A fine example of Orwellian Newspeak
MrC, believe me, I was all for the US to stop "helping" us a long time ago...
It's been screwing us up in every possible way, economically, politically, whatnot.
The worst thing to happen to Israeli politics in the 1990s wasn't the assassination of Rabin, it was the two imported political talents Arthur Finkelstein and James Carville.
The only thing good ever to come out of this relationship is that we didn't nuke Iraq in 1991.
Then again, the fact Bush stopped us from using conventional bombers against targets in western Iraq might have actually brought us closer to using nukes.
By the way, you realise the traditional core of the settler movement were traditionally what we call here Anglo-Saxon Jews? I guess that sounds better than saying you wanted to be a WASP but they threw you out. We have a real talent for extracting the worst America has to offer and spraying it all over the holy land. The only thing we didn't adopt here is Starbucks. They bombed here big time... phew.
It's been screwing us up in every possible way, economically, politically, whatnot.
The worst thing to happen to Israeli politics in the 1990s wasn't the assassination of Rabin, it was the two imported political talents Arthur Finkelstein and James Carville.
The only thing good ever to come out of this relationship is that we didn't nuke Iraq in 1991.
Then again, the fact Bush stopped us from using conventional bombers against targets in western Iraq might have actually brought us closer to using nukes.
By the way, you realise the traditional core of the settler movement were traditionally what we call here Anglo-Saxon Jews? I guess that sounds better than saying you wanted to be a WASP but they threw you out. We have a real talent for extracting the worst America has to offer and spraying it all over the holy land. The only thing we didn't adopt here is Starbucks. They bombed here big time... phew.
Utter stupidity.Camaro wrote:QUOTE (Camaro @ Oct 9 2011, 11:47 AM) The world needs to reevaluate their 2 dimensional political line, there is virtually no difference between the "far right" and the "far left" in terms of liberties they want to take away from you. Sure they may be better on some liberties than others, but at the end of the day they still want to take your freedoms somewhere.
Spinoza wrote:QUOTE (Spinoza @ Oct 9 2011, 03:40 PM) MrC, believe me, I was all for the US to stop "helping" us a long time ago...
It's been screwing us up in every possible way, economically, politically, whatnot.
The worst thing to happen to Israeli politics in the 1990s wasn't the assassination of Rabin, it was the two imported political talents Arthur Finkelstein and James Carville.
The only thing good ever to come out of this relationship is that we didn't nuke Iraq in 1991.
Then again, the fact Bush stopped us from using conventional bombers against targets in western Iraq might have actually brought us closer to using nukes.
By the way, you realise the traditional core of the settler movement were traditionally what we call here Anglo-Saxon Jews? I guess that sounds better than saying you wanted to be a WASP but they threw you out. We have a real talent for extracting the worst America has to offer and spraying it all over the holy land. The only thing we didn't adopt here is Starbucks. They bombed here big time... phew.
Spin
* edited almost an entire post because i completely misunderstood Spin's POV on first reading *
Coffee I do not drink and thank goodness Israelis were smart enough to not fall for the $8 cuppa
MrChaos
Last edited by MrChaos on Sun Oct 09, 2011 10:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Ssssh
The fact that there are very fundamental differences between the far right and the far left.Camaro wrote:QUOTE (Camaro @ Oct 9 2011, 03:31 PM) What is your reasoning for it being utter stupidity?
If you keep on this path you'll end up as one of those idiots that ends up proclaiming the Nazism was an example of the far left. To do that of course you'll need to ignore the fact that Nazi's came to power by murdering leftists, but mere facts won't be allowed to get in the way. Ideology trumps all.
But to understand the argument that Nazism was an example of the far left you first must understand the political spectrum that is being measured against.SharpFish wrote:QUOTE (SharpFish @ Oct 9 2011, 12:43 PM) The fact that there are very fundamental differences between the far right and the far left.
If you keep on this path you'll end up as one of those idiots that ends up proclaiming the Nazism was an example of the far left. To do that of course you'll need to ignore the fact that Nazi's came to power by murdering leftists, but mere facts won't be allowed to get in the way. Ideology trumps all.
The people who argue that see the left-right spectrum in a much different way than most do. The Farthest Left is an absolute state, that is the government has all encompassing power over its citizens. The Furthest Right is the entire lack of a state (pure idealistic communism... or anarchy).
Most political parties are somewhere in the middle, they want governments to intervene in X and Y, but not Z, whereas another party may want to intervene in Y and Z, but not X. The more overbearing the government becomes, the further left it is pushed. In what areas the government is being overbearing in is irrelevant to this particular political spectrum... it treats all liberties equally and does not favor one over another (as the traditional Left-Right scale does).
In that regard, Nazi's were an extremely overbearing and oppressive political party that took many rights from their citizenry, much like how Soviet Communism was.
It is in based off of these assumptions that the Nazi's are labeled a "far left" party. Of course it is not the case in the traditional Left/Right political spectrum.
Last edited by Camaro on Sun Oct 09, 2011 10:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
NightRychune
- Posts: 3065
- Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 8:00 am
things are kind of $#@!ed up because you have like 18 different ideologies and sociological theories that end up mixed together, and people generally can't tell the difference between them, so like in this case where nazis are identified as leftists, which is true based on some ideologies, super die-hard leftists (as in modern liberals and progressives) get super pissy at being associated with nazis
but anyway
the us is just the enabler to the petulant child that is israel, and the latter goes around punching all the other kids in the playground in the face because the united states will always come and get them out of trouble when they end up with a stern talking to in the principal's office. that's literally the only reason israel acts like such a dick
but anyway
the us is just the enabler to the petulant child that is israel, and the latter goes around punching all the other kids in the playground in the face because the united states will always come and get them out of trouble when they end up with a stern talking to in the principal's office. that's literally the only reason israel acts like such a dick
I do understand it. That is the problem.Camaro wrote:QUOTE (Camaro @ Oct 9 2011, 03:53 PM) But to understand the argument that Nazism was an example of the far left you first must understand the political spectrum that is being measured against.
QUOTE The people who argue that see the left-right spectrum in a much different way than most do. The Farthest Left is an absolute state, that is the government has all encompassing power over its citizens. The Furthest Right is the entire lack of a state (pure idealistic communism... or anarchy).[/quote]
I agree with your characterisation of what those people think they are talking about. The problem is that they they are totally $#@!ing wrong.
Left wing and right wing have explicit origins. The French National Assembly, created in 1789, seated the radicals on the left on the conservatives on the right. That meant the left wingers were pro democracy and right wingers were pro monarchy. And the same relationship applies today, inasmuch as left wingers are engaged with trying to build a better society, and right wingers are engaged in trying to preserve the existing society.
Now Nazism, I will agree, was pretty radical, but at its root it had a loot of conservative ideas: "race" and "nation" and "blood and soil", aristocracy and nobility. Nazism is hyper-conservatism, conservatism stripped of its sentimentality and fuzziness. The left wing position was "workers of the world" - internationalism, the rights of the many against the few, democracy versus autocracy. Just as it had been in the French revolution.
Only in the US was this all collapsed into the issue of "the state". And even in the US it is confused, in that that conservatives who purport to claim independence of the state will be the first to "defend the flag" and "support our troops", despite the facts that they are the very essence of the coercive state. While a state that provides healthcare and so on is apparently evil. So, like the Nazi's, the "good state" is the one that is busy killing foreigners, and the "bad state" is the one providing services to citizens.
Right and Left mean what they have always meant - conservatism, tradition, stasis, authority versus radicalism, innovation, invention, democracy.
QUOTE In that regard, Nazi's were an extremely overbearing and oppressive political party that took many rights from their citizenry, much like how Soviet Communism was.[/quote]
Has it occurred to you that maybe what soviet "communism" became would be better of described as some sort of right wing blood--and-soil phenomenon? In other words, should you categorise the behaviour by what it is, rather than change the definition to accord to the label it tried to claim?