How we know Hitler was right wing.

[Quantum Windbag]

[MENTION=37000]Saigon[/MENTION]

Locke -

I am sure you aware (from the OP if nowhere else) that Hitler devoted his life to destroying Marxism, but your post does not seem to reflect that reality.

I am sure you are aware I utterly destroyed your argument earlier, yet you refuse to acknowledge it, even though you have actualy retreated from your earlier position.

Why is that?

 

[Saigon]

[MENTION=37000]Saigon[/MENTION]

Locke -

I am sure you aware (from the OP if nowhere else) that Hitler devoted his life to destroying Marxism, but your post does not seem to reflect that reality.

I am sure you are aware I utterly destroyed your argument earlier, yet you refuse to acknowledge it, even though you have actualy retreated from your earlier position.

Why is that?

Why would I "retreat" from a position that is confirmed by every history book, every dictionary and every historian?

So far I have counted three posters who are suggesting Hitler was left wing - surprisingly enough three of the least literate and most poorly informed posters on the forum. In each case I have explained the points that they seem to have misunderstood, and in each case they have just gone on repeating the same fairly obvious mistake. It doesn't surprise me that people of very poor literacy and very low intelligence read history in the same way they read newspapers - that if it backs their jaundiced position it is fact, if it doesn't, it is propaganda and must be ignored. Real history is rarely so amenable or conveniant. Likewise, real history books do not achieve reknown by being biased, but by being obective and well-informed.

I did read your earlier statement, but to my mind there is a major difference between enraged ranting and mustering a compelling argument. I noticed that you had found the quotes VERY difficult to understand, but other than that there didn't seem to be anything of substance to actually address.

If you wish to make a point here (politely), I'll read it and respond to it.

Again, this is what I do for work - I'm fairly comfortable explaining any key points, or at least telling you what sources I would use if you want to do some reading on the topic.

 

[Bfgrn]

This simply is not true, and it has alrrady been explained several times on this thread why not.

Firstly, small government is very much an American concept - not a global one. Look around the world and you will see a dozen conservative governments that might look to trim spending, but which simply aren't obsessed with small government. It just isn't a big issue elsewhere.

Sceondly, there have been left wing governments that have backed small government. The Lange administration is the obvious example, but there are others.

Thirdly, the key differences between left wing and right wing are not small/large government, but capitalism vs socialism and class vs anti-class. This is what seperates left and right.

Conservatives in America have never provided small government. Those are code words for a lot less government for banksters, polluters and the plutocrats they worship. For those people conservatives provide all the socialism they request...subsidies, tax breaks and loopholes, deregulation... BUT, for the working man, the poor, minorities and women, conservatives provide a lot MORE government. For those people we get "fee" market capitalism, state ownership of a woman's uterus, capital punishment (the sooner the better) and piss in a cup and trust government to decide your fate.

Never? How about when JEfferson ran on a platform of abolishing the Alien and Sedition Acts if he was elected president, and then preceded to actually abolish them, unlike a modern president who ran on the platform of ending secrecy, and ended up expanding it.

Thomas Jefferson was a liberal.

Next...

 

[Bfgrn]

Locke -

I am sure you aware (from the OP if nowhere else) that Hitler devoted his life to destroying Marxism, but your post does not seem to reflect that reality.

You don't have to read many chapters of Mein Kampf to understand how deeply Hitler hated Marxism. And the National Socialist Party was merely a vehicle Hitler used to gain power. The Night of the Long Knives put an abrupt end to the socialist in the party.

The Night of the Long Knives (German: About this sound Nacht der langen Messer (help·info)), sometimes called Operation Hummingbird or, in Germany, the Röhm-Putsch, was a purge that took place in Nazi Germany between June 30 and July 2 1934, when the Nazi regime carried out a series of political murders. Leading figures of the left-wing Strasserist faction of the Nazi Party. wiki

 

[Saigon]

QW -

In the interests of good faith I will pick up a couple of your points.

"In the years 1913 and 1914, I… expressed the conviction that the question of the future of the German nation was the question of destroying Marxism." (Hitler)

Still not seeing it.

Well, I think to most people the meaning of Hitler's statement is clear - he had been intent of destroying Marxism for many years.

"In the economic sphere Communism is analogous to democracy in the political sphere." (Hitler)

Does that mean he was anti-democracy or pro- communism?

It means that he was anti-Democracy. Hitler did away with elections, insisting that only the Nazi Party was fit to rule the country, at least until such time as Marxism had been destroyed.

This is very clear in Hitler's writing:

The young [Nazi] movement is in its nature and inner organization anti-parliamentarian; that is, it rejects… a principle of majority rule in which the leader is degraded to the level of mere executant of other people's wills and opinion." (Hitler)

"There must be no majority decisions, but only responsible persons, and the word 'council' must be restored to its original meaning. Surely every man will have advisers by his side, but the decision will be made by one man." (Hitler)

 

[Quantum Windbag]

@Saigon

Locke -

I am sure you aware (from the OP if nowhere else) that Hitler devoted his life to destroying Marxism, but your post does not seem to reflect that reality.

I am sure you are aware I utterly destroyed your argument earlier, yet you refuse to acknowledge it, even though you have actually retreated from your earlier position.

Why is that?

Why would I "retreat" from a position that is confirmed by every history book, every dictionary and every historian?

So far I have counted three posters who are suggesting Hitler was left wing - surprisingly enough three of the least literate and most poorly informed posters on the forum. In each case I have explained the points that they seem to have misunderstood, and in each case they have just gone on repeating the same fairly obvious mistake. It doesn't surprise me that people of very poor literacy and very low intelligence read history in the same way they read newspapers - that if it backs their jaundiced position it is fact, if it doesn't, it is propaganda and must be ignored. Real history is rarely so amenable or conveniant. Likewise, real history books do not achieve reknown by being biased, but by being obective and well-informed.

I did read your earlier statement, but to my mind there is a major difference between enraged ranting and mustering a compelling argument. I noticed that you had found the quotes VERY difficult to understand, but other than that there didn't seem to be anything of substance to actually address.

If you wish to make a point here (politely), I'll read it and respond to it.

Again, this is what I do for work - I'm fairly comfortable explaining any key points, or at least telling you what sources I would use if you want to do some reading on the topic.

Because it is not confirmed by every history book, every dictionary, or every historian. The fact that you insist that something is true that is conclusively untrue is all the proof anyone who can think needs to know you are desperate.

Feel free to go back and read the post where I explained why arguing that any political classification that limits itself to two dimensions is absurd, I don't feel like repeating it here just to prove how idiotic you are for repeating something stupid, and I have absolutely no need to refute your absurd argument that I think Hitler is left wing. Hitler took the elements of whatever political ideology suited his purpose, combined them into an amalgamation that had no internal constituency, and shoved them down the threat of Germany. You are just as stupid as anyone you think you are proving wrong when you argue that Hitler was right wing.

By the way, what post if mine would you classify as enraged ranting? Is the only way you can deal with the fact that you had your ass handed to you is to pretend the other guy is nuts so you can continue to spout drivel?

You make a fool of yourself for money? Seriously? I thought they got rid of court jesters ages ago, what did I miss?

For the record, anyone that actually got paid to make coherent arguments would never speak in absolutes about history when he knows it is absurdly easy to find history books that actually deny the holocaust ever occurred.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Conservatives in America have never provided small government. Those are code words for a lot less government for banksters, polluters and the plutocrats they worship. For those people conservatives provide all the socialism they request...subsidies, tax breaks and loopholes, deregulation... BUT, for the working man, the poor, minorities and women, conservatives provide a lot MORE government. For those people we get "fee" market capitalism, state ownership of a woman's uterus, capital punishment (the sooner the better) and piss in a cup and trust government to decide your fate.

Never? How about when JEfferson ran on a platform of abolishing the Alien and Sedition Acts if he was elected president, and then preceded to actually abolish them, unlike a modern president who ran on the platform of ending secrecy, and ended up expanding it.

Thomas Jefferson was a liberal.

Next...

Jefferson argued for a smaller government. That makes him, by your standards, a conservative,

By the way, was Chavez a conservative?

 

[Saigon]

Because it is not confirmed by every history book, every dictionary, or every historian.

Actually, it is.

Definition of fascism
noun
[mass noun]

an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.
(in general use) extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practices: this is yet another example of health fascism in action.

Definition of fascism in Oxford Dictionaries (British & World English)

fascism (ˈfæʃɪzəm) [Click for IPA pronunciation guide]

— n
1. any ideology or movement inspired by Italian Fascism, such as German National Socialism; any right-wing nationalist ideology or movement with an authoritarian and hierarchical structure that is fundamentally opposed to democracy and liberalism
2. any ideology, movement, programme, tendency, etc, that may be characterized as right-wing, chauvinist, authoritarian, etc
3. prejudice in relation to the subject specified: body fascism

Fascism | Define Fascism at Dictionary.com

All of the major historians to write on this topic have focused on Hitler's extreme right-wing views, many of whom are already listed on this thread. I've mentioned Richard Overy, Michael Marris, Ian Kershaw and Hannah Arendt, but also historians working at the time like Hildebrand are very clear on this.


I will ignore you usual incessant ranting and off-topic abuse.

 

[Darkwind]

The idea that the two sides of this imaginary political spectrum are merely at odds over what size government we should try on, is absurd. Ideologues and politically interested parties interest themselves in what government does, not how big it is. Do you buy a car on the basis of what color it is?

But as I said, hopelessly simplistic. And look who shows up to hope for simplicity: Finger-boy. 'Nuff said.

Sorry, but it is that simple because I don't want government doing almost everything it currently does. An authoritarian like you imagines that conservatives and libertarians only want government to do something different than what you want it to do. However, we view the mere fact of government compulsion as something to be avoided at all cost. We don't want government to compel us to do something we approve of. We don't want government compelling us at all.

I realize that's hard for the likes of you to fathom.

We need a new word in our language for "beyond clueless". Simplistic isn't doing it justice either.

I agree. We need a new word. Simplistic is to complex a word for your brand of insanity.

When we talk about what government should do, we also need to include what government should NOT do. And to discover what the US government should not do is found in the Constitution.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

QW -

In the interests of good faith I will pick up a couple of your points.

"In the years 1913 and 1914, I… expressed the conviction that the question of the future of the German nation was the question of destroying Marxism." (Hitler)

Still not seeing it.

Well, I think to most people the meaning of Hitler's statement is clear - he had been intent of destroying Marxism for many years.

"In the economic sphere Communism is analogous to democracy in the political sphere." (Hitler)

Does that mean he was anti-democracy or pro- communism?

It means that he was anti-Democracy. Hitler did away with elections, insisting that only the Nazi Party was fit to rule the country, at least until such time as Marxism had been destroyed.

This is very clear in Hitler's writing:

The young [Nazi] movement is in its nature and inner organization anti-parliamentarian; that is, it rejects… a principle of majority rule in which the leader is degraded to the level of mere executant of other people's wills and opinion." (Hitler)

"There must be no majority decisions, but only responsible persons, and the word 'council' must be restored to its original meaning. Surely every man will have advisers by his side, but the decision will be made by one man." (Hitler)

Are these the quotes you classify as enraged ranting? Do you understand the difference between contempt and rage? Let me help you by putting them in context.

Another idiot that think nationalizing resources is a right wing policy.

Prior coming to this board, I had never heard anyone suggest Hitler was anything but right wing. This may be something to do with living in Europe where the awareness of fascism is so very high because it occured here, or maybe it's something our education system focuses on. Or maybe coincidence.

Before coming to this board you thought that Barney Frank was right wing.

Either way, recently I've noticed two posters recently insist Hitler was left wing....and even liberal.

Here is SSDD:

Hitler's government was called right wing by communists and socialists of the time, but his governemnt was still socialist. It consisted of a large and powerful central authority which is, by definition, not a conservative, or classically lberal government

Right wing and left wing are two wings of the same house and the house is socialism.

In cases like this, I am not sure facts have a great deal of impact, but maybe it is interesting to discuss some of the features of Fascism anyway.

This should be entertaining.

Let's start with some quotes from Hitler:

"The main plank in the Nationalist Socialist program is to abolish the liberalistic concept of the individual and the Marxist concept of humanity and to substitute for them the folk community, rooted in the soil and bound together by the bond of its common blood."

Feel free to point out which political leader in the US today thinks that community trumps the individual. Would that sound more like, a "center right" moderate community organizer, or a right wing radical like Rand Paul?

"The German state is gravely attacked by Marxism."

And?

"In the years 1913 and 1914, I… expressed the conviction that the question of the future of the German nation was the question of destroying Marxism."

Still not seeing it.

"In the economic sphere Communism is analogous to democracy in the political sphere."

Does that mean he was anti-democracy or pro- communism?

"The Marxists will march with democracy until they succeed in indirectly obtaining for their criminal aims the support of even the national intellectual world, destined by them for extinction."

I get it now, this, combined with his previous quote, proves he was pro communism.

No wonder you thought he was right wing.

"Marxism itself systematically plans to hand the world over to the Jews."

Now I am confused. Given that the right wing wants to hand the world over to the Jews, and the left wing wants to end their control of the world's financial market, why on Earth would you think he is right wing?

"The Jewish doctrine of Marxism rejects the aristocratic principle of Nature and replaces the eternal privilege of power and strength by the mass of numbers and their dead weight."

Myth: Hitler was a leftist

Yep, that is conclusive, Hitler was left wing. Was that your point?

When I said "Still not seeing it I was reinforcing this point. "Feel free to point out which political leader in the US today thinks that community trumps the individual. Would that sound more like, a "center right" moderate community organizer, or a right wing radical like Rand Paul?"

Despite all your blather, I am still not seeing anything that paints Hitler as anything modern day American politics would call right wing. Unless, that is, you actually think Obama is center-right.

What was that other quote again?

Oy yes, "Does that mean he was anti-democracy or pro- communism?" I wonder why anyone with a brain would, after reading all the snarking in my post, think that was a serious question. Is it because you cannot discern the difference between contempt and anger?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Because it is not confirmed by every history book, every dictionary, or every historian.

Actually, it is.

Definition of fascism
noun
[mass noun]

an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.
(in general use) extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practices: this is yet another example of health fascism in action.

Definition of fascism in Oxford Dictionaries (British & World English)

fascism (ˈfæʃɪzəm) [Click for IPA pronunciation guide]

— n
1. any ideology or movement inspired by Italian Fascism, such as German National Socialism; any right-wing nationalist ideology or movement with an authoritarian and hierarchical structure that is fundamentally opposed to democracy and liberalism
2. any ideology, movement, programme, tendency, etc, that may be characterized as right-wing, chauvinist, authoritarian, etc
3. prejudice in relation to the subject specified: body fascism

Fascism | Define Fascism at Dictionary.com

All of the major historians to write on this topic have focused on Hitler's extreme right-wing views, many of whom are already listed on this thread. I've mentioned Richard Overy, Michael Marris, Ian Kershaw and Hannah Arendt, but also historians working at the time like Hildebrand are very clear on this.


I will ignore you usual incessant ranting and off-topic abuse.

You do understand that "every dictionary" means every single dictionary ever, don't you? Not just the easiest one to find that actually agrees with you?

Fascism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Even Wikipedia recognizes that fascism is not strictly right wing.

Fascism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Both Roger Griffin and Aristotle Kallis have pointed out that it is inadequate to classify fascism as right wing. That gives me one dictionary, one crowd sourced encyclopedia, one political theorist, one historian, and two books to contradict your claim that every dictionary, historian, and history book says that fascism is right wing. And that was without even trying, or having a degree in history.

 

[Agit8r]

QW -

In the interests of good faith I will pick up a couple of your points.

"In the years 1913 and 1914, I… expressed the conviction that the question of the future of the German nation was the question of destroying Marxism." (Hitler)

Still not seeing it.

Well, I think to most people the meaning of Hitler's statement is clear - he had been intent of destroying Marxism for many years.

"In the economic sphere Communism is analogous to democracy in the political sphere." (Hitler)

It means that he was anti-Democracy. Hitler did away with elections, insisting that only the Nazi Party was fit to rule the country, at least until such time as Marxism had been destroyed.

This is very clear in Hitler's writing:

The young [Nazi] movement is in its nature and inner organization anti-parliamentarian; that is, it rejects… a principle of majority rule in which the leader is degraded to the level of mere executant of other people's wills and opinion." (Hitler)

"There must be no majority decisions, but only responsible persons, and the word 'council' must be restored to its original meaning. Surely every man will have advisers by his side, but the decision will be made by one man." (Hitler)

Are these the quotes you classify as enraged ranting? Do you understand the difference between contempt and rage? Let me help you by putting them in context.

Another idiot that think nationalizing resources is a right wing policy.



Before coming to this board you thought that Barney Frank was right wing.



This should be entertaining.



Feel free to point out which political leader in the US today thinks that community trumps the individual. Would that sound more like, a "center right" moderate community organizer, or a right wing radical like Rand Paul?



And?



Still not seeing it.



Does that mean he was anti-democracy or pro- communism?



I get it now, this, combined with his previous quote, proves he was pro communism.

No wonder you thought he was right wing.



Now I am confused. Given that the right wing wants to hand the world over to the Jews, and the left wing wants to end their control of the world's financial market, why on Earth would you think he is right wing?

"The Jewish doctrine of Marxism rejects the aristocratic principle of Nature and replaces the eternal privilege of power and strength by the mass of numbers and their dead weight."

Myth: Hitler was a leftist

Yep, that is conclusive, Hitler was left wing. Was that your point?

When I said "Still not seeing it I was reinforcing this point. "Feel free to point out which political leader in the US today thinks that community trumps the individual. Would that sound more like, a "center right" moderate community organizer, or a right wing radical like Rand Paul?"

Despite all your blather, I am still not seeing anything that paints Hitler as anything modern day American politics would call right wing. Unless, that is, you actually think Obama is center-right.

What was that other quote again?

Oy yes, "Does that mean he was anti-democracy or pro- communism?" I wonder why anyone with a brain would, after reading all the snarking in my post, think that was a serious question. Is it because you cannot discern the difference between contempt and anger?

I think it is obvious that Rand Paul is nothing like Hitler. Now Rick Santorum is another matter...

Obama is more similar to old-school centrists like Gerald Ford or George Romney than he is to radicals of either the left of right.

 

[beagle9]

Who gives a crap, both leftist/Marxist governments and the Nazis are murdering bastards, the only difference being the Nazis where amatuers when it came to murdering their own citizens when compared to their Marxist brethren. I mean what Hitler did seems like an Ice Cream Social when compared to what Stalin and Mao did.

I don't think Birkenau was an "ice cream social", and neither do you.

Stalin, Mao and Hitler was all tyrants and dictators, without question, but to understand anthing at all about modern politics, one has to understand the political spectrum from far left to far right, and where those men sat on that spectrum.

Nope, but the 700,000-1,000,000 killed there is but a drop in the bucket when compared to the almost 130,000,000 killed by the communist regimes in just China and Russia alone, forget about the millions more killed by the other leftist regimes. The popular terms fascist liberal, femi-nazi or liberal fascism are quite fitting if you ask me. The left has adopted the worst of both fascism and marxism and the only thing in this nation keeping them from acting like Hitler, Mao or Stalin is that we have approx 80,000,000 armed citizens. In my opinion the very real reason why the left in this nation is doing it's damndest to infringe upon the Citizen's 2nd amendment rights.

Just a thought here, now with this accusation or theory you have here, would it have to based upon the left staging or setting up these killings in order to get to this gun control thing going, or are there other forces at work here in which is ushering in these events or policies to somehow take place, in which it seems we have no control over ? All we can do is work to resist the attacks, just as we are doing within our system or culture now, and if that doesn't work, then it was meant to be, and it was all for a reason in which we may not understand until the day we stand before God himself.

 

[Unkotare]

Hitler was socialist by his own words and deeds. He was far to the right of most socialists, but he was a socialist none the less. Trying to rewrite history in an effort to distance a political philosophy from someone who was extreme in his methods is worse by far than simply fessing up to the fact that he was socialist...a particularly bad socialist. Of course in so far as killing goes, his pile of corpses was quite small in comparison to those of stalin, lenin, mao and pol pot.....all socialists.

ALL history books tells [sic] us that Hitler was right wing, child - the only person saying otherwise is you. [sic]

If this board has ever seen more childish posting, I haven't seen it. [sic]

I have gone to some effort to explain this to you at least four times on to [sic] threads - [sic] and here you are still repeating the same old nonsense. Again - [sic] if you do not understand what the word [sic] "right wing" means - and my sig line proves beyond any doubt that you do not - then you have no place discussing politics at all.

It would be more appropriate for you to address the topic rather than ranting and raving about an individual poster (in very poor English at that).

 

[Saigon]

You do understand that "every dictionary" means every single dictionary ever, don't you? Not just the easiest one to find that actually agrees with you?

No, every major dictionary either lists fascism as being right wing, or doesn't mention the words "left" or right" at all.

YOUR OWN LINK EXPLAINS:

"it differed from contemporary communism (as practiced under Joseph Stalin) by its protection of business and landowning elites and its preservation of class systems"

I imagine they probably think anyone not involved in some mindless feud could figure out for themselves which side of the spectrum that puts Hitler on.

No dictionaries at all describe it as left wing, and actually Wiki is also fairly clear about it being right wing, here.

"fascism is usually placed on the far right on the traditional left-right spectrum..."

Fascism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

When I said that all historians confirm that Hitler was right wing, I meant all major, published peer-review historians. If you have been searching, you will know as well as I do that 99% of the do confirm this.

 

[Saigon]

I am still not seeing anything that paints Hitler as anything modern day American politics would call right wing.

Then stop thinking about modern day American politics, and focus on Hitler within the context of 1930's Europe.

I wonder why anyone with a brain would, after reading all the snarking in my post, think that was a serious question

Because I thought you may have been capable of adult discussion. I was wrong.

I do actually make some effort to address the points raised even by weaker posters on threads like these - I'm not greatly concerned if that bothers you.

 

[SSDD]

You're a MORON. Read something, Prof. Rushbeckbot...

Yes, Republicans are almost socialists, with regulation and a welfare system- but NO NATIONALIZATION of industry/business, just STUPID, cruel and run by and for greedy megarich chickenhawk a-holes, supported by brainwashed functional idiots like you. Politically- I'm sure you're a lovely fellow otherwise.

If government controls essential services, then nationalization of the producers or providers of those services is unnecessary. Healthcare is a good example. If government controls your access to healthcare, then governemt controls your life. If government controls what you need, then government controls you.

Hitler didn't need to control business because he controled the people who owned the business. If they weren't good nazis, then they lost ownership of their property and a good nazi moved in.

Your belief that socialism can only happen if the state assumes ownership of industry is sadly mistaken. Look at modern china. They are most certainly still sociaist, but their economy is booming because they have begun allowing private ownership of industry so long as the owners of that industry are good socialists loyal to the state.

 

[SSDD]

Your brain has been turned into porridge. Socialists are DEMOCRATIC, Communists NEVER, and don't allow aristocrats or corporations, that's why Hitler was a fascist, not a socialist/communist, dingbat.

My brain is hitting on all 8 cylinders...yours on the other hand is restricted to what some historical revisionist has told you. You aren't able to think on your own.

Do you deny that modern china is a socialist nation? They are allowing private ownership of industry....certiain people are becoming very rich in china today....but only the most profound idiot would claim that china today is not a socialist nation.

Get out of your box and try to grasp how far off base you are.

 

[Saigon]

what some historical revisionist has told you.

PLEASE post honestly. Really.

For the 100th time - YOU are the person here who is rejecting 60 years of history, just as you also reject the last 100 years of modern science on other threads. In both cases, we also know you reject these books without reading them.

All major historians, dictionaries and objective sources confirm this. Lying does not help your cause.

Get out of your box

It's funny - I dare say you are the poster on this forum with the least real experience of politics - as evidenced by how difficult you find it to understand even the most basic issues, such as the meaning of the term 'right wing' - and yet here you are suggesting other posters get out more?!

By all means tell us - what personal experience do you have of communism? of right wing dictatorships?

Given you refuse to read - unusual for someone claiming to be an expert in Political Philosophy - quite where do you get information from?

 

[SSDD]

Tell me something, does your statement that all authoritarians are conservative mean that you think Bloomberg is conservative, or does it mean that you do not consider him authoritarian? What about Castro, Chavez, and Stalin? Are they really conservatives in disguise, or are they not realy authoritarians?

Alternatively, you could just admit you were talking out of your ass.

Liberalism is authoritarian by nature. It is a political philosophy that claims equality and equal freedom as its ultimate goal. Ask any liberal to describe their philosophy and without fail, you will get some variation of “live and let live. In an effort to achieve this goal, however, liberalism requires supervision of everything. Its multicultural ideal excludes and stigmatizes regular people and in order to enforce its equality, it uses quotas, speech codes, and mandatory sensitivity training in politically correct attitudes and opinions. Clearly, there is little connection between those things and “live and let live”.

Liberals prize tolerance, but what they call tolerance is not tolerance at all. Correct me if I am wrong, but tolerance means letting people do what they want. Modern liberals, however have redefined tolerance (redefinition – a nasty habit of modern liberals) to mean a requirement of equal respect across the social spectrum. True tolerance requires live and let live, but the tolerance of the modern liberal requires an ever more invasive bureaucratic control of every aspect of our social lives. An ideology that “requires” equal respect across the social spectrum must, by definition be intolerant because it must try to control the attitudes that people have towards one another and any real attempt to that end will require means that are both inflexible and tyrannical.

Lets compare two states. One is the conservative ideal and the other is the modern liberal ideal. In the conservative state, you can say and do pretty much whatever you like so long as you do not violate certain established rights. The conservative state doesn’t care whether you are tolerant or intolerant so long as you don’t physically attack others or damage their property. The conservative state, as a result may be very critical of certain social failures, as it would have a very limited social welfare system. In the conservative sate, you would be free to succeed or fail with interference from the state being limited to enforcing those clearly defined rights that were spoken of earlier.

In the homogenous welfare state that modern liberals favor, however, things would be quite different. In its effort to promote equal respect and tolerance across the social spectrum, the modern liberal state will find that it must necessarily be very intolerant of ways of life that it defines as sexist, racist, homophobic, etc. By establishing quotas, the state will force people to associate with others against their will, literally denying them the right to choose what sorts of people they will live near and work with.

The liberal state will necessarily be uable to accept that ethnic loyalties, and religious and sexual distinctions form the structures by which all people organize their lives and as a result will find that it must, in fact, be intolerant of all real ways of life and must, by force of law, reconstruct them. This new tolerance as found in the modern liberal state means that no one, with the exception of a few elite ideologues gets to carry out his or her life by their own design.

Upon close examination it is evident that modern liberalism does indeed hold all of the elements necessary to become authoritarian and totalitarian and in practice has already exhibited a streak of tyranny ranging from mandatory sensitivity training to the “thought police” mentality of actually punishing criminals more harshly based on what they may have been thinking when they committed their particular crime. (hate crime law) In the name of equal freedom and equality for all, modern liberalism is willing to empower government bureaucracy to make us all, by force if necessary, into its image.

Liberalism, by nature, is anti authoritarian. The only thing that is authoritarian by nature is people who think that the best way to accomplish their goals is by use of force.

Perhaps the ideal is anti authoritarian. When the ideal meets human nature, however, authoritarianism is necessary because human nature simply doesn't subject itself to the will of the state. If you can't look and see how far liberalism intrudes into your life, then you need to remove your blinders.

Do you live in the US? I have lived here for my whole life which has been quite a while. I have seen liberalism at first creep into the nation and then become a tidal wave. Tell you what, prove to me that liberalism doesn't become authoritarian by naming 3 things.....just 3 things that you can do today that involve no government interference at the federal, state, or local level without getting into the most mundane aspects of your life.

When I was young, I would have had a more difficult time naming things that the government did interfere in than things that it didn't. So go ahead...prove how liberalism doesn't creep into and take over every important aspect of your life.