Originally posted by couldbeserious

Originally posted by jimmyx

Originally posted by Janky Red

Originally posted by couldbeserious
And you can usually tell the people who become really worked up over their squirrelly notion of what fascist means because they start using exclamation points all over their posts.

And the people who have no valid argument to back up their claims usually peel out
with a dismissive insult.

But I guess you will still hold that Nazi's were not flag wavers, anti immigration, anti communist, pro big military, pro big business and pro tradition.

Sounds like a liberal to me!

here, some more

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[edit on 24-10-2009 by Janky Red]

aahh..witty, cynical, sarcasm, "i love the smell of napalm in the morning" (movie reference), your a man after my own heart, good to have you on board.

Be careful. The two most successful fascist countries in history were hell-bent on changing the "system" because it was "broken".

Of the Nazis, they were some of those things on your list, but they were not for big business or for tradition. You could have also gone further and say not only anti-immigration, but anti-non-Aryan. They were anti-capitalist as any European group ever was. They were also in many respects anti-science. This does not mean that they did not use large corporations or science or religion for their own ends. This is perfectly in keeping with the syndicalist system called fascism first promoted and practiced in Italy -- greatly admired in Germany, Britain and the USA by progressives.

Hitler & Co. were extremely serious about destroying tradition, replacing it with a new national religion/culture with ties to a mythical past. If you look at what they did, culturally, to Germany, before the war, it cannot be construed as anything other than change more severe and complete than either the German Union of the 1870s or the Reformation.

And my post prior to the "!" post was supported. As for that one, I couldn't help myself. I could feel you getting mad because people like me just don't get it. Having feelings is a good thing. It is, after all, what causes us to do everything we do. However, when someone confuses anger (!yours!) or glee (Janky's at you b*tch slapping me) with reason, and concludes that he has "won", that is sorta sad.

I never concluded a win, I concluded that it is inaccurate to state that Hilter's agenda was in line with Liberalism. Granted I should have phrased tradition and big business
differently,,, correct they both attempted to cultivate and establish what tradition meant, but they both also used cultural national identification as a way to garner support. I should have said fascinated and hell bent on establishing big industry comprised of conglomerate unification and state subsidies.

On the other hand

The simple fact of the matter is German and Italian fascism
were both anti communist and anti liberal. In Germany the Social Democratic Party
was the main competition for the NAZI'S, SPD was one of a few left leaning parties
the NAZI'S had to "deal" with. I recall watching Glen Beck provide ample explanation
that Fascism was a left leaning ideology which is a false attempt to rewrite history.
Progressives who supported such things last century are dumb as are the tobacco chewing conservatives of the modern era. The shame is that it seems you are unjustly trying to link two things -

When I think of the raw definition of a conservative, a couple of words come to mind.

Self-sustaining and competition.

They believe that everyone is responsible for themselves.

They believe in competition and that the best man/woman should win.

(There are more aspects that I consider alterations from this basic belief that I won't go into right now.)

What some might not realize is that this ideology is Darwinism at it's best. It suggests that the natural law of survival of the fittest rules and should be adhered. This shows a contradiction within conservatives because Darwinism conflicts with religion. Darwinism is the science of evolution, which Christians don't believe in because they believe we were made in God's image and that we did not evolve from animals.

Darwinism also suggests that certain races are superior to others, which means that some people are better than others. I won't continue in that direction and leave it to your imagination, but it does NOT follow the constitution in that every man is created equal.

So why do so many religious groups support them? I can only think it is because republicans have marketed themselves as religious and included values that they believe in like abortion. The conservatives that I know are very religious and so I don't bother pointing this out if I want to keep getting invited to parties.

I live in a very conservative area and I know how they think. I hear there reasoning everyday, and in its own way makes perfect sense. The problem is, it is of the mentality of every man for himself. If I wanted the same things they do, I would probably agree with everything they do, but for some reason, I think differently.

If we were only concerned about survival then the conservative ideology would be the better rules to follow. This ideology is geared toward living in a country where people are extremely independent and that is how early Americans lived. I don't want to diminish our heritage, but it is getting antiquated. This country is no longer several individual living out in the wild and has evolved.

Now, if you want to build a society and excel as a species to achieve something more than just surviving, then conservatism is not the right one to follow.

This is where the great divide is in this country. There is approximately half of the people living in coastal cities, and about half the population living a more rural life in between the coasts. Some might say it is a North and South divide, but I thinks that's wrong. It is more a suburban/rural divide.

Some people are conservatives because they want to remain independent. It is hard to argue against that, but with the population continuing to grow, we have to start thinking more for everyone and not just ourselves.

Originally posted by Janky Red

I never concluded a win, I concluded that it is inaccurate to state that Hilter's agenda was in line with Liberalism. Granted I should have phrased tradition and big business
differently,,, correct they both attempted to cultivate and establish what tradition meant, but they both also used cultural national identification as a way to garner support. I should have said fascinated and hell bent on establishing big industry comprised of conglomerate unification and state subsidies.

On the other hand

The simple fact of the matter is German and Italian fascism
were both anti communist and anti liberal. In Germany the Social Democratic Party
was the main competition for the NAZI'S, SPD was one of a few left leaning parties
the NAZI'S had to "deal" with. I recall watching Glen Beck provide ample explanation
that Fascism was a left leaning ideology which is a false attempt to rewrite history.
Progressives who supported such things last century are dumb as are the tobacco chewing conservatives of the modern era. The shame is that it seems you are unjustly trying to link two things -

I see where you are coming from. The Nazis dealt with the Communists and Social Democrats directly because those parties were competition, not because they believed significantly differently. In true National Socialist view, there can be only one.

Their party platform was liberal, direct and simple. It called for, in no particular order: "Point 11 -- Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of rent-slavery." "7 -- We demand that the state be charged first with providing the opportunity for a livelihood and way of life for the citizens...." "10 -- The first obligation of every citizen must be to work both spiritually and physically. The activity of individuals is not to counteract the interests of the universality, but must have its result within the framework of the whole for the benefit of all...." It also called for heavily expanded old age pensions, childcare, mothercare, state-encouraged physical fitness, equal rights and obligations, nationalization of trusts, and land reform for public purposes.

I absolutely agree with you that to lend one's support to an ideology or party without investigation or reservation is a foolish thing. I would also say that to reject an ideology or party without investigation or reservation is also foolish.

One last thing. I appreciate your comments. This continues to be a fun thread. I look forward to hearing from you (and the others) on other threads.

Originally posted by Hal9000
When I think of the raw definition of a conservative, a couple of words come to mind.

Self-sustaining and competition.

They believe that everyone is responsible for themselves.

They believe in competition and that the best man/woman should win.

What some might not realize is that this ideology is Darwinism at it's best.

Darwinism also suggests that certain races are superior to others, which means that some people are better than others.

This is where the great divide is in this country. There is approximately half of the people living in coastal cities, and about half the population living a more rural life in between the coasts. Some might say it is a North and South divide, but I thinks that's wrong. It is more a suburban/rural divide.

Some people are conservatives because they want to remain independent. It is hard to argue against that, but with the population continuing to grow, we have to start thinking more for everyone and not just ourselves.

I find your idea of the split between urban and rural very interesting. I want to start another thread on that. Please look for it in the next little while. If you start it before I do, please call it something like "Rural v. Urban" so I can find it.

Please read about the characters who made up progressivism as it when along (1850s - 1940s, more or less). You will find that they were flat out in love with the warped survival of the fittest take on Darwin/Wallace. They did indeed believe that better races should impose their wills on the lesser. They also believed that the best and the brightest should run businesses, industries, and governments (bypassing democratic process) because they were the fittest. In the US, presidents T. Roosevelt (R) and W. Wilson (D) were the best Presidential examples, but industry was run through with leaders of different temperaments who shared those same progressive, liberal views.

Conservatives were (and are) freaked out by this sort of thing. For most of them, it is not the idea of helping others that is wrong, it is the idea of helping others though the government that is wrong. It goes beyond annoyance with wasteful government behavior and straight to the fear of anyone who believes that some group of smart people should be dictating to the rest of us what we should be doing.