So if they do the same thing, but claim to be doing different things, then they are different things? Ok, I see how that works...notQuote:
Originally Posted by Scurvy
Printable View
So if they do the same thing, but claim to be doing different things, then they are different things? Ok, I see how that works...notQuote:
Originally Posted by Scurvy
Are you going to post a source for your earlier claim soon?Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Vuk Again
You just made this less fun I hope you realise thatQuote:
Originally Posted by Scurvy
Not a chance. ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
I am packing up and getting ready to leave, and am far too busy for a big debate. Don't worry, I will be back in the States on Sunday. ~;)
The Nazi's were economically left-wing. They were socially right-wing. Which one of those is it that we remember them for?
I would argue that with you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
:laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Vuk Again
Well I will do it then, what is socially rightwing about the nazi's?Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
It was their welfare...erm...no.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
It must have been their authoritarian control...erm...no.
It MUST have been the concentration camps and the mass murder! ... erm...no!
What exactly about it WAS right wing? That I would love to hear!
EDIT: I FIGURED IT OUT! It was their support of abortion and gun control and their insistence on equality of condition rather than equality of opportunity! Oh wait, gosh darnnit, those are actually leftist social policies.
Allow me to channel Tribsey for a moment...Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Vuk Again
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::lau gh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4: :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::lau gh4::laugh4::laugh4:
You DON'T consider those right-wing...?
I am afraid there clearly isn't any point in arguing with you...
EDIT: I'm still bemused/amused by this... Could you care to explain what your ideas of a right-wing Social policy are?
No social policy, naturally.Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
Wait... Anarchism?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Vuk I often agree with you in the Backroom but this is insane. Nationalism (hence National Socialists) is a classic feature of any right-wing state. The Nazi's believed in a particularly brutal form of ethnic nationalism, and that is why they attempted to exterminate all the 'inferior' races. The left wing, from Leninists to modern liberal lefties, is international in its nature, and believes in a global revolution, because people from all races are not divided by nationality, but by class. Of course, this class divide led to some brutal treatment in certain communist states. I am not defending that, I'm just showing the difference between left and right wing ideologies.
You can be right-wing and violent by exterminating inferior races/cultures. You can be right-wing and peaceful by believing in independence for all nationalities (this sort of utopian nationalism was seen a lot around 1848). You can be left-wing and violent by exterminating the bourgeoisie. You can be left-wing and peaceful by attempting to reform through gradual social change.
Both sides need to stop trying to make the other seem to be monstrous murderers.
Nope, state minimalisation. Anarchism sounds great really see you when I get there.Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
Alright I think I get what you mean. Here we have something of a labelling difference because I see the state staying out of people's lives as being a left-wing ideal when it comes to social policy (and I think that, intellectually speaking, that is where it stems from in the modern political discourse). I'm interested in what Vuk thinks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Things are fine, lefties are perfectionists desperate for a cause.Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
C'est bon.
You consider mass murder a right wing policy? Boy, that education system must be sooo unbiased!Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
These things are part and parcel of state control, something the right tries to minimize. The right thinks that government should stay out of people's affairs and be as small and safe as possible. It is the left that ops for huge government control over people's lives that can eventually lead to things like the holocaust or Stalins purges. I would not be arrogant enough to claim that Stalin's purges were left wing policies (as you have labelled the holocaust as a right wing policy), it is the work of an ambitious and ruthless person. It IS however made POSSIBLE in BOTH cases by leftwing social and economic (esp where the two are intertwined) policies. If it were not for the government control that Hitler and Stalin had, neither would have been able to do what they did. Socialist economic policies that made people powerless, and gun control (something very left wing) to make sure they could not resist. Sure, purges and holocausts are not part of the left's agenda, but stupid leftist policies make them possible.
The holocaust is NOT rightwing nor is it leftwing, it is the work of an evil person. What is important though is that that evil person was able to accomplish what he did because of LEFTIST policies. I mean come on! Did you really think that the :daisy: HOLOCAUST is something conservatives support?! Conservatives support rightwing policies, the Holocaust is not a rightwing policy.
Ok, right...so it is not about freedom, it is about racism? You really believe that racism is part of rightwing policy? You have been talking to CA for too long I believe. Look at rightwing revolutions: The American Revolution, The Hungarian Revolution of 1848-49, etc. They are revolutions against oppressor states, not races or cultures. In both cases, the revolutionaries were of mixed race and culture, and were battling an oppressive government, NOT a people. By your own line of reasoning I could say that religious persecution is a leftist policy. Heck, Stalin did it, as did many of the 'communist' countries in the bloc, and minimization of religion is a large part of leftist doctrine in Western states today. You know what? I could make a MUCH better case for that then you could for racism being part of rightwing ideology.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
EDIT: And nationalism is a thing of the right, correct? Ok...right. Tell that to all the bloc countries and the USSR. Sure, there was ideology there just as there was in rightwing places, but Nationalism played a BIG part.
@ Adrian:
I recall from my history lessons that Kruschev exposed several of Stalin's crimes in the early 50'ties, but it's my impression that it took decades before he was universally recognised for what he was in the Netherlands. If I'm right, why was that?
Somewhat related, a lot of people seem to have despised NATO because it included military regimes like Greece and Portugal. Now I know I have the benefit of hindsight but it seems to me that the events in Hungary and Chzechoslovakia in '56 and '68 should have made it fairly clear that while NATO might have had a few rotten apples the opposing side was terrible across the board...
Vuk, you're mixing up classical liberalism (the classic center) with the right wing. That messes up the scale quite a bit.
As an example, that would split up the socialistic movement into two branches, one radical leftwing (old school communists) and one radical rightwing (anarchists).
It is not possible to say where future historians will place historical fault lines. Not that this will deter me...Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironside
Hobsbawm is a famous British historian. (He's a Marxist!!1!! And thus responsible for Treblinka!!1!) He wrote two books: 'Europe's long nineteenth century: 1789 - 1914'. And the book whose title I tucked into an earlier post here: 'Europe's short twentieth century: 1914 - 1989'.
The latter century is the wretched century. Europe's most bitter. ~:mecry:
Not really Hobsbawm, but my own thoughts, say that in the long century, progressive modernism fought reactionarism. And won. Liberal democracy triumphed, destroying the old.
In the second, short, century, liberal democracy in turn was under siege. Somewhat irrelevantly, still from reactionary anti-modernism (for example Franco). More dangerously, from revolutionary conservatism (f.e. Mussolini, Hitler), and from the peoples that missed out on modernism in the nineteenth century (f.e. Lenin, Stalin, petty East European dictators). These currents each sought to destroy the old too. Fortunately, liberal democracy triumphed again.
The other title I tucked in the post was of course Fukuyama's 'The end of History'.
He saw the final triumph of liberal democracy in 1989. Quod non. As witness, for example, below under Brenus. Or as witness 2001. Next to two skyscapers, Osama blew up Fukuyama on 9-11. The West had overlooked other anti-liberal currents. With the benefit of hindsight, Islamofascism was a storm that had been brewing for decades. The Cold War made us blind to it. From 1945-1989, the Cold War monopolised Western thought. Third World developments were only regarded in light of the ideological struggle between the First and the Second World. It made sense back then, it looks like breathtaking arrogance now. In the Third World, there was economic development, truly astounding demographic changes, and simmering strife that was fully autonomous of the West-East division. All this came to the fore with globalisation - which, contrary to what the anti-globalists of the nineties thought, was not the imposition of the West upon the rest of the world, but rather the reverse.
In this sense, I would say 1989-2001 was either a short, jubilant spring* of liberal democracy. Or the 'Indian Summer' of liberal democracy. A brief coda that disguided the end of summer.
The choice will all depent on the future fortune of liberal democracy throughout the world.
*To which Brenus has violently objected already, which I shall adress below.
Or, perhaps non-Western narratives might become dominant.
And so perhaps the entire period of 1600-1950 will be deemed a brief interlude during which a few petty states managed to seize upon Chinese internal strife to briefly surpass China for a brief interlude of China's five thousand years old dominance.
Or perhaps 1926 will be deemed the turning point. The Turks, gone and the West not paying attention, it was the year in which Wahabism took over Saudi Arabia. The year which started their quest for world dominance. Through a massive breeding program, through Arab human and cultural colonialism into Africa, Asia and Europe.
Very well to point out that 1989 was not the end of history. I do, as always, disagree with your take on Yugoslavia. Yugoslavia was always the most liberal, economically most developed part of European communism. Their system wasn't a card house that could fall down one moment from the next. However, 1989 did show the Yugo communists that their time was up. Simmerring subcurrents in Yugoslavia re-surfaced, and took over. Nationalism, regionalism, ancient strife. The narrative changed. 1989 marked the six hundred anniversary of Serbian struggle against the 'Turks'. This led to 'Bosnia'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
For all the faults you can point out in other countries, Serbian aggressive nationalism had a clear autonomous cause.
~~-~~-~~<oi0io>~~-~~-~~
This shows a lack of precision of historical and political terminology.Quote:
Originally Posted by Godwin
It is also not very relevant.
~~-~~-~~<oi0io>~~-~~-~~
I'm sorry, but I couldn't disagree with you more, Adrian. :sweatdrop:Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian
The killer thought it was 1933 and that he had to stop Hitler. See, for example, the 'Irish theocracy' thread, where Brenus argues that nazis must be prevented from gaining power, and I myself went so far as to say that there must a standing order to shoot nazis at sight. This is the mindset of the killer. Prevent nazism by force.
The second ingredient is the left's sabre-rattling and demonisation of Fortuyn, This caused many people to see Fortuyn as a nazi. Thus the obligation the killer felt to murder Fortuyn.
Fragony understands Dutch society better than you. ( ~;p ) Fortuyn was murdered by the left.
The killer just happened to be an animal rights activist. An ecoterrorist indeed, but environmental concerns were not an issue to Fortuyn. Nor to the killer's decision to shoot Fortuyn.
To say otherwise is nothing but cluelessness by a left that refuses to see its responsibility, a left that simply can not conceive of itself as sometimes anti-liberal, anti-progress, anti-rational, anti-human.
When a Nascar-loving American shoots a doctor at an abortion clinic, is he better described as a Nascar-terrorist or is it the result of Christian extremist agitation? When an animal loving Dutchman shoots a rightwing politician, is he better described as an ecoterrorist or as the result of leftist extremist agitation?
Not at all, I talking about rightwing as in American rightwing. Anarchism is NOT a far right policy, it is a utopian fantasy of the leftwing. Both anarchy and communism are supposedly the ends to which the means of total government ownership and control will lead to. Some of you have more money and power than others, give me all your money and power (or I will kill you and take it anyway) and once everyone has nothing, and I am controlling everything that was yours, then I will spread it equally to you all and cease to exist...sure...Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironside
Anarchy and communism are the stupid dreams of the left. We on the right believe that a government is absolutely necassary to protect the basic rights of the citizens, but it has to be a government of the people, for the people. It has to be a government that is lean and trim and can accomplish its purpose exactly, but not do more than it is meant to do. Defense of the country is part of protecting basic rights. If you want to make up another definition for rightwing, feel free to do so, but if so, then stop calling the American right rightwing, because that is what they believe in.
Quite wrong, Yugoslavian socialism did not work. They survived because of loans from the west (as many communist countries including Hungary and even the USSR did). There is only so long that something like that can last though. Yugoslavia is actually a pretty bad example for you to pick as a succes story for a controlled economy. They were plagued by old technology, and the socialism system prevented new techonology from developing rapidly enough. They were having regions with rich natural resources manufacture tank optics for which there was no market at all. It did not make sense and it did not work. Main reason for the Cold War coming to an end IMHO? They were just so deep in debt and nothing they could do would make them get out of debt. They were spending enormous amounts of money on espionage and the arms race, fighting disasterous wars in the middle east, had troops stationed in most of the Bloc countries. Socialism truely did fail.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
Think of it, that is an oxymoron. :P Hitler was the farthest possible thing from conservative.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
You ignored a big part of my post... look how I said that both the right and left wing ideologies can be violent/peaceful. Hungarian Revolution of 1848-9... isn't that the year I gave of my example of a peaceful form of nationalism? The different nationalities worked together in order to estbalish independece for their own states. You see this still today in places, like with the Scottish National Party and its support for Welsh independence. Heck even fascists like Oswald Mosley had elements of this utopian nationalism... he was a British nationalist who supported Irish independence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Vuk Again
Religious persecuation is a policy of the authoritarian Marxist, I have never argued the left is perfect. Stalin turned communism into an abomination (I'm not saying communism is great but he made his form extra nasty), the nationalism etc is nothing to do with Mr. Marx. "Socialism in one country" seems socially right-wing to me. :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Vuk Again
No, I did not. Rightwing revolutions (such as the Hungarian and American revolutions) were revolutions against governments, NOT people. You are trying to say that Hitler's attack against Jews, Slavs, etc was characteristic of the rightwing...it was not. Leftwing ideology, both today and in the recent past is inherently anti-religious, so what Stalin did you could say IS characteristic of the left, simply a more extreme form of it. There is nothing about rightwing ideology that is anti-race/culture/etc. Nationalism is NOT the same as racism or culturalism (two things that the Nazis were). And Nationalism is something that exists in the left and the right. It is more a thing of people than of a political affiliation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
EDIT: I will debate with you kiddies when I get back home. This is taking too much time out of my packing. :P
If you are left-wing then you view nationalism as one of those "opium of the people", something that distracts people from the real issue of class struggle. The right does not have this international focus, but instead believes that nation states should be sovereign and independent, as people are united by cultural, ethnic, whatever ties.Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Vuk Again
The lefts flings with nationalism are due to the fact that the left never came about the way Marx expected. It's no coincidence that Marxism went down well with the nations that had suffered under colonialism, to them it explained the west's dominance over them. They were never ready for the international version of Marxism, they never even had a real bourgeoisie. And so communism was conflated with several other issues, and racial divides obviously got sucked into the mix.
Often, right-wing social outlooks lead to left-wing economic policies. If you are a Nazi that believes Aryans are the master race, then obviously you want to ensure every Aryan has a job, a good house, and decent standard of living etc.. and there you go you have a welfare state. That's why there is a point at which the more right-wing a government's social outlook becomes, the more left-wing its economy becomes.
wow, Louis for presidentQuote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
Might I suggest you pack, for example, Darius Gawin? Below in italic an excerpt from 'Totalitarianism and Modernity'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Vuk Again
'Revolutionary conservatism' is an aptly chosen term, because of the seeming contradiction. It perfectly captures the tension in German conservatism of sixty years ago. Fascism wasn't anti-modern, like most reactionary political ideologies. Fascism had a different attitude altogether.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vuk
Gawin:
'the attitude of the radical right, that gave rise to fascism, towards modernity was much more complex. They criticised modernity for the sake of the upcoming future - the best illustrative example of such an attitude were the so-called German revolutionary conservatives. What they felt was not a melancholy for elapsing time but a great enthusiasm, with which they welcomed a new age of history approaching from the future'.
For the revolutionary conservatives a key term was "modernity" - understood as a system of capitalistic, industrial society. Although the left declared against capitalism, yet - according to the revolutionary conservatives - it was still in the centre of modernity. Thus a leftist revolution was basically "reactionary". Only revolutionary conservatism - that is fascism - offered truly radical criticism of modernity and proposed a real vision of overcoming it. So, revolutionary conservatism wanted to be - to use modern terminology - "post-modern", while communism wanted to solidify and radicalise "modernity" in a revolutionary way.
Does it mean that we can put fascism and Nazism on the one plane with communism, explaining at the same time - as Ernst Nolte - that it was a wrong answer to the right question? It seems, however, that in this dispute right was rather Francois Furet who in classification of evil awarded primacy to Nazism. Communism and Nazism could be put on the one plane because they had the common roots in the crisis of liberal world of the 19th century. Thus, Nazism was not a mere "reaction" to the emergence of Communism (as Nolte claims) but there was rather a symbiotic interdependence between them. It is true that in chronological order Lenin rose to power before Mussolini, as Stalin was ahead of Hitler. In order of ideas, however, both trends derived from one another - and already from the end of the 19th century, from the moment of anti-Positivistic breakthrough in European culture when both the radical left and radical right were born.
Dear Gawin even manages to return the discussion about the nature of the two totalitarianisms to the subject of 1989:
Today, after the year of 1989, it is evident that it is America that turned out to be the victor who defeated both totalitarianisms; moreover, it was America that was the winner at every turning point in the history of the 20th century, both in 1918, in 1945 and in 1989. And it was the Atlantic Enlightenment that originated a new post-modernism, although very different to the one of which the revolutionary conservatives wanted to be the self-proclaimed prophets.
lol, you are wrong again. Nationalism is something that plagues both sides. The right cares about individual freedoms, and a nation that protects them is necassary. The left cares about social welfare, and a nation that will take and distribute wealth is necassary. Nationalism is not a thing of the right, and is not a thing of the left. It is simply a thing of humans.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
As far as your argument about rightwing social policies leading to leftwing economic policies, it makes me laugh. :laugh4: It looks to me like you are trying to place the blame of a leftwing government on 'rightwing social policies' (in fact, you are). Here is news for you, rightwing social policies drive rightwing governments, and leftwing social policies drive leftwing governments. Great for you to brand Nazi ideology of a superrace as rightwing. As I said before, it is neither right nor left, it is simply madness. What IS leftwing though is the government and society that these nuts believed in (which is nut to say that it reflects on other leftists, simply that they chose the leftwing policies because it gave them control). Nazis are not proof that the left hates Jews, but it is proof that leftist policies can lead to dangerous government control. When you concentrate power like that, you are at the mercy of whoever is at the wheel. (Bad luck for Germany and Russia, they got Hitler and Stalin)
Communism and Nazism (both socialist ideologies) were simply two lions fighting for dominance. They were both lions however. You know what Hitler ran his popularity campaign on? Change. Nothing conservative about that, he was a future looking progressive who was going to take advantage of the modern ideas of socialism and use them for the good of the master race. All the time battling those who would use them for evil. Both Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia were totalitarian, socialist regimes. They were just competing ones.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
I get the feeling we might be suffering from one of those differences in definitions which so often plagues people debating across the Atlantic. This is what I am thinking of when using the terms:
Social left-wing - internationalism, people's of the world unite, class difference over national differences, one-world government etc
Social right-wing - countries should rule themselves, national pride, national differences over class differences, protectionism, country first etc
Economic left-wing - big government, welfare state etc
Economic right-wing - minimal government, free trade, capitalism etc
If you disagree with that, then we can try to come to an understanding. But by those definitions, the Nazi's were no doubt socially right-wing but economically left-wing.
I see that whilst I was away working and defending the interests of this constitutional monarchy with my sweat, my brain and my lifeblood, you jobless tourists, hippie scum and virtual trashcan scavengers managed to move this discussion into round 476 of the Hitler/Stalin controversy. Let me tell you what happens in round 477: someone wil mention that Hitler was a vegetarian and someone else will remark that this has nothing to do with Alexander's cavalry break-through at Gaugamela. As if! So I think I'll pass and concentrate on a topic I actually know really well.Right. If that is so, can you please explain the letter Volkert wrote from prison to his girlfriend? You know, the one that was read in extenso during his trial?Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
Uh...I could if you linked me the letter?Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
Meanwhile:
The assassin, Volkert van der Graaf, finally made his confession in court this last week. And—what do you know! – he says he killed Fortuyn largely for opposing Muslim immigration.
The London Daily Telegraph reported:
"Facing a raucous court on the first day of his murder trial, he said his goal was to stop Mr. Fortuyn exploiting Muslims as 'scapegoats' and targeting "the weak parts of society to score points" to try to gain political power. He said: 'I confess to the shooting. He was an ever growing danger who would affect many people in society. I saw it as a danger. I hoped that I could solve it myself.'"
And:
"Van der Graaf claimed, according to the Algemeen Dagblad, he was greatly influenced by politicians who compared Fortuyn with Austrian far-right leader Jorg Haider and Italian dictator Benito Mussolini."
The letter where he explains his strategy vis-a-vis the prosecution, public opinion, the press. Don't tell me you haven't seen it. You were in that court room together with me, three days in a row, or weren't you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
EDIT
Ah, how clumsy of me. That wasn't you. You were the guy who accompanied me when I made that off the record interview with the top sleuth on the police team that worked on Volkert's case, mr Doelman. I'm sure you'll remember what he told us that afternoon about Volkert's true motif.
2nd EDIT
Wrong again. That wasn't you either. You were the guy who came along when I interviewed Volkert's closest partner over many years, the one who admitted they used poison and animal traps against mink farmers.
3rd EDIT
I feel such a jerk. Of course that wasn't you. You are the teamleader of the Dutch intelligence service AIVD who made this year's report to parliament, where they write that animal activism is now a major threat and that The Neds is the organisational hub for radical animal rights acitivists throughout Europe. I am so glad I finally pinned you down.
4th EDIT
Or were you the guy who wrote the handbook for eco-activism, where it says that in case of arrest you have to motivate your actions with anything but animal rights activism: keep the authorities guessing and don't give away your antecedents or comrades. Yeah, I'm sure that was you.
5th EDIT
Got it! You're the French Texan who writes admirably about all sorts of historical and political issues and is generally twice as clever as the rest of us, but who is slightly out of his depth when it comes to an intricate Dutch court case and its ties to eco-activism in the town of Ede-Wageningen.
The town of what?
Is there some sort of explanation we should consider to be something of an explanation? I think we have put up with a lot so far. Haven't learned anything, doing the exact same thing to Wilders, just as dirty.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
Perhaps the most interesting contextual comment I think I've seen in this seemingly eternal right v. left argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis
Can we say that when a broad swathe of population thinks it is in crisis/survival mode, a strongman emerges, to put things right? And that those strongmen usually outstay their welcome?
:laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
Louis outed as a Dutch intelligence officer!
No, Louis was the eco-activist who rang the alarm when Pim Fortuyn announced that, as future prime minister, he would scrap all government subsidies for ecological 'awareness groups', relentlessly prosecute their lunatic fringes AND publicly wear mink to signal that he couldn't care less about their cause. Can you guess who was at the center of that lunatic fringe, boys and girls?Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
Final EDIT
I'll give you a clue. He wudn't a friend of our ritualistic-animal-slaughtering Muslim compatriots.
Well, I'm mostly impressed by the way you established your bonafides on this matter. :2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
I'm a journalist, not a daisy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Aye, Louis is right about China. Just look at what the childrens' books in Chinese schools say about you and me and our part of the world, and you can deduce what we (or our children) are going to have to deal with.Quote:
Originally Posted by KukriKhan
I think that this author (and others) read to much in fascism as an ideology. To me Mussolini was just a vile opportunist and his "ideology" was little more than pragmatic authoritarianism. He did not put much value in the right of property (what could you expect from a former socialist) but he thought it was more expedient to coerce industrialists into doing his bidding than to strip them of their possessions, for example.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
I suppose you could compare the rise of fascism with the rise of populist parties and movements in Europe in the last few decades.* In 1920, few people would describe themselves as hard core capitalists but at the same time socialism was discredited because the socialist leaders didn't lift a finger to prevent the outbreak of WW1 and because of the violent revolutions in eastern Europe. The time was ripe for demagogues who promised a third way. Today's populists are not dogmatic either, they get their votes by distancing themselves from old parties wich do have ideological frameworks - be it liberal or socialist. And it's not just on the right side of the spectrum, many self-described socialist parties have disowned Karl Marx and just say whatever they think the working man likes to hear.
As for the nazis, pretty much the same applies. The party line was little more than a patchwork of slogans wich may not have much to do with eachother, but wich can catch a lot of support when put together. One of the explanations why Hitler trashed the SA after he got installed was because its followers put to much emphasis on the more socialistic undertones of the nazi party. Hitler himself had a pretty clear vision of what he wanted to do but it obviously was too insane and absurd to sell to the masses.
*I am not trying to imply that today's populists are Hitler incarnates, just that they are taking advantage of disillusionment with politics in a similar way
1 - The killer faced a long imprisonment. His statements from that period need to be considered in light of his legal defense. Nothing he said or wrote can be taken at face value. (Including the citations I quoted)Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
2 - Care to show me Fortuyn's stance on the environment? Or will you concede that 'Fortuyn' was not about environmental issues?
3 - Ecoterrorism is a big problem. I shall gladly accept all your statements on the subject. However, I think the militancy of the ecoterrorist movement only served as a radicalisation institute for the killer, not as an ideological incentive. The line between ecofascism and the murder of Fortuyn is more indirect than you describe. It takes another step.
4 - That police sleuth is thinking like all police sleuths: 'everybody is guilty. Nobody is working alone. We need more power to unravel these massive networks. Terrorists are everywhere. They are all ganging up'.
A bit like the US intelligence services in recent years. Much ado, few smart results.
5 - If Volkert killed out of environmental concerns, he would've said so. He would've made the statement in court. 'Hands off of the environment!'. IRA, ETA, Rote Armee terrorists, and also ecoterrorists, use the courtroom for a political show.
Volkert did not. Because it doesn't make sense. His motive wasn't the environment. His motive was 'it is 1933. I must act now'. This is what he said in court.
6 - Lastly, this is an important subject. Europe must resist fascism and nazism. I argumented as such in another thread. Yet, this has also made Europe vulnerable to unwanted immigration. Powerless before undesireable developments. (See, for example, the pityful alliance between the French left and Islamofascism and anti-Semitism)
This tension needs to be resolved. Assertive immigration policies of a democratic nature need to be developed in Europe.
Tentatively, assertive immigration and immigrant assimilation policies that are democratic in nature are being developed. In France, Sarkozy tried this, to a left chorus of 'Sarko facho'. In Belgium, the cordon sanitaire against the Bloc flamand is being questioned. Maybe it worked. Maybe it also has stifled debate and prevented a democratic right from developing.
In Italy, the line between fascism and rightwing is thin. It is not clear who is dragging who into which direction - rightwing towards fascism, or fascism towards democratic parties.
In the Netherlands, Fortuyn adopted some of the themes of the hard-right. Fortuyn was the most interesting of all of Europe's populist movements. Openly gay, pro-Israel, socially liberal. He could've been an example to Europe. Haider lied about his pederasm until the end. Fortuyn flaunted with it. Here was something new.
Oh, and all your edits are wrong. I think I can make myself known now: I am writing this from prison. I am Volkert, the killer.
:creep:
Edit: disclaimer: I was acting alone. I had no outside help. The CIA was not involved. The single bullet struck his head from behind. :yes:
Edit: just read the post above, Kralizec. Thanks for some thoughtful remarks about the period and the ideologies.
Anarchism does have that stage of concentration of power and doesn't want one either. That's in practice, not theory.Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Vuk Again
US republicans are center right, social concervative on the right and the libertarians in the center.Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Vuk Again
The thing is that in a historical context, your definition is the made up one, the European left-right goes back to the French revolution. And if you're going to view history through that scale, you need the old one that understand what you're talking about.Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Vuk Again
And here's the thing you misunderstand. The right isn't about individual freedoms (that's classical liberalism), but comes from conservatism, that has clear communal thinking (not as far as the left though). Nationalism and it's national state is to the old right, by thier own retorical definition.Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Vuk Again
Some points of differences that shows of different origin. Some point s look very simular on the surfaceQuote:
Originally Posted by Just Vuk Again
The leader. In Fascism (I'll use the general word, when it applies to Nazism as well) the leader and the ruling class is part of it's very essence. The personal cults in the communistic states are a way to keep power, but are ideologically not part of socialism.
Read 1984, Animal farm Atlas shrugged or Anthem whom all here agree are critical towards socialism I presume?
The leader is either fooling the rest or an evil mass, more like the borg than a single induvidual.
Nationalism and rasism. Rasism ends up there as a part of a ideological chain, but are not a neccissery part. Nationalism is a pillar in Facism and has taken a second step, namely thier own superiority (and the neccissity to prove it somehow) compared to other countries. Culture superiority combined with a strong concept of the national state can easily lead to offical rasism.
The left is on the other hand focused on class internationally (retorically at least), a worker in Mogolia and the US is the same. That's part of why it can easily work as a fifth column, unlike fascism.
The state. While both talk of serving the state, there are some differences. The state in communism are supposed to be run by the people who are all equal (obviously have failed, making some people more equal than others), thus this comrade thingy. And female soldiers.
Fascism is still run by traditions and that different people have different purposes, making a female soldier an abomination (she's not doing what she's supposed to do).
Traditions comes into another point, Fascism is obsessed about reviewing a persieved golden age into this new era (this contradiction a sign of that radical/(counter-)revolutionary conservatism). Third Reich, Teutons, the Romans, Isabella's Spain. Socialism doesn't have this past, but are the new future, were being new is the point.
I can dig up a few more points if someone wants to. BTW I think this thread would feel well, by being split.
Yeah, and with Big Walls separating them all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironside
Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
Facist!Communist!Lefty!
split is a good idea...
Edit: I have no idea what that Dutch guy is saying... im sensing a little anger though... (frags vid)
I see... I shouldn't have tried to be funny. I should have remembered Aesop's fable about the monkey and the camel.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
At least Vladimir read my posts and understood.
Put your reading glasses on, Louis, here comes the straight version.
1. Fortuyn wanted to put an end to all subsidies for and all tolerance of radical eco-activism, particularly in and around the agricultural university town of Ede-Wageningen, the oldest and most radical center of animal rights activists in The Neds.
2. Volkert was such a subsidized radical pivotal to same, and had been all his adult life.
3. After arrest, V. adopted standard eco-activist procedure (conform handbook) by directing attention away from the movement and confusing the authorities about motifs and organisations.
You can try to Baader-Meinhof your way out of your lack of data and insight, good luck. But I am disappointed that you won't read my posts.
Oh, and your periodization about China was wrong as well: it should have been 1800-1910. Why 1910 and not 1911, I hear you ask? Because of Korea. Put that in your Cartesian pipe and smoke it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironside
Then if we are going to use a definition different than that of the US rightwing, then please stop calling the US rightwing 'rightwing', because you are associating them with something that they are not.
I am arguing about the AMERICAN right, whatever you want to call them, tell me now. It is called 'rightwing' in the States AND by Europeans. If it is different from what you refer to as 'rightwing', then start calling it something different or surrender the term, don't associate it with something that it is not. Europeans talk about the two as if they are the same, maybe that is where the problem is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironside
umm..wrong (at least not the American right). The (American) right is very much about perserving individual liberties, while the (American) left is more about spreading wealth, even if that means walking on those liberties. The (American) left believes that equality of circumstances (which cannot be achieved without taking something from someone (ei, violating their right to what they earned)) is more important than equality of opportunity. The right believes that the most important thing is to protect the basic rights of the people so that they will have equal opportunitty and not worry about an entity (whether that is an individual, a corporation, or the government) taking what is theirs from them. For the American right, Nationalism really cannot exist (at least in the sense of how it does in Europe), and certainly cannot entail racism, culturalism, etc. All across the states there are people of all different races, there are all different types of food, ways of living, etc. There really is no 'American' race or culture to cling too. (unless you are going to argue that McDonalds and Walmart makes a culture, and even there, they are all around the world) Thus America cannot have Nationalism in the sense that you use the word. The 'American dream' is what really unites us. The belief that you CAN work and make something out of yourself without some one taking it away. The belief that no matter what social class you come from you are going to have equal opportunitty and your rights will be protected. The fact that people of so many races, so many religions, so many cultures and customs can live together. The fact that is something is not right it can be fixed. The fact that you can speak your mind without censorship. THAT is America. How could Nationalism (in the sense that you defined the word) be part of the American right's ideology? As I said earlier, I am arguing about the American right. If you do not consider that 'rightwing', then please do not refer to the American right as 'rightwing'. :bow:
EDIT: And if I was not clear about what I said about Nationalism, what I meant is that the US does not have one dominant race, or culture, or way of life, so we cannot define ourselves as a nation based on those things. We define our nation based on ideas of equality and freedom. Therefore Nationalism for us does NOT entail racism, culturalism, etc. That is a thing of the hellhole we call Europe ~;). Seriously though, must Americans are shocked to find out that in Europe Nationalism has negative connotations, because for us it is just good ideals, not race or culture. Doesn't matter to (most of) us what your skin colour is or what you eat, all that really matters is how well you believe in and uphold those ideals. THAT is what makes someone an American.
Vuk why would you now tell us you are using specifically American modern definitions when we are talking about totalitarian regimes of 20th Century Europe? :dizzy2:
When people talk about the left or right now adays, it is current definitons unless stated otherwise. I thought THAT was pretty obvious. We are not talking about what they were classified as then, we were talking about what they were (which we understand with our definitions).Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
EDIT: Also, American definitions of right and left have come to dominate media AND scholarly discussion. America is seen as the embodiment of the right in many way, so of course when you talk about the right, it is usually assumed that you are talking about the American right (the most 'rightwing' in the world).
Contrary to opinion across the ocean, American views are not reflective of those of the entire world, not today and not at any time in the past either. If we really used US definitions, nobody would ever call the BNP right-wing.
My point is though that America has become the most Rightwing country in the world (in the sense that it is farther from the left than other countries), and really did redefine the term. If you do not want the American right referred to as right, then please do not call us 'rightwing'. Call us gods. :beam: (or another term of your choice)Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
It works fine and dandy when talking about today. But there's a problem when you put it in a historical context, as the meanings has changed but still lingers. For example, the social freedoms that are a highlight on the current left was quite missing in both Soviet and Nazi-Germany, making the modern left quite differently from the authorian movements seen in those countries.Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Vuk Again
As I mentioned, the left gets divided into two different movements by using that definition, where one is quite simular to libertarianism (the branches that allows private ownership that is).
That's today when some of the old movements have withered a bit. But as I mentioned Republicans are quite clearly center right, even by the old definitions, even though there's the religous right that's the right part, not the libertarians. That makes the shift not to induvidual freedom, but the party as a whole. So the right is economic freedom, but social restriction, not freedom on both.Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Vuk Again
The use of classical liberal and libertarian is only to not confuse our American friends when talking about liberalism btw, we have'nt wrecked the word liberal here yet.
Moderator's note: I take the hint about splitting this thread, but I fear there are actually four or five branching threads herein, and I am not minded to read right through again to try and track them.
Yes, I'm lazy, but when I took this job they promised me minions.
:wink:
Right, back to... er... topics.
“What exactly about it WAS left wing? That I would love to hear!”
Was it their massive programme of Nationalisation? Erm…No.
Was it the collectivisation of Lands? Erm… No.
Was it the huge advance in Equal Rights for Women? Erm… No.
Was it the wide spread of freedom in all Germany? Erm… No.
So, What exactly about it WAS left wing? That I would love to hear!
“gun control (something very left wing) to make sure they could not resist”: Pinochet and Franco were Commies…
“It was their support of abortion and gun control and their insistence on equality of condition rather than equality of opportunity! Oh wait, gosh darnnit, those are actually leftist social policies.”
Did you really read (or at least have vague clue) the programme of Nazi? The 3 K programme (kids, kitchen and Church)? The huge birth programme, women and men selected to have blond and blue eyes, marriage arranged between SS and specific females?
About gun control, do you know why the Soviets had so many Snipers against the Nazis? Guess… It is because all the Russian youth went for shooting training… Strange way for a gun control…
Equality? When your OFFICIAL political platform insists on GENETIC inequality as base of your ideology?
“I could say that religious persecution is a leftist policy” Hoops, Robespierre was a Commie…
The III French Republic was a Communist State (law separating Church and State: 1904)…
“You are trying to say that Hitler's attack against Jews, Slavs, etc was characteristic of the rightwing...it was not”: Dreyfus Affair, some one? Were not all the rightwing newspaper full of Anti-Semitism?
“both socialist ideologies”: Yeap. Hitler was a great reader of Marx and Engel and positively loved Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebnich… And fought alongside the Spanish Republic against Franco… Guernica is just a lie…
Repeating a mistake doesn’t make it true, sorry…
“when I get back home” Have a good trip…
“Very well to point out that 1989 was not the end of history. I do, as always, disagree with your take on Yugoslavia. Yugoslavia was always the most liberal, economically most developed part of European communism. Their system wasn't a card house that could fall down one moment from the next. However, 1989 did show the Yugo communists that their time was up. Simmerring subcurrents in Yugoslavia re-surfaced, and took over. Nationalism, regionalism, ancient strife. The narrative changed.
1989 marked the six hundred anniversary of Serbian struggle against the 'Turks'. This led to 'Bosnia'.
For all the faults you can point out in other countries, Serbian aggressive nationalism had a clear autonomous cause.”
I would agree to disagree.
Nationalism wasn’t the first Milosevic tool. When he started the play for power he did it as a real communist, with the Communist Party and within the Governmental Institution. Just watch his first speech in Kosovo…
No, the first to play Nationalism was the Slovenian President (well, if you write off the Croatian Spring and Alija Izetbegovic “Muslim Declaration”.
Serbian Nationalism came as an answer to the Croatian Nationalism.
Because what I describe in my answer about freedom of speech for Nazi is exactly what happened the Serbs in Croatia: Utasa Coat of Arm (Sehovnica) (ok, they inverse the Colours), Ustasa money (Kuna), Ustas rhetoric, etc.
Vukovar didn’t start when the JNA intervened (November) but when Boro Paravac launched rockets on the Village of Borovo Selo in May.
To be continued:beam:
Im not sure if it is going to be continuated.
Pinochet was a commie? Sure, he was as commie as Stalin capitalist! Pinochet was the dictator of Chile that derrocated Salvador Allende one 11th of September thirthy-two(?) years ago. Salvador Allende was the one to put Chile to a socialist country, yet The Us did not want that and they gave money and guns to force a military coup to ensure that all the socialist rebels dissapeared.Quote:
Pinochet and Franco were Commies…
“Pinochet was a commie?” According to Vuk’s definition, yes he was…:beam:
I'm sorry Caius, but I do not know anything about Pinochet. :P I do know this though, communist countries are countries who pursue communism, but the first step in that (which no communist country has ever gotten past) is first taking control of all the wealth and power in the country, so that it can then later distribute it. Of course once it has the power it won't give it up. It takes the power by the means of a socialist government. In reality, a communist country (no matter what it wanted to be) is only a socialist country. So if Pinochet wanted a socialist country, then he would have wanted the same system that communist use (even if not to the same extent). I make the difference in my mind though between those who pretend to eventually want to reach communism and those who wish to create a permenant socialist state. I do not know which Pinochet is, but unless he actively pursued communism, no, I would not call him a communist. I would call him a socialist though if he pursued socialism. It was Brenus who called him a communist, not me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caius
Waitwaitwaitwaitwait. Authoritarianism and death camps are...right-wing?Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
Whatever drugs you're on, tell me so I can avoid them. :dizzy2:
“For the American right, Nationalism really cannot exist (at least in the sense of how it does in Europe), and certainly cannot entail racism, culturalism, etc.”
So when exactly segregation was over in USA? 1956?
You know what amazed me when I went in USA: Flags every where, in front of houses, graveyards, protective clothing of the San Francisco Bridge painters, poster in US post Office (this is our flag, we are proud of it)…
“All across the states there are people of all different races, there are all different types of food, ways of living, etc. There really is no 'American' race or culture to cling too. (Unless you are going to argue that McDonalds and Walmart makes a culture, and even there, they are all around the world) Thus America cannot have Nationalism in the sense that you use the word.”
You can probably say the same things about all European Countries today…
So no movement think that burning US is an offence and that America is too much open to immigration?
“The 'American dream' is what really unites us. The belief that you CAN work and make something out of yourself without some one taking it away. The belief that no matter what social class you come from you are going to have equal opportunity and your rights will be protected. The fact that people of so many races, so many religions, so many cultures and customs can live together. The fact that is something is not right it can be fixed.”
I will give you this. The American dream is still operational…
“The fact that you can speak your mind without censorship”. Except if you are a Commie. Or anti-war few years ago…
“THAT is America.” That is a representation of America.:beam:
They are the nasty side of the right-wing. They can also be a result of the nasty side of the left-wing. Both the right and left wings can also be peaceful.Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
Hmm, if feels pretty comfy up here on the fence. I could get used to this, if I wasn't having to constantly beat so many Frenchmen away...
“It was Brenus who called him a communist, not me.” Last time I try irony, I swear to God.:embarassed:
I am atheist anyway…:sweatdrop:
I never said that race wasn't associated with nationality in the past, but it is not anymore. As a matter of fact, when people think of American, it is often an African American that jumps to mind. As for the flags, yes, we are proud of our nation, but as I said, we do not define our nation in the same way that you do. It is not nationalist by your meaning of the word...more idealist.Quote:
“For the American right, Nationalism really cannot exist (at least in the sense of how it does in Europe), and certainly cannot entail racism, culturalism, etc.”
So when exactly segregation was over in USA? 1956?
You know what amazed me when I went in USA: Flags every where, in front of houses, graveyards, protective clothing of the San Francisco Bridge painters, poster in US post Office (this is our flag, we are proud of it)…
No, not really, not any of the ones that I have been too. Definately not Hungary or Italy, and without a doubt not Serbia. Germany is really the closest and that is not saying much for your argument.Quote:
“All across the states there are people of all different races, there are all different types of food, ways of living, etc. There really is no 'American' race or culture to cling too. (Unless you are going to argue that McDonalds and Walmart makes a culture, and even there, they are all around the world) Thus America cannot have Nationalism in the sense that you use the word.”
You can probably say the same things about all European Countries today…
So no movement think that burning US is an offence and that America is too much open to immigration?
No, commies can speak their minds, and so can anti-war people. In fact, they speak louder, longer, and more frequently than most other people. You cannot do away with social stigmatization. I will still be thought lowly of if I tell a class I am in that I am a Republican, but that is their right not to like me. I am not censored for being a Republican. (though technically, I am not even a Republican, just say that I am :P)Quote:
“The fact that you can speak your mind without censorship”. Except if you are a Commie. Or anti-war few years ago…
“THAT is America.” That is a representation of America.:beam:
America IS an idea, not people, not food, not land. THAT is America. That is why we do not like it when our government acts un-American and does not live up to that dream.
That's just because of all the gangsta' movies. :smash:Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Vuk Again
I feel your pain. Irony seems to be out of vogue suddenly. Did they put something in the .org water since I took my temporary leave?Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
“and without a doubt not Serbia”
Serbia is actually to most multi-cultural/ethnic state in the Balkan.
You had few forced expulsion of minorities in Serbia during the war, but they were not due the State/Milosevic. I vaguely remember one village of Croats expelled by the paramilitaries of Seselj, but that was it.
I know, it is not what medias transmitted but…
Always doubt...:2thumbsup:
You misunderstand me. I was not saying that it is not ethnically diverse or that it treats people within its borders poorly. I was not saying anything bad about Serbia, simply that the Serbs I know and have read about place a very high importance on being 'Serbian', speaking Serbian, and Serbian culture. (with the exception of Sarmatian whose views on that I do not know)Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
I am not saying that there is anything wrong with that, a government is needed to protect peoples' rights, and there needs to be something that makes the people feel united. There is nothing wrong with that being language, culture, ethnicity, etc. (sure, problems can stem from it, but there is nothing inherently wrong with it) Korea is a great example of that. To be Korean is to be of Korean blood, speak Korean, and live like a Korean. That does not mean there is anything at all wrong with Korea.
I was simply saying though that it is not like that in the US. It is something else that makes us support the government and feel like a nation, and that is the ideal of America.
American patriotism is a very different kettle of fish from the nationalism we know in Europe, and so I wouldn't really compare them.
“You misunderstand me” Yes I did.:shame:
Ok, I will crash on the next US aircraft carrier I see…:shame::shame::shame:
My point exactly. :bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
And as such, American rightwing ideology is really devoid of nationalism (unlike the left and right wings of some European countries), so it is not fair to say that nationalism is part of the rightwing when we are talking about American rightwing (the ONLY true righwing ~;))
lol, WTH!? :PQuote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
That's fair enough, but the USA is a unique case. Nationalism was very much present in Nazi Germany as we were discussing. And it wasn't just an undercurrent like in the USSR, it was a central part of the ideology (though I know Stalin practically made it official, it wasn't part of the original Marxist take).Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Vuk Again
My point being that it isn't inherently right-wing any more than it is inherently left-wing. :bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
Sorry, I simply completely missed that post. I opened a window to reply to your other post, the one before. By the time I submitted my post, you had squeezed in a post about Fortuyn's environmental policy. :shame:Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
Eh, I write my posts from memory. ~:smoking:Quote:
Oh, and your periodization about China was wrong as well: it should have been 1800-1910. Why 1910 and not 1911, I hear you ask? Because of Korea. Put that in your Cartesian pipe and smoke it.
Then only afterwards I add links to give posts gravity. The downside is thateven Ione can get some facts wrong...
...albeit not about Volkert. :smash:
Where are the other political murders by the mighty Dutch ecofascists you speak of? This enormous IRA-ETA-RAF organisation that apparantly murders Dutch political and business leaders at will?
My point was that often when discussing the AMERICAN rightwing and the dangers of socialism in America people will bring up Hitler (you know who you are) as an example of how bad conservatism can be also. If they are really two entirely different things, this is very unfair, as by American standards, the Nazis were VERY leftist. Socialism and Nazism are Socialism and Nazis though, regardless of place or time. (unlike right and left which changed over place and time) Thus you CAN make a fair argument for the dangers of socialsim in America. I am going really off track though...I had better get to bed. :P Goodnight dear Orgahs, please don't give me 20 massive pages to read through tomorrow. :PQuote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
Kind of like when people keep comparing a certain black President to Mr. Schicklgruber. :tongue2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Vuk Again
Economically, yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Vuk Again
Well when I'm on a roll...Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Vuk Again
Ah, sarcasm - the rattle of the Cartesian machine when it starts catching sand.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
Well, the green cohorts have been marching for more then twenty years, manifesting themselves through burglary, arson, planned explosions, hostage-taking and death threats. A police team that was formed around 2000 to track them and start solving cases was disbanded because the activists published the detectives' names, addresses and pictures of them, their wives and their children, accompanied by calls to harm them. An agriculture inspector who threatened animal rights interest, named Chris van de Werken, was indeed killed in 1996. The murder was never solved. Indeed, it was never properly investigated. That's a recurrent theme when it comes to ecoterrorists: somehow the police are often called back once they trace acts or perpetrators to some of the major environmental awareness organisations.
In Volkert's case, a Green alderman tipped off his close partner Sjoerd van der Wouw before the police got to Volkert's home. Sjoerd deleted the hard disc on Volkerts' computer and removed any compromising stuff from his abode. Only he overlooked some plans of mink farms that had written instructions on them for illegal entry. The police took these and they were later used during Volkert's trial to prove that he didn't shy away from illegal action even before the murder of Fortuyn.
Wow, it sounds like you guys have some serious eco-terrorists. Over here the worst tend to light construction sites on fire or break into animal research labs.
I don't think you understand. People aren't proud of the flag, they are proud of America. It isn't a right or left wing issue, or like the type of nationalism you find in Europe.Quote:
You know what amazed me when I went in USA: Flags every where, in front of houses, graveyards, protective clothing of the San Francisco Bridge painters, poster in US post Office (this is our flag, we are proud of it)…
You saw something outside of your experience, and tried to fit it into what you knew, which lead to your misunderstanding.
Gah! Really, please. No-one was stopped from speaking against the Iraq war. Did you not hear of any of the large protests?Quote:
Except if you are a Commie. Or anti-war few years ago…
As to the original topic (known about only by researching ancient stone tablets), I just make one observation. Funny how the Soviet Union and other states, the supposed 'worker's paradise', had to exert great control over their citizens to prevent them from leaving, and fleeing to the capitalist countries that had better living standards and so many more freedoms.
CR
That reminds me of something the missus once said to me: if a country needs a wall to keep in its citizens, even its propagandists are bound to be ashamed of themselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit