It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

RightWing Conference Tells Activists to Get Their Guns Ready for Bloody Battle with Obama the Nazi

page: 3
9
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnny2127
The political spectrum is the political spectrum. Totalitarianism is the furthest left, and flat out control by the govt.


No it isn't.

Socialism is 'the workers ownership of the means of production'. It has historically been against government and the state.

Marxism is Marxism NOT socialism.

You're also ignoring the 'National' part of the term, nationalism is the when the government owns everything, and that is a part of fascism not socialism, communism or anarchism.

The Nazi party was fascist modeled after Muslin's fascism. Have you ever heard of the Spanish revolution/civil war? It was the fascist governments of Germany Italy and Spain, fighting the socialists/communists and anarchists (the left).

Why was Russia Hitlers main goal? Why did he burn his own government building and blame it on left wing 'terrorists'?

It's funny that only Americans consider Hitler left wing. You all listen to too much garbage radio instead of really educating yourselves by reading books. No wonder your country is such a confused mess, the uneducated masses who actually think they're educated, so sad. Why did Hitler use the socialism tag? To confuse it's population, just like your government/media has done to you.




posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnny2127


But your posturing and tone are quite sad. Arguing is punctuated by emotion, insults and name calling. I encourage you to stop arguing and start debating instead.


OK! this crap about Hitler being to the left is pushing all my buttons and I'm sincerely sorry if my words came out wrong & harsh because English it's not my native language.

And I didn't call you dense directly, it was more meant towards all people who's keep denying that Hitler and National socialism was an Authoritarian & Totalitarian fascist right-wing movement (totalitarianism can be to the right as well you know?) Totalitarian is the same as Authoritarian on the scales.

In my family there were people involved with both the Social Democrats and National Socialism.

The cousin of my Grandfather was one of the Social Democratic Intellectuals & political leaders in Germany and they sent him to Dachau (the concentration camp) but he was thankfully released after 9 months thanks to other family members in the National Socialists with high up connections, and he and his family directly after moved to my Grandfather's family, living in Switzerland - many of his colleagues/ friends never made it to 1945 though.

And the big beautiful wood house of my grandmother's family (mother's side) in Norway was occupied by some SS high ranking officers to be used as their sleeping HQ (because the SS loved the exterior with Viking wood carvings & dragon heads on the roof) - so they had to move while the SS rats stole many of the family's old valuables & norse antiquities and some of the exterior carvings of the house when they finally left the house half destroyed 1944/45.


And I had once the opportunity to talk with a few relatives (now dead) from the German National socialist's side of the family who explained for me the political situation of Germany in the 1930's - and they then explained National Socialism as "radical far right".

So I'm very sorry if I reacted with a harsh tone regarding this!


[edit on 29-9-2009 by Chevalerous]



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnny2127
I am not arguing the Obama is another Hitler. I am not arguing that democrats are Nazis. I am not ripping on liberals or saying they are trying to usher in a new Totalitarian regime.
[edit on 29-9-2009 by johnny2127]


And I for one appreciate that.

But Hitler and the Nazi's like Mussolini and the Fascists or Franco are honestly about as far right as you can go.

There was nothing liberal or leftist about either regime except perhaps populist rhetoric and in Franco's case no rhetoric at all but force.

[edit on 29-9-2009 by grover]



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover

Originally posted by johnny2127
I am not arguing the Obama is another Hitler. I am not arguing that democrats are Nazis. I am not ripping on liberals or saying they are trying to usher in a new Totalitarian regime.
[edit on 29-9-2009 by johnny2127]


And I for one appreciate that.

But Hitler and the Nazi's like Mussolini and the Fascists or Franco are honestly about as far right as you can go.

There was nothing liberal or leftist about either regime except perhaps populist rhetoric and in Franco's case no rhetoric at all but force.

[edit on 29-9-2009 by grover]


You really don't see the left side to Totalitarianism? The complete control of the state? Complete control by govt..... You think these things are conservative values or policies of the right? Take over of private sector... you think this is a value of the right?

Grover, I sincerely don't think you are as liberal as you think you are. And I don't think you know what most of your movement stands for.



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by johnny2127
 

No liberal that I have ever encountered would support Government take over of business...firm regulation of business yes but not a government take over...and before going on about the bailouts the banks and car companies, they came a begging and what is happening with both is not a permanent takeover per se.

Totalitarianism defined in my Oxford American dictionary is

relating to a system of government that is centralized and dictatorial and requires complete subservience to the state : a totalitarian regime.


Authoritarianism is defined by the same as

favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority, esp. that of the government, at the expense of personal freedom


Both of which are antithetical to both American (and mind you I am stressing American...other nations see things differently) left and right wing ideals.

Mind you I stress other nations see things differently.

[edit on 29-9-2009 by grover]



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 01:44 PM
link   
Grover all the time I come across a thread like this one, I just feel sad, that people in this nation are so divided by the wrong reasons.

Obama is not socialist actually he has done what his predecessors did before him, support and protect capitalism.

We have been divided by the wrong reasons, not private company in this nation has been taken by the government actually what the government has done is using tax payer money to keep the private sector going.

But dirty politicians in agendas like obviously the one on the OP tells exactly how twisted and misguided the population is that they are exploiting the misguided believes to incite violence.

People needs to get informed learn the facts and research, no body is bring socialism into this nation and the government is no taking over anything but your darn tax payer money to pay for the rich and wealthy aka the ones that runs the capitalistic system in the nation

Pity.



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover
reply to post by johnny2127
 

No liberal that I have ever encountered would support Government take over of business...firm regulation of business yes but not a government take over...and before going on about the bailouts the banks and car companies, they came a begging and what is happening with both is not a permanent takeover per se.

Totalitarianism defined in my Oxford American dictionary is

relating to a system of government that is centralized and dictatorial and requires complete subservience to the state : a totalitarian regime.


Authoritarianism is defined by the same as

favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority, esp. that of the government, at the expense of personal freedom


Both of which are antithetical to both American (and mind you I am stressing American...other nations see things differently) left and right wing ideals.

Mind you I stress other nations see things differently.

[edit on 29-9-2009 by grover]


I agree that both of those are against both left and right American ideals. What I am trying to say to you is that it is the liberals that believe in the larger more powerful govt, not the right. All powerful govt's with their hands in people's lives is a liberal philosophy not conservative.

Personally, I just want govt out of people's lives. Regulation is fine, as long as it is devoid of politics. I don't want the US govt owning the mortgage industry, car industry, largest insurance company, many banks, or anything else in the private sector. I want a govt that allows people and companies to be accountable for their own actions and mistakes. I am seeing a complete lack of accountability in America right now. No one admits fault, everything is someone else's fault.



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnny2127
I agree that both of those are against both left and right American ideals. What I am trying to say to you is that it is the liberals that believe in the larger more powerful govt, not the right. All powerful govt's with their hands in people's lives is a liberal philosophy not conservative.

Personally, I just want govt out of people's lives. Regulation is fine, as long as it is devoid of politics. I don't want the US govt owning the mortgage industry, car industry, largest insurance company, many banks, or anything else in the private sector. I want a govt that allows people and companies to be accountable for their own actions and mistakes. I am seeing a complete lack of accountability in America right now. No one admits fault, everything is someone else's fault.


There we have found ground we can agree on and that is good but I suspect that our definitions of left and right differ somewhat since I agree with posters who are European where such distinctions have played a major roll in their histories.


Left/right politics
en.wikipedia.org...

Traditionally, the Left includes: social liberals, social democrats, socialists, communists and anarchists[ while the Right includes: conservatives, fascists, reactionaries, monarchists and nationalists. The classification of capitalism as right-wing or left-wing varies from country to country.

Left Wing Politics

en.wikipedia.org...

In politics, left-wing, political left, leftist and the Left are terms used to describe a number of positions and ideologies. They are most commonly used to refer to support for changing traditional social orders or for creating a more egalitarian distribution of wealth and privilege. Nevertheless the terms have been used for different things in different countries.
The phrase left-wing was coined during the French Revolution, referring to the seating arrangement in parliament; those who sat on the left supported the republic, the popular political movements and secularization.[1][2] The concept of a distinct political Left originated with the June Days Uprising of 1848. The organizers of the First International saw themselves as the successors of the left wing of the French Revolution. The term was applied to a number of revolutionary movements in Europe, especially socialism, anarchism[3] and communism. The term is also used to describe social democracy. In contemporary political discourse, the term the Left usually means either social liberal or socialist.
The spectrum of left-wing politics ranges from centre-left to far left (or ultra-left). The term centre left describes a position close to the political mainstream. The terms far left and ultra-left refer to positions that are more radical. The centre-left includes social democrats, progressives and also some democratic socialists and greens (in particular the eco-socialists). Centre-left supporters accept market allocation of resources in a mixed economy with a significant public sector and a thriving private sector. Centre-left policies tend to favour limited state intervention in the economy in matters pertaining to the public interest. The centre-left also often favours moderate environmentalist policies and generally, though not universally, supports individual freedom on moral issues.

Right Wing Politic

en.wikipedia.org...

In politics, right-wing, political right, rightist and the Right are terms used to describe a number of positions and ideologies. They are most commonly used to refer to support for preserving traditional or cultural values and customs or for maintaining some form of social hierarchy or private control of the means of production. Nevertheless the terms have been used for different things in different countries.
The phrase right-wing was coined during the French Revolution, when right-wing referred to seating arrangements in parliament; those who sat on the right supported the monarchy, the aristocracy and the established church. The concept of a distinct political Right developed after the second restoration of the French monarchy in 1815 with the Ultra-royalists. Today the term the Right is primarily used to refer to political groups that have a historical connection with the traditional Right, including conservatives, reactionaries, monarchists, aristocrats, religious fundamentalists, and some nationalists. But in modern times, the Right has also encompassed views supporting capitalism and free markets.
The spectrum of right-wing politics ranges from centre-right to far right. By the late 19th century, the French political spectrum classified the center-right as Constitutional Monarchists, Orleanists, and Bonapartists, and the far right as Ultra-Royalists and Legitimists. The centre-right Gaullists in post-World War II France advocated considerable social spending on education and infrastructure development, as well as extensive economic regulation but a limited amount of the wealth redistribution measures more characteristic of social democracy.
A definition of the term "centre-right" is necessarily broad and approximate because political terms have varying meanings in different countries. Parties of the centre-right generally support liberal democracy, capitalism, the market economy (although with some limited government regulation), private property rights, the existence of the welfare state in some limited form, and opposition to socialism and communism. Such definitions generally include political parties that base their ideology and policies upon conservatism and economic liberalism.
The terms far right and radical right have been used by different people in conflicting ways. The term far right is most often used to describe nationalist, religious extremist and reactionary groups as well as fascism and Nazism.


Of course having to copy and paste to make my point I by necessity left things out but for the most part this is how much of the rest of the world sees this divide.



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by grover
 


And of course I am sure you know the issues about Wikipedia entries given that they can be entered by everyone.

But yes, liberal and conservative have different connotations depending on each country. But for the sake of this conversation, we will talk about the US connotations. In that context, the ideals of a big, powerful central govt that provide a great deal for its citizens, regulate multiple areas of private lives and redistribute the wealth of its citizens...... this is a liberal concept.

From the US political perspective, the Totalitarian regimes we have discussed are the furthest left.



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 02:20 PM
link   
So now Obama's a racist? I guess he hates himself, considering that his mother was white. Now that people are bashing Obama, he's suddenly considered all black. Please, if you're going to attack the man, stick to the facts and focus on his policies, otherwise, you lose all credibility.


Originally posted by jd140

Originally posted by grover
If these people...like the once calling Obama a n----- are not racists like they try to insist...then why use the n word at all? And if her listeners are not racist themselves why tolerate it.

I always make a point of objecting when I hear someone else use it.


You can listen to someone use those type of words, not be racist and not object.

Obama did it for 20 years and you seem not to have any problems what so ever with him.



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 02:23 PM
link   
I think the biggest problems of the planet lie with capitalism. This is what is dividing, crushing and choking the planet.

The pursuit of money at the expense of individualism. The way individualism comes second to consumerism. The rape of the planet for instant quick fixes.

They want us all to wear the same clothes, eat the same processed crap, read the same papers and watch the same crap on the tv and piss in the same pot. If we dare to think differently they want us to fight ourselves, over petty things...

Without individuality we have nothing to compare our lives to. Capitalism i'm sure is the fast track to totalitarianism and as long as certain figures control our media i cannot see any change coming soon.

No matter what side of the political spectrum you stand on, i'm sure you ALL respect your own individuality. Please think on people, if not for your good selves, then for your chidlren and your grand children.

Quite eye opening to see that the english defintion of liberalism and conservatism are somewhat different in the US.

Peace

[edit on 29-9-2009 by mr-lizard]



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 02:24 PM
link   
"Right" and "Left" are terms that mean different things to different people.

What is unambiguously true is that authoritarian, totalist versions of ideologies of both the "left" and "right" killed & oppressed millions in the last century.

The response should be to oppose authoritarianism in general, not merely the left or right wing version.



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnny2127
In that context, the ideals of a big, powerful central govt that provide a great deal for its citizens, regulate multiple areas of private lives and redistribute the wealth of its citizens...... this is a liberal concept.


No, they are not liberal concepts. They are authoritarian concepts. How difficult is this to understand? The right-wing would like to believe they are liberal concepts, to demonize liberals and make it seem as though they are the only advocates of freedom. However, all libertarians are advocates of freedom, left or right. It is really quite simple.



Originally posted by johnny2127
From the US political perspective, the Totalitarian regimes we have discussed are the furthest left.


...No.

Perhaps you are lost. Perhaps you have been fed too much misinformation. Perhaps you are beyond repair.

Stalin's totalitarian regime was far left.

Hitler's totalitarian regime was far right.

Stop obfuscating the chart to make it seem like those on the left are advocates of totalitarianism. No one here is going to buy it, we all know better. You're better off trying to pull that crap on stormfront or some other right-wing rag. Totalitarianism is, inherently, at odds with leftist ideals. That doesn't mean there aren't fascists on the left (communist Russia), but it does mean that the majority of authoritarian governments lean to the right.



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by diabolique
So now Obama's a racist? I guess he hates himself, considering that his mother was white. Now that people are bashing Obama, he's suddenly considered all black. Please, if you're going to attack the man, stick to the facts and focus on his policies, otherwise, you lose all credibility.


Originally posted by jd140

Originally posted by grover
If these people...like the once calling Obama a n----- are not racists like they try to insist...then why use the n word at all? And if her listeners are not racist themselves why tolerate it.

I always make a point of objecting when I hear someone else use it.


You can listen to someone use those type of words, not be racist and not object.

Obama did it for 20 years and you seem not to have any problems what so ever with him.


You missed the point of what this person was saying. Other people were trying to make the point that others are racist because they have heard and listened to racist rhetoric in the past. So this person what pointing out the hypocrisy of those people saying that, but applying the same logic to Obama since he sat and listened to Rev Wright say the same sorts of things for decades.....

You missed the whole point. The person wasn't calling Obama a racist. The person was pointing out the hypocrisy of others..........



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnny2127

The Nazi party stressed the failure of capitalism and Russian style Communism. Their view was that govt needed to have a large hand in controlling private companies.



This is also something that you must have misunderstood or learned wrong about the Nazis because that is simply not correct!

Many of my old relatives in Germany had their own private businesses, industries and other bussines property like all the other Germans and big German corporations.

National Socialism unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property or private companies !

Heck even the Americans wanted a piece of the German Nazi market with Ford, IBM, Coca Cola and other big us corporations.

And the Nazis views were not at all about to have a large hand in private companies. it was the other way around - large private companies & corporations were the people behind Hitler and National Socialism, that's the core and the essence of FASCISM.

Almost exactly how things are working now in America today when the military industrial complex and Halliburton and other corporations have their hands in the American Government, that's fascism my friend! - exactly the same as it was in Germany and Italy & Spain under fascism!

I gave you a link to an interview with Hitler himself, but I guess you didn't bother to read my posts and links?


[edit on 29-9-2009 by Chevalerous]



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by drwizardphd

Originally posted by johnny2127
In that context, the ideals of a big, powerful central govt that provide a great deal for its citizens, regulate multiple areas of private lives and redistribute the wealth of its citizens...... this is a liberal concept.


No, they are not liberal concepts. They are authoritarian concepts. How difficult is this to understand? The right-wing would like to believe they are liberal concepts, to demonize liberals and make it seem as though they are the only advocates of freedom. However, all libertarians are advocates of freedom, left or right. It is really quite simple.



Originally posted by johnny2127
From the US political perspective, the Totalitarian regimes we have discussed are the furthest left.


...No.

Perhaps you are lost. Perhaps you have been fed too much misinformation. Perhaps you are beyond repair.

Stalin's totalitarian regime was far left.

Hitler's totalitarian regime was far right.

Stop obfuscating the chart to make it seem like those on the left are advocates of totalitarianism. No one here is going to buy it, we all know better. You're better off trying to pull that crap on stormfront or some other right-wing rag. Totalitarianism is, inherently, at odds with leftist ideals. That doesn't mean there aren't fascists on the left (communist Russia), but it does mean that the majority of authoritarian governments lean to the right.


Buddy, just because I don't believe what you do, doesn't mean what I believe is misinformation and I am beyond fixing. Saying crap like that is very absurd. Why does it always seen to be the left that claims to be champions of tolerance, yet are the least tolerant of other opinions? Not only are many not tolerant, but they talk down to people like me that don't think like they do. Any link or evidence to the contrary is either ignored or discredited, and then you talk about me like I am a mental midget. Not once have I ever talked down to someone that didn't agree with me. Yet just in this thread I have had multiple liberals say things like 'You are dense', 'you are beyond fixing', 'I won't talk to someone like you anymore.'

Such bile and hatred from some of you. I just don't get it. What is it in the personality of many liberals that tends to make many arrogant and talk down to others? Of course many or not like that, such as Grover. But there seems to be such a higher percentage of liberals that are like this than conservatives. Which is ironic since liberals always talk about conservatives as defenders of the elite and wealthy....



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chevalerous

Originally posted by johnny2127

The Nazi party stressed the failure of capitalism and Russian style Communism. Their view was that govt needed to have a large hand in controlling private companies.



This is also something that you must have Misunderstood or learned wrong about the Nazis because that is simply not true.

Many of my old relatives in Germany had their own private businesses, industries and other bussines property like all the other Germans and big German corporations.

National Socialism unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property and private companies !

Heck even the Americans wanted a piece of the German Nazi market with Ford, IBM, coca cola and other big us corporation.

And the Nazis views were not at all about to have a large hand in private companies. it was the other way around - large private companies & corporation were the people behind Hitler and National Socialism, that's the core and the essence of FASCISM.

Almost exactly how things are working now in America today when the military industrial complex and halliburton and other corporations have their hands in the American Government, that's fascism my friend! - exactly the same as it was in Germany and Italy under fascism!

I gave you a link to an interview with Hitler himself, but I guess you didn't bother to read my posts and links?




You misunderstood. I never said the Nazi govt took over and owned the businesses. I said they controlled them. Such as the companies remaining privately owned, but taking their marching orders from the govt.

Yes I read the link you posted. What's is your point with it?



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnny2127
Why does it always seen to be the left that claims to be champions of tolerance, yet are the least tolerant of other opinions?


Its not a matter of opinion. It's a matter of historical fact.

You claimed that Hitler and the Nazis were a leftist party, clearly to push your own political agenda. You were wrong, and some posters attempted to show you that. You refuted them, and continued your anti-left wing tirade.

If you mistakenly believed the nazis were a left wing party when you entered this thread, then that is a sign of an honest mistake.

If you still believe that the nazis were a left wing party after reading the numerous, well thought out, and informative posts to the contrary, then that is a sign of pure ignorance.

We are not here to promote ignorance.



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 02:55 PM
link   
Just some food for thought to help in the debate within this thread about Hitler being far left or far right. Depending on how you look at it he was both. This is the true political spectrum, not just the horizontal plane that we imagine it to be. It's also vertical:



This one shows where Hitler falls on this graph:



So technically, you're all right depending on which way you flip the chart!


Back on topic...

I am worried about the current atmosphere of anger going on right now. It's not that I don't think people don't have a right to be angry, it's that I fear what that anger will lead to. As of yet, just about the only "solution" offered to fix what is going on seems to be that of a violent upheaval. I know some people feel that is there only option, but it's a given that innocent people will be brought into the violence whether they like it or not.

To be honest, I think it's selfish to call for a violent uprising without thinking about the consequences that will bring on those who either want no part of it, or want to go about it a different way.

People keep talking about a revolution. All I here is the beginnings of a civil war because a revolution can only happen when the people are united, which we most clearly are not.

Not everyone in this country is on ATS. Not everyone shares the same sentiments that a majority of ATS'ers do that it doesn't matter if your left/right, conservative/liberal, democrat/republican. Most of these people making a call to arms see it as us (conservatives) vs. them (socialist commies), not the people vs. the government.



[edit on 29-9-2009 by nunya13]



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by mr-lizard
 


You must be kidding. Capitalism is going to naturally support individualism far more than any other financial system. If you take socialism/communism to the extreme then what you have is a system where everyone is the same, regardless of their contribution to the world.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join