lobbying' is related ( afaik ) to the way that the UK government votes ( ie they dissapear into lobbies ) i wondered if it was to do with which 'wing' of the building you sat in...
seems like it might be
...
http://ask.yahoo.com/ask/20011217.html
I think a thread drops off when it gets too long as new viewers can't be arsed to mug through all the comments
and you tend to end up with a couple of die hards slugging it out
There was I thinking that Ramrod and downquark1 fitted the die hards label nicely then up pops Dooby to start it all again. :rofl:
Incog.
ok, now this whole 'left right' thing got me thinking
...
where did it start?
now, to me, the FULL wording/expression is left wing and right wing...
now given that the term 'lobbying' is related ( afaik ) to the way that the UK government votes ( ie they dissapear into lobbies ) i wondered if it was to do with which 'wing' of the building you sat in...
seems like it might be
...
http://ask.yahoo.com/ask/20011217.html
I believe Proust mentioned that in his search of lost time book
Yes. However, you seem to conveniently have ignored ALL of the stuff I have written.
Because you have posted quotes from people listing their opinions and who are trying to re-write the dictionary
No. She is explaining why fascism is not right, but left. How can she redefine a definition if the definition doesn't state whether it is left or right?
Webster's dictionary states:
1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control
Now, what my ****ing point is, if you look into what fascism and nazism is, you'll see it resembles left-wing philosophies MUCH MORE than anything on the right. Ayn Rand points it out in those quotes.
You seem to have ignored many things in this thread and others continently dismissing the 2D political system which is entirely necessary IMO to separate idealisms
Please! Point out to me what I've been ignoring. I've pointed out lots of things you're ignoring, and if I'm ignoring anything I want to address it.
You keep bringing up the 2D political system. We are not ****ing talking about that. We were discussing a 1D line. Where to put political philosophies on the left-right line. Using this one dimensional line, fascism and nazism lies on the left with communism because the philosophies agree with each other more than anything on the right. Get it? I hope I'm not talking about something above your intellectual level. Good. Now move on: I am right. I am not a leftie. I am proud to be right-wing. I am rather far to the right because I'm anarcho-libertarian. I am NOT a ****ing centrist, and I'm sure most people will agree with you. You keep trying to tell me how I am in the center, and you're just wrong.
I'm beginning to think Americans define this whole thing differently and we have been debating apples and oranges but I try to explain:
Yes. Indeed. That could be it.
Left: Equality - people working for themselves and each other
Right: People working for a superior- rich and poor - slave and master - lesser race for super race
Bullsh*t.
Indeed what Hilter implemented looks like socialism but that source has missed one important fact - he took control for himself- to expand his empire to gain more power for himself ie. right wing.
NO!!!!!!!! HE called his party the National Socialist Party!!!!!
Now, if we go back to my two-dimensional political spectrum,
You wrote a whole bunch of stuff, and then comes this. Well, I don't know how many times I have to say it, but WE ARE NOT ****ING TALKING ABOUT A 2D SPECTRUM HERE.
I'm talking about a 1D spectrum. If you want to continue ranting on about a 2D spectrum, go ahead. We're not talking about the same thing.
Since the dictionary (sorry Jerrek) defines left as liberal, I would say that left wing is supposedly something with very few laws and control -but also equality.
What the ...? You're living in a dream land! Liberals are notorius for making more laws. Europe recently started regulating how many drones can accompany an imported queen bee!
I've been doing some research about this Ayn Rand person, and believe it or not she is not some historian or political analyst but a philosopher of all people. A particulary right wing philosopher.
Let me get this straight: You've never read any of her books? You haven't even heard of her before today? What the ****? And you're arguing philosophy of politics?
It is quite clear to me that she is only attempting to put facistism in the left so that her philosophy called 'objectivism' is more attractive.
Jerrek if you are going to debunk all our sources as left wing dribble you could at least stay away from the right wing dribble.
Are you always this dumb or are you making a special effort today? When I'm debunking your sources are liberal dribble it is because they give definitions. Get it? Now, don't strain a brain cell because there is more: When I quoted her, it is because she gave EXPLANATIONS. Not definitions. Get it?
Don't attack the author. Attack the arguments. In case of a definition, there is nothing to attack because there are no arguments. That is what a definition is: someone defining what something is. So, yes, your neo-communist sources would love to put fascism on the right for the same reasons Ayn Rand stated: so that the right can look bad.
So: Start fighting the arguments, not the person or source, unless it is a definition, because as demonstrated, there are millions of definitions out there. I gave one at the beginning of this post. So if we want to go with definitions, my definition is right and yours is wrong. See how silly that sounds? So what did I do? I brought in arguments to support my posision.
I have not seen any arguments from downquark1 or philip. Except for the occasional "2D scale" rant and "but the dictionary says..."
Furthermore, if we take Jerrek's:
Left wing: total government
Right wing: no government
We would have to reassess Jerrek's position, as he encourages governments to control abortion and sex before marriage, this would put him on the left in his own model.
Oh for ****'s sake, use another neuron or two. I'm against murder. How does being against murder make me a left-winger? Please explain, because I don't follow your logic at all.
So to recap, in this model we would have Jerrek and Mcdonalds on the left and hippies on the right.
WTF does McDonald's have to do with politics?? Are you delusional?
Where would regimes like the Nazi's and Sadam's Iraq go in your scale?
Easy. Nazism was national socialism. National socialism is virtually identical to fascism, and belongs on the LEFT side. On the far left.
Saddam's totalitarian government also belongs on the LEFT side because of the size of the government.
Left: Equality - people working for themselves and each other
Right: People working for a superior- rich and poor - slave and master - lesser race for super raceI think that is the way things are supposed to work. However, as in many things in life, the way things are supposed to work is not necessarily the way they do..
In theory, the left is about equality. However, in most cases (Germany under Hitler, Russia under Stalin, Iraq under Hussein being some examples) there is always one person in charge, and he & his associates enjoy a very good standard of living whilst the rest of the country lives in relative poverty.
This is one reason why Communism has failed.
downquark1
12-12-2003, 10:18
No. She is explaining why fascism is not right, but left. How can she redefine a definition if the definition doesn't state whether it is left or right?
We have given you sources that define fascism as right.
NO!!!!!!!! HE called his party the National Socialist Party!!!!! Name's don't say everything
The labour government is suppose to be left wing, but Blair is steering it right. Same for communism and Hitler.
What the ...? You're living in a dream land! Liberals are notorius for making more laws. Europe recently started regulating how many drones can accompany an imported queen bee!
Laws for the economy - I'm talking about personal laws.
Let me get this straight: You've never read any of her books? You haven't even heard of her before today? What the ****? And you're arguing philosophy of politics?
Why are you debating the philosophy of politics when you can't entertain the possibility you are wrong. Philosophy has no right or wrong. But Ayn Rand I understand she preaches against speculation.
Are you always this dumb or are you making a special effort today? When I'm debunking your sources are liberal dribble it is because they give definitions. Get it? Now, don't strain a brain cell because there is more: When I quoted her, it is because she gave EXPLANATIONS. Not definitions. Get it?
Yes but the explanation is flawed, and made by a biased person.
Her explanation takes into no account the principles behind government.
Hitler preached that the german race is superior, Jews are all evil and he wanted to create a super race - THIS IS NOT LEFT. Left would state that all these people are equal. Yes, his government looks left wing - but you can't categorize the entire idealism in one perspective.
Oh for ****'s sake, use another neuron or two. I'm against murder. How does being against murder make me a left-winger? Please explain, because I don't follow your logic at all.
Fine list some more of your political views and I will try to place you.
WTF does McDonald's have to do with politics?? Are you delusional?
No if you read my earlier post, that according to you MacDonalds would be left wing. The definition can extend further than politics can't it? If you look at the organization of McDonalds (according to your definition) it would be left wing.
Let's look at your scale:
Hippies who want to legalize drugs and want more personal freedoms (IE less government control) would be right wing
The patriot act 1&2 (a law recently passing in the US) which gives the government more power to monitor people would be left.
Anarchy - lack of law or structure would be right.
An absolute monarchy be left
It's become increasing clear that these left/right system can be manipulated to serve any means and is for too relative to serve any definite purpose - as a result I'm putting it on my list of meaningless words.
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.