Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
JJRay is a scumbag who will write anything to make money off you idiots. Has no standing in polite society. This bs is a great reason to defund Keystone, which is a front for the Kochs that will make them tens of billions. Hater dupes!Ice Weasel....John J. Ray is a great source on this stuff...thanks for posting it....have you read his other works on leftism....?
Soviet Communist were left wing and Nazi Germany was right wing......as everyone obviously already knows. Well.....almost everyone.
No, I went to Prep schools run by pompous GOP a-holes lol...The dumb and dumber public schools' curriculum are the result of loudmouth RW censorship. You people suq in every possible way.His fascist RW beliefs are just an inch to the right of the worst of the GOP.
Oh...you were educated in a government school run by the education wing of the democrat party....so sad....
Sure, Beckbot. Time for more tinfoil.Soviet Communist were left wing and Nazi Germany was right wing......as everyone obviously already knows. Well.....almost everyone.
Except for the fact that it isn't true...they were both forms of left wing socialism...with stalin defining the national socialists as "facsists" because they were his competition...There is nothing in the nazi program that separates them from the communists other than that they wanted socialism for Germans and didn't care about socialism of an international variety...
So what are Rightists?
The prime focus in this paper has been on defining and explaining what Leftism is. It would nonetheless be remiss not to give also at least a skeletal outline of what Rightism is so I will now do that. If Leftism and Rightism are NOT mirror-images, as this paper asserts, some such account does appear necessary in order to complete the picture. I have, however, written one book and many previous papers for those who wish to study conservatism at greater length (See Ray, 1972b, 1973, 1974, 1979 & 1981).
Military Dictators?
In the late 20th century, it was a common rhetorical ploy of the more "revolutionary" Left in the "Western" world simply to ignore democracy as an alternative to Communism. Instead they would excuse the brutalities of Communism by pointing to the brutalities of the then numerous military dictatorships of Southern Europe and Latin America and pretend that such regimes were the only alternative to Communism. These regimes were led by generals who might in various ways be seen as conservative (though Peron was clearly Leftist) so do they tell us anything about conservatism?
They were an attempt to fight fire with fire. In Argentina of the 60s and 70s, for instance, Leftist "urban guerillas" were very active — blowing up anyone they disapproved of. The nice, mild, moderate Anglo-Saxon response to such depredations would have been to endure the deaths and disruptions concerned and use police methods to trace the perpetrators and bring them to trial. Much of the world is more fiery than that, however, and the Argentine generals certainly were. They became impatient with the slow-grinding wheels of democracy and its apparent impotence in the face of the Leftist revolutionaries.
They therefore seized power and instituted a reign of terror against the Leftist revolutionaries that was as bloody, arbitrary and indiscriminate as what the Leftists had inflicted. In a word, they used military methods to deal with the Leftist attackers. So the nature of these regimes was only incidentally conservative. What they were was essentially military. We have to range further than the Hispanic generals, therefore, if we are to find out what is quintessentially conservative.
A Conservative Revolution
And the parliamentarians who were responsible for beheading King Charles I in 1649 were perfectly articulate about why. They felt that Charles had attempted to destroy the ancient English governmental system or "constitution" and that he had tried to take away important rights and individual liberties that the English had always enjoyed — liberty from the arbitrary power of Kings, a right to representation in important decisions and a system of counterbalanced and competing powers rather than an all-powerful central government. It is to them that we can look for the first systematic statements of conservative ideals — ideals that persevere to this day. And they were both conservatives (wishing to conserve traditional rights and arrangements) and revolutionaries!
So right back in the 17th century we had the apparent paradox of "conservatives" (the parliamentary leaders — later to be referred to as "Whigs") being prepared to undertake most radical change (deposing monarchy) in order to restore treasured traditional rights and liberties and to rein in overweening governmental power. So Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan were not at all breakaways from the conservatism of the past. They had very early and even more determined predecessors. Nobody who knew history should have been surprised by the Reagan/Thatcher "revolution".
And it was in deliberate tribute to the parliamentarians of Cromwell's day and their immediate successors that two of the most influential conservative theorists prior to Reagan and Thatcher both described themselves as "Old Whigs" — Burke (1790) and Hayek (1944). Hayek described Whig ideals as "the only set of ideals that has consistently opposed all arbitrary power" (Hayek, 1960).
Sure, Beckbot. Time for more tinfoil.
You mean like Democrats creating a Black welfare state in order to exploit it for votes? Also,government is never "there for the people." Government exist to create more government control.
Nazism is not true 'Fascism', in fact that is a popular misconception. National Socialism was a unique political system, which while having Fascist attributes doesn't fall fully into that category.* Fascism in its pure form was a product of Mussolini (rather than Hitler), followed by Franco - and later in the 20th century by the likes of Pinochet.Nazism is not Fascist, as there are clear differences between Italian Fascism, Spanish Fascism and Nazism. As for 'left' and 'right' scales, they are useless for anything but populist media debates. Authoritarian scales are better, but they don't allow the media to divide society into two camps.
Nazism is an example of fascism. You are right that there are minor differences between different examples of fascism.
One of the strange things on this thread is posters lining up to change the meaning of the word 'fascism' so that it fits their prejudices mor comfortably, but unable to explan where they would then place Antonescu, Stroessner or Franco on a political map.
There are good reasons why Hitler is considered right wing, and one of them is the clear links between fascism and strong right-wing administrations like those of Pinochet.
He's not posing as a U.S. citizen. I have no problem with people from other countries participating in this forum. However, the fact that they are foreigners indicates a certain level of ignorance regarding this country and the principles it was founded on.
Someone should alert Webster's about making the necessary corrections.
Right wing - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
He's not posing as a U.S. citizen. I have no problem with people from other countries participating in this forum. However, the fact that they are foreigners indicates a certain level of ignorance regarding this country and the principles it was founded on.
Does it?
There's that RW/Nazi ugly American nationalism/nativism/hate of furriners and minorities/love of ignorance, hate of intellectuals...ay carambaHe's not posing as a U.S. citizen. I have no problem with people from other countries participating in this forum. However, the fact that they are foreigners indicates a certain level of ignorance regarding this country and the principles it was founded on.
Does it?
Yes... it does,
He's not posing as a U.S. citizen. I have no problem with people from other countries participating in this forum. However, the fact that they are foreigners indicates a certain level of ignorance regarding this country and the principles it was founded on.
Does it?
Yes... it does,
That makes number two on the ignore list....reserved for only the very stupidest people.
