TwistedMac
後輩
- 4 Mar 2004
- 2,267
- 96
guess you've got a point there.Censport said:
I was just repeating what I have heard a thousand times
BAD DOG!
Nazi Party
- Thread starter Hiroshi66
- Start date
I was just repeating what I have heard a thousand times
BAD DOG!
sabro
後輩
- 23 Apr 2004
- 1,006
- 35
Censport said:
The Nazi's were fascists which are right wing in spite of the name. Hitler hated communists almost as much as he hated jews.
Also, the Klan, like the deep south, used to be a Democratic institution. Check out photos of the sanctioned DC parades of the teens and 20's. (Woodrow Wilson was a white supremacist and Klan sympathyzer)
Today's klan, like David Duke and most white male southerners, considers itself conservative, and votes and joins the party of Ronald Reagan.
Censport
Konnichiwa, y'all!
- 28 Dec 2004
- 60
- 0
Fascism is not party oriented. It is a means, not an ideology. Hitler may have hated Communism, but fascism is neither pro- or anti-Communist, any more than it would be anti-Semetic. Communism, after all, practices fascism too.sabro said:
How many current Klan members do you know? Yeah, me neither. But just because a myth gets repeated.... "Today's Klan" (sounds like a recruitment slogan) is still firmly ensconsed in the DNC. How? Labor unions, that's how.
Today's South isn't that much different from the South of years ago (in some places, it's not different AT ALL). We've always been conservative, it's just that the DNC isn't conservative anymore and some Southerners realize it. Others are what we call "yellow dog" Democrats. They are conservative on the issues, but vote Democrat because their family always has.
Woodrow Wilson was also a socialist. Sure, he used the term "progressive", but as TwistedMac said, it's just a nice ringing name.
sabro
後輩
- 23 Apr 2004
- 1,006
- 35
We can talk parties. We can talk economic theory and practice (which is a more precise way of discussing socialism). The Nazi party was horribly reactionary (as fascists tend to be.) As far from socialism on the political spectrum as you can come. Just ask the Krupps or any other good german capitalist that made lots of money from the Nazis. Politically and Economically, Naziism was more aligned with some kind of capitalist-totallitarian model. Nazi's always tried to give a good return on investments.
Look at maps about the last election. The South has abandoned the Democratic party. The majority of congressmen and governors in the south are republican.
What the Klan has do with labor unions- I'm uncertain of the connection. I belong to a union, but have no affinity to racist organizations. I don't pretend to speak for narrow minded angry white guys, but I think many probably follow the Rush Limbaugh- David Duke republican ideology. Its an assumption, and a bit of a jump, but I feel comfortable writing it.
Progressives were not socialists.
Look at maps about the last election. The South has abandoned the Democratic party. The majority of congressmen and governors in the south are republican.
What the Klan has do with labor unions- I'm uncertain of the connection. I belong to a union, but have no affinity to racist organizations. I don't pretend to speak for narrow minded angry white guys, but I think many probably follow the Rush Limbaugh- David Duke republican ideology. Its an assumption, and a bit of a jump, but I feel comfortable writing it.
Progressives were not socialists.
bossel
後輩
- 28 Sep 2003
- 1,485
- 45
Censport said:
This left-wing/right-wing stuff relies on the fact how these parties were placed in parliament. I rather see the political spectrum as something close to a circle where "right" & "left" wing are located rather close to each other. If I remember correctly, many a Nazi later joined the united Socialist Party (SED) in the GDR. & I definitely remember quite some members of the former SED appearing in Neo-Nazi parties after re-unification.sabro said:
Regarding economy: the Nazis didn't nationalise industries - as in most other Socialist countries -, but nevertheless they introduced a stringent state-control of what should be produced & how resources were distributed. They probably were more of a Socialist party than the Chinese Communists are nowadays.
That Hitler hated "Bolshevism" doesn't say very much, really. Different Socialist factions often hated each other more than what you might consider their political enemies.
I've seen some Native American art with the swatstika in it from one of my customers. Like the buddist symbol, it predates the nazi's by thousands of years. But the first thing that pops in to most peoples head when you see a swatstika is the Nazi's.
Here's a link.
Here's a link.
Censport
Konnichiwa, y'all!
- 28 Dec 2004
- 60
- 0
It was a mutual abandonment, as I pointed out earlier. The party abandoned conservatism, the conservatives (most of them, anyway) realized this and continued to vote along their principles, (values, whatever), it's just that their values align with another party now.sabro said:
"Narrow minded angry white guys"? Wow, that makes you sound so.... enlightened. Ease up on the rhetoric please, we're all friends here.
Connecting Rush Limbaugh to David Duke would be a bit of a jump, all right. How about Ralph Nader and Che Guevera?
If Progressives weren't socialists, then what were/are they? Communists? Marxists? Stalinists?
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #35
The word Progressive. Look at it for a minute. Progress-ive. One that stresses progress. Acceleration. You can't label it to be right-wing or left-wing. The word Progressive is a word that was and is used by different political parties to describe their ideologies. The left-wing in the United States is now calling itself progressive - though its a matter or opinion. A right-wing conservative like myself disagrees. Then again, in the early 1900s - Theodore Roosevelt's conservative Progressive Bull Moose Party called itself progressive - which was not agreed to by the socialists.
Therefore - if we had to describe the political term progressive - I think we could call say it is a coalition of "conservative reformists" - those who support some change - but is usually being adopted by either right or left wingers.
Therefore - if we had to describe the political term progressive - I think we could call say it is a coalition of "conservative reformists" - those who support some change - but is usually being adopted by either right or left wingers.
- Thread starter
- #37
No problem.
Everybody has.
In more simple terms - let me put it this way.
Good and bad.
We can label George Bush to be good and John Kerry to be bad. Now, the word "right" can be applied to either. Bush supporters will think Bush is right and Kerry supportrs will think Kerry is right.. its all marketing and a matter of opinion..
Everybody has.
In more simple terms - let me put it this way.
Good and bad.
We can label George Bush to be good and John Kerry to be bad. Now, the word "right" can be applied to either. Bush supporters will think Bush is right and Kerry supportrs will think Kerry is right.. its all marketing and a matter of opinion..
sabro
後輩
- 23 Apr 2004
- 1,006
- 35
I've lost my train of thought. What does this have to do with this thread?
Oh, I understand: Liberal, bad. Left, bad. Progressive, bad. Socialist, bad. Taxes, bad.
Right, good. Conservative, good. Go back in time to old fasioned values, good.
David Duke and Rush Limbaugh agree on most political issues and use a great deal of the same rhetoric. Duke is quite fond of Limbaugh and says so publicly. I only used Duke because he is the only prominant (narrow minded, angry..) white supremacist republican I could think of. (and I read a Newsweek article about the rise of conservatism in dixie). I am certain there are others. And the angry white guy rhetoric...I took that straight from Wally George, I shall cease its usage if it is offensive. May I suggest discontent American of European descent? How about annoyed caucasian?
Now Nader and Che, there's a good combo. "The true consumer advocate/revolutionary is motivated by love." Michael Moore would fit in nicely too.
Teddy Roosevelt was a progressive. I don't think you would call him a socialist. (although he was a conservationist and an advocate for a regressive income tax structure, high capital gains taxes and high estate taxes)
Progressives, like Republicans believed in a decentralized power structure with little power given to the Executive branch. They also liked referendums.
I had this chart on my classroom wall several years ago. (Hans Eysenck)It showed the left-right political structure on one axis, and the authoritarian-populism (tough-minded/tender-minded) power structure on the other. Certainly this view is still two dimensionsal, but at least it has two axis.
In modern Western countries, the political spectrum usually is described along left-right lines. This traditional political spectrum is defined along an axis with Conservatism, theocracy, and Fascism ("the right") on one end, and Socialism and Communism ("the left") on the other. In North America and Europe, the term Liberalism refers to a wide range of political viewpoints, often seen as divergent between the United States and the rest of the world. The terms left and right were also used to describe politics in China starting in the 1920s until the 1980s, although the issues were often very different from those in Western nations.
[edit]
Multiplicity of interpretation of the left-right axis
There are various different opinions about what is actually being measured along this axis:
* Whether the state should prioritize equality (left) or liberty (right). This was proposed by Danielle Allen. [1] (http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20041220&c=7&s=forum)
* Whether the state should prioritize social liberty (left) or economic liberty (right).
* Whether the government's involvement with moral issues should be minimal (left) or interventionist (right). Note that certain left-wing governments have engaged in interventionist policies.
* Whether the government's involvement with the economy should be interventionist (left) or laissez-faire (right). Note that certain right-wing governments have engaged in interventionist policies (see dirigisme).
* Whether the government should take care of issues such as health care and retirement benefits (left), or whether individuals should be left to their own devices on such issues (right).
* In budgeting and financial priorities, tending to promote economic security (left) or economic freedom (right).
* Fair outcomes (left) versus fair processes (right). This was proposed by Australian Labor Party leader Mark Latham.
* Whether one embraces change (left) or prefers rigorous justification for change (right). This was proposed by Eric Hoffer.
* Whether human nature and society is malleable (left) or fixed (right). This was proposed by Thomas Sowell.
Oh, I understand: Liberal, bad. Left, bad. Progressive, bad. Socialist, bad. Taxes, bad.
Right, good. Conservative, good. Go back in time to old fasioned values, good.
David Duke and Rush Limbaugh agree on most political issues and use a great deal of the same rhetoric. Duke is quite fond of Limbaugh and says so publicly. I only used Duke because he is the only prominant (narrow minded, angry..) white supremacist republican I could think of. (and I read a Newsweek article about the rise of conservatism in dixie). I am certain there are others. And the angry white guy rhetoric...I took that straight from Wally George, I shall cease its usage if it is offensive. May I suggest discontent American of European descent? How about annoyed caucasian?
Now Nader and Che, there's a good combo. "The true consumer advocate/revolutionary is motivated by love." Michael Moore would fit in nicely too.
Teddy Roosevelt was a progressive. I don't think you would call him a socialist. (although he was a conservationist and an advocate for a regressive income tax structure, high capital gains taxes and high estate taxes)
Progressives, like Republicans believed in a decentralized power structure with little power given to the Executive branch. They also liked referendums.
I had this chart on my classroom wall several years ago. (Hans Eysenck)It showed the left-right political structure on one axis, and the authoritarian-populism (tough-minded/tender-minded) power structure on the other. Certainly this view is still two dimensionsal, but at least it has two axis.
In modern Western countries, the political spectrum usually is described along left-right lines. This traditional political spectrum is defined along an axis with Conservatism, theocracy, and Fascism ("the right") on one end, and Socialism and Communism ("the left") on the other. In North America and Europe, the term Liberalism refers to a wide range of political viewpoints, often seen as divergent between the United States and the rest of the world. The terms left and right were also used to describe politics in China starting in the 1920s until the 1980s, although the issues were often very different from those in Western nations.
[edit]
Multiplicity of interpretation of the left-right axis
There are various different opinions about what is actually being measured along this axis:
* Whether the state should prioritize equality (left) or liberty (right). This was proposed by Danielle Allen. [1] (http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20041220&c=7&s=forum)
* Whether the state should prioritize social liberty (left) or economic liberty (right).
* Whether the government's involvement with moral issues should be minimal (left) or interventionist (right). Note that certain left-wing governments have engaged in interventionist policies.
* Whether the government's involvement with the economy should be interventionist (left) or laissez-faire (right). Note that certain right-wing governments have engaged in interventionist policies (see dirigisme).
* Whether the government should take care of issues such as health care and retirement benefits (left), or whether individuals should be left to their own devices on such issues (right).
* In budgeting and financial priorities, tending to promote economic security (left) or economic freedom (right).
* Fair outcomes (left) versus fair processes (right). This was proposed by Australian Labor Party leader Mark Latham.
* Whether one embraces change (left) or prefers rigorous justification for change (right). This was proposed by Eric Hoffer.
* Whether human nature and society is malleable (left) or fixed (right). This was proposed by Thomas Sowell.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #39
I think you did loose your train of thought.. as you completely missed my point and continued arguing politics, proved in your second paragraph.
I was using the rhetoric comparison of "good vs. bad" to show that either of this sides may say that they are correct. For example - being good (staying in school, staying away from drugs, etc.) may be thought of by some people to be correct, while being bad (dropping out, doing drugs, murder, etc.) may be thought of by some people to be correct. Right-wingers may think of themselves as progressive - while left-wingers may too. Its marketing.
I was using the rhetoric comparison of "good vs. bad" to show that either of this sides may say that they are correct. For example - being good (staying in school, staying away from drugs, etc.) may be thought of by some people to be correct, while being bad (dropping out, doing drugs, murder, etc.) may be thought of by some people to be correct. Right-wingers may think of themselves as progressive - while left-wingers may too. Its marketing.
Martialartsnovice
Custom Graphix Artist
- 24 Oct 2004
- 354
- 5
I think that if the Nazi regime were to take power in Japan. There probably be another WW, and this time, it would be an even greater tragedy. I had uncles who were old when my mom was born, htey had served in WWII in Europe. Hitler was a pyschopathic parasite on this world. It seems that his thoughts have targeted another group, and are showing themselves once again.
Censport
Konnichiwa, y'all!
- 28 Dec 2004
- 60
- 0
Jeepers.
There's another another thread, a poll regarding whether President Bush is doing a good job on the war on terror. Since I'm the only one to vote "yes, but he could do more", that is probably a better thread for explaining myself. So once I have time to sit down type for a while, sabro and I can continue our political discussion there.
For now, let me say that the term "narrow minded angry white males", or any nuanced variation is offensive to me. I don't use racial or intellectual stereotypes for blacks, hispanics or Asians, so I think anyone who truly believes in equality shouldn't use such terms to describe people he hasn't met. If there's anything you want to know about conservative white males from the South (such as myself), put down your Newsweek and come to me. I'll be glad to help you out.
But I'm glad you liked my Nader/Che combo. Most people wouldn't have gotten that one. :-D
There's another another thread, a poll regarding whether President Bush is doing a good job on the war on terror. Since I'm the only one to vote "yes, but he could do more", that is probably a better thread for explaining myself. So once I have time to sit down type for a while, sabro and I can continue our political discussion there.
For now, let me say that the term "narrow minded angry white males", or any nuanced variation is offensive to me. I don't use racial or intellectual stereotypes for blacks, hispanics or Asians, so I think anyone who truly believes in equality shouldn't use such terms to describe people he hasn't met. If there's anything you want to know about conservative white males from the South (such as myself), put down your Newsweek and come to me. I'll be glad to help you out.
But I'm glad you liked my Nader/Che combo. Most people wouldn't have gotten that one. :-D
I don't think we'll see something like that in our lifetimes. Germany in the 30's was vastly different from where Japan is now, economically, politically and socially.Martialartsnovice said:
Martialartsnovice
Custom Graphix Artist
- 24 Oct 2004
- 354
- 5
I agree, Germany then was a chaotic mess. in the 30's. But still even today, if the Nazi's were to have a majority in Japan, it would spell disaster in the country. I also agree, that Bush is doing good, but he can improve his tactics, and decisions.
- Thread starter
- #44
Not neccessarily. The Japanese Nazi's don't seem to be militaristic like the German Nazis. On their website they constantly show pictures of pillaged and bombed out buildings in Iraq and Afghanistan. If they come to power - they would probably take racist measures on foreigners - most likely eventually deporting all foreigners back to their countries. The most they'll do is probably ban all political parties. Japan would, however, continue to probably be an international player.. I doubt they would "conquer" Asia.
sabro
後輩
- 23 Apr 2004
- 1,006
- 35
I like the political discussion. It's an especially good tangent. But I think it doesn't go with the Nazis in Japan thread.
The angry white guy thing is a legit political constituency. I'm certain that there are angry asians, latinos and blacks. I'm also certain that there are happy white guys. And I'm also certain that these labels are simplistic functional tools that in reality are quite meaningless. I use it as a rhetorical device because in this context it does have some meaning.
The fact that I'm a liberal probably has not escaped you. The fact that my party is inept and lost in space and time is not surprising. To let the other guys control not only the agenda, but also the debate and the rhetoric is more than sad. Meanwhile big business gets whatever they want, the rich get tax cuts, soldiers get killed, schools get nothing, and we all get--- well that's the angry yellow guy comming out.
About Japanese Nazis- xenophobia and racism are easy to organize around, especially if there is a flag nearby. The larger the crowd, the more momentum it carries. Someone needs to be the lone voice of reason. I don't think anything like naziism should go unanswered.
The angry white guy thing is a legit political constituency. I'm certain that there are angry asians, latinos and blacks. I'm also certain that there are happy white guys. And I'm also certain that these labels are simplistic functional tools that in reality are quite meaningless. I use it as a rhetorical device because in this context it does have some meaning.
The fact that I'm a liberal probably has not escaped you. The fact that my party is inept and lost in space and time is not surprising. To let the other guys control not only the agenda, but also the debate and the rhetoric is more than sad. Meanwhile big business gets whatever they want, the rich get tax cuts, soldiers get killed, schools get nothing, and we all get--- well that's the angry yellow guy comming out.
About Japanese Nazis- xenophobia and racism are easy to organize around, especially if there is a flag nearby. The larger the crowd, the more momentum it carries. Someone needs to be the lone voice of reason. I don't think anything like naziism should go unanswered.
sabro
後輩
- 23 Apr 2004
- 1,006
- 35
Hiroshi66 said:
There are always conservatives in every system. There is always a right wing. What I learned on this forum about Japan is that the far right in Japan is trying to rewrite 20th century history. It is quite scary. I think they would like to bring back a little of the imperial fighting spirit.
- no need to appologize.
Martialartsnovice
Custom Graphix Artist
- 24 Oct 2004
- 354
- 5
Well, I dont now much about Japans Govt. structure and the parties involved. But I do know this, Naziism in any form, be it the Hitler regiem, or this Japanese Neo-Naziism, that anyone is posting about, is this, Nazi regimes can only spell trouble, be it through something as dramatic as a holocaust and a war, or as subtle as a bill passed regarding foreigner deportation. I think that if they are allowed to allocate power, even though legal channels, it can only spell disaster.
Similar threads
