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.
"Dictionaries are often wrong,..."
Wrong? A meaning of a word might evolve, but the dictionary only indicates what the word meant and how it was used up to the time of publication.
In other words, they can be wrong. They can also be wrong for other reasons. For instance, the definitions of highly charged terms are often be tailored to suit the author's political agenda.
If you seriously believe that dictionaries can't be wrong, then you're too stupid to bother arguing with.
If it's born on the "right", why is it used by every leftist country on the planet?
Riddle me that Batman.
Jesus wept...when I see posts like this I really wonder about history is taught in American schools. I'd like to think no Finnish high school student would write something like that.
Westwall - socialism, Marxism and Communism are left wing.
Hitler, however, considered himself to be a right-wing fascist and Nazi. He wanted to use the term 'Social Revolutionary' rather than Socialist because he was concerned that illierate Americans wouldn't get it - and clearly he was right to worry.
This has been posted on this thread at least twelve times now, usually with links. But funnily enough - the myths just keep on coming.
Hitler considered himself right wing? Seriously? You making shit up again, or are you just stupid?
If it's born on the "right", why is it used by every leftist country on the planet?
Riddle me that Batman.
Jesus wept...when I see posts like this I really wonder about history is taught in American schools. I'd like to think no Finnish high school student would write something like that.
Westwall - socialism, Marxism and Communism are left wing.
Hitler, however, considered himself to be a right-wing fascist and Nazi. He wanted to use the term 'Social Revolutionary' rather than Socialist because he was concerned that illierate Americans wouldn't get it - and clearly he was right to worry.
This has been posted on this thread at least twelve times now, usually with links. But funnily enough - the myths just keep on coming.
Hitler considered himself right wing? Seriously? You making shit up again, or are you just stupid?
Who does that remind you of?Jesus wept...when I see posts like this I really wonder about history is taught in American schools. I'd like to think no Finnish high school student would write something like that.
Westwall - socialism, Marxism and Communism are left wing.
Hitler, however, considered himself to be a right-wing fascist and Nazi. He wanted to use the term 'Social Revolutionary' rather than Socialist because he was concerned that illierate Americans wouldn't get it - and clearly he was right to worry.
This has been posted on this thread at least twelve times now, usually with links. But funnily enough - the myths just keep on coming.
Hitler considered himself right wing? Seriously? You making shit up again, or are you just stupid?
Hitler certainly didn't consider himself left wing or liberal.
"Today Christians stand at the head of our country. I pledge that I will never tie myself to parties who want to destroy Christianity... We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit.... We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theatre, and in the press - in short, we want to burn out the poison of immorality which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of liberal excess during the past few years."
Adolf Hitler
The Speeches of Adolph Hitler, 1922-1939, Vol. 1 (London, Oxford University Press, 1942), pg. 871-872.
As I asked you before - if you CAN discuss topics like a grown up, I suggest you do so.Hitler considered himself right wing? Seriously? You making shit up again, or are you just stupid?
For all his myriad faults, Hitler had a very clear view of his own ideology and politiics. He knew that he was extreme, knew that he was right wing, and was proud of the fact. His own speeches demonstrate this, as does Mein Kampf and books like Ian Kershaw's 'Hubris' and 'Nemesis'.
"Liberalism is a disease of the mind that weakens and corrupts human beings." Adolf Hitler, 1939
Jesus wept...when I see posts like this I really wonder about history is taught in American schools. I'd like to think no Finnish high school student would write something like that.
Westwall - socialism, Marxism and Communism are left wing.
Hitler, however, considered himself to be a right-wing fascist and Nazi. He wanted to use the term 'Social Revolutionary' rather than Socialist because he was concerned that illierate Americans wouldn't get it - and clearly he was right to worry.
This has been posted on this thread at least twelve times now, usually with links. But funnily enough - the myths just keep on coming.
Hitler considered himself right wing? Seriously? You making shit up again, or are you just stupid?
Hitler certainly didn't consider himself left wing or liberal.
"Today Christians stand at the head of our country. I pledge that I will never tie myself to parties who want to destroy Christianity... We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit.... We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theatre, and in the press - in short, we want to burn out the poison of immorality which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of liberal excess during the past few years."
Adolf Hitler
The Speeches of Adolph Hitler, 1922-1939, Vol. 1 (London, Oxford University Press, 1942), pg. 871-872.
QW -
I think for most people, the idea that someone wants to wipe Liberalism AND Marxism off the planet is probably fairly clear evidence.
Anyone wanting any further evidence would probably be best to ***shudder*** pick up a book like Michael Marris's 'Holocaust In History' which details a lot of the ideology behind the Holocaust. Also Ian Kershaw's 'Nazi Dictatorship' covers this in great detail, including a section on the views of historians and journalists close to the Nazi Party during the 1930's.
QW -
Perhaps so, and certainly the Holocaust is an emotional issue. And should be emotional, really.
But the basis of history is not emotions, it is facts. On this thread we see several posters - partiularly SSDD - trawling through site after site trying to find a source that backs his otherwise nonsensical case, whilst ignoring the 10, 20 sites which not only tell him why he is wrong, but explain why.
That is not history.
History is about reading and reading and reading, and through time starting to filter the information and build up an understaing of events layer by layer.
I think a lot of people get lost in these topics because they lack the attention span or real interest to spend weeks, months reading a whole pile of books. It's a bit different for me because I get paid for it, but it's nothing for me to read 2,000 pages of material for a six page story. There just aren't any shortcuts to that.
Hitler considered himself right wing? Seriously? You making shit up again, or are you just stupid?
As I asked you before - if you CAN discuss topics like a grown up, I suggest you do so.
For all his myriad faults, Hitler had a very clear view of his own ideology and politiics. He knew that he was extreme, knew that he was right wing, and was proud of the fact. His own speeches demonstrate this, as does Mein Kampf and books like Ian Kershaw's 'Hubris' and 'Nemesis'.
"Liberalism is a disease of the mind that weakens and corrupts human beings." Adolf Hitler, 1939
If it's born on the "right", why is it used by every leftist country on the planet?
Riddle me that Batman.
Jesus wept...when I see posts like this I really wonder about history is taught in American schools. I'd like to think no Finnish high school student would write something like that.
Westwall - socialism, Marxism and Communism are left wing.
Hitler, however, considered himself to be a right-wing fascist and Nazi. He wanted to use the term 'Social Revolutionary' rather than Socialist because he was concerned that illierate Americans wouldn't get it - and clearly he was right to worry.
This has been posted on this thread at least twelve times now, usually with links. But funnily enough - the myths just keep on coming.
Hitler considered himself right wing? Seriously? You making shit up again, or are you just stupid?
Swastikas and Semi-automatics: What's Wrong With Gun Show Culture
Last weekend alone, there were at least 44 separate gun shows in this country. After reading up on the historic increase in gun purchases after the election of Barack Obama as well as articles linking Nazi and Klan propaganda with gun show offerings, I had a few questions on my mind.
This weekend, how many guns were purchased out of hate? This weekend, how many relics of human beings' persecutory past were purchased in an attempt to revive such hatred?
Timothy McVeigh himself sold The Turner Diaries, a novel written by a neo-Nazi leader that was labeled the "Bible of the racist right" by the FBI, at gun shows before he carried out the Oklahoma City Bombing attacks.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There's nothing fun about this fairgrounds show
It is Friday evening in late October, and the shadows on the Indiana State Fairgrounds are starting to lengthen as I pay nine bucks to gain admission into the 1500 Gun and Knife Show.
Twenty-five feet inside the entrance of the South Pavilion building, a display table is draped with the striking red background and black swastika of the Nazi flag. Ten feet farther, an SS uniform is for sale. The crowd of several hundred, virtually all white men, mill past displays of Confederate flags and National Rifle Association literature. One vendor features T-shirts of the iconic yellow smiley face with a bullet hole in its forehead and brains blown out the back of its skull.
Thousands of weapons are for sale. Glock 23 fully automatic pistols, Uzi nine millimeters, Colt 44 magnum Anacondas. Some cost less than $100.
One display includes copies of legal treatises on the "castle doctrine," the law that allows the use of deadly force on intruders. Next to the stack of treatises are bumper stickers reading, "Osama bin Laden/Obama Joe Biden. Coincidence?"
When someone picks up a bumper sticker, the man working the display nods. "God help us if McCain doesn't win," he says. "I live in South Bend, which is 35 percent black. That's what you call a target-rich environment."
My companion at the gun show is Joe Zelenka, who coordinates for the Church Federation of Greater Indianapolis the prayer vigils held after murders in the city. When weapons like the ones sold at the firgrounds make real human beings look like the blown-away smiley face on the T-shirts, Zelenka is there to hear the mothers' cries of anguish.
He points to a Springfield XD 9 millimeter semi-automatic pistol. "Not legal in California," the box reads. "The only things these are used to hunt for is people," Zelenka says.
I do ignore it, because it is has no basis in reality.
Marxism (and/or Marxism-Leninism) is not only the predominant form of socialism, but Marx was the author of what we understand Socialism to be. There would likely be no Socialism witout Marx (and Engels) and the difference between the two terms is paper thin, if there is a difference at all. Many sources use the terms interchangeably when discussing movements such as the FSLN, Russian Bolsheviks or other peasant rebellions.
You might as well claim that someone hated Maoism, but loved Chinese Communism.
I thought you said you made your living doing this. Marxism-Leninism is usually classified as communism, not socialism.
It certainly could be considered communism, yes, but because socialism is a transition on the path between demoracy and communism, it isn't a huge difference.
I would add that Marxism-Leninism is generally seen as slightly more militant or extreme than Marxian Socialism.
btw, If it is possible for you to post without banal insults, try and do so.
"Dictionaries are often wrong,..."
Wrong? A meaning of a word might evolve, but the dictionary only indicates what the word meant and how it was used up to the time of publication.
In other words, they can be wrong. They can also be wrong for other reasons. For instance, the definitions of highly charged terms are often be tailored to suit the author's political agenda.
If you seriously believe that dictionaries can't be wrong, then you're too stupid to bother arguing with.
This is not only obviously insane - it is a very clear attempt to rewrite both history and language.
I notice much of BriPat's posting is based on rejecting sources - he rejects science and scientific research, he rejects history and historians, and now rejects dictionaries.
The message is clear, folks, everything you have ever read, studied or seen is wrong - BriPat is the only source of scientific or historical truth you should trust.
Historians are mostly propagandists on the government payroll.
QW -
I think for most people, the idea that someone wants to wipe Liberalism AND Marxism off the planet is probably fairly clear evidence.
Anyone wanting any further evidence would probably be best to ***shudder*** pick up a book like Michael Marris's 'Holocaust In History' which details a lot of the ideology behind the Holocaust. Also Ian Kershaw's 'Nazi Dictatorship' covers this in great detail, including a section on the views of historians and journalists close to the Nazi Party during the 1930's.
