Twenty years after the wall

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

:daisy:

---

I'm a journalist, not a daisy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

Perhaps the most interesting contextual comment I think I've seen in this seemingly eternal right v. left argument.

---

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 Louis VI the Fat

'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.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

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.

---

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

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?

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,


EDIT etc

---

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)

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Just Vuk Again

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...
Anarchy and communism are the stupid dreams of the left.

---

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

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.

---

US republicans are center right, social concervative on the right and the libertarians in the center.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Just Vuk Again

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.

---

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

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.

---

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

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.

---

Some points of differences that shows of different origin. Some point s look very simular on the surface

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

BTW I think this thread would feel well, by being split.

---

Yeah, and with Big Walls separating them all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Yeah, and with Big Walls separating them all.

---

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)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

2 - Care to show me Fortuyn's stance on the environment? Or will you concede that 'Fortuyn' was not about environmental issues?

---

I see... I shouldn't have tried to be funny. I should have remembered Aesop's fable about the monkey and the camel.

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

US republicans are center right, social concervative on the right and the libertarians in the center.



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.

---

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

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.

---

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

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).

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

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 Just Vuk Again

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).

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).

---

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.

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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Just Vuk Again

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).

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Pinochet and Franco were Commies…

---

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.

“Pinochet was a commie?” According to Vuk’s definition, yes he was…:beam:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caius

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.

---

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 CountArach

You DON'T consider those right-wing...?

---

Waitwaitwaitwaitwait. Authoritarianism and death camps are...right-wing?


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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

Waitwaitwaitwaitwait. Authoritarianism and death camps are...right-wing?


Whatever drugs you're on, tell me so I can avoid them. :dizzy2:

---

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.

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:

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)…

---

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:

---

“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, 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:

---

“The fact that you can speak your mind without censorship”. Except if you are a Commie. Or anti-war few years ago…

---

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)

“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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Just Vuk Again

As a matter of fact, when people think of American, it is often an African American that jumps to mind.

---

That's just because of all the gangsta' movies. :smash:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

Last time I try irony, I swear to God.:embarassed:

---

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?

“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:

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)
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: