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.

 

The Right Wing Echo Chamber

page: 10
48
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 12:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by coldkidc
reply to post by campanionator
 


No - Nazis were definitely not commies...the left wing/right wing thing is tough because the line kind of blurs since it really ends up being more about the level of control the government has over assets & how the socioeconomic structure is designed

I'm not sure there's a direct connection between Republican vs Democrat & Nazi vs. Commie...

Kind of apples & oranges...


Well that is if you leave out cultural concerns and traditionalism... But if you look at it further, "small
government" is a rather unique component of the American right. The catch is, "small government"
is a cultural aspiration of tradition, not a typical component of what determines right and left ideology
or economics.




posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 12:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tw0Sides
reply to post by campanionator
 


Funny thing bout that.

When Hitler burned down the Reichstag, he blamed it on the Communist.


Hitler did imprison communists, and many of them were Jewish communists. But he did consider himself to be a socialist.

to quote wikipedia on classic disagreements between socialists and communists


Since the split of the Communist Parties from the socialist Second International to form the Communist Third International, democratic socialists and social democrats have been in conflict with Communism, criticising it for its anti-democratic nature. Examples of left-wing critics of Communist states and parties are George Orwell, Boris Souveraine, Bayard Rustin, Irving Howe and Max Shachtman.


en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 12:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by Tw0Sides
reply to post by campanionator
 


Funny thing bout that.

When Hitler burned down the Reichstag, he blamed it on the Communist.


Hitler did imprison communists, and many of them were Jewish communists. But he did consider himself to be a socialist.

to quote wikipedia on classic disagreements between socialists and communists


Since the split of the Communist Parties from the socialist Second International to form the Communist Third International, democratic socialists and social democrats have been in conflict with Communism, criticising it for its anti-democratic nature. Examples of left-wing critics of Communist states and parties are George Orwell, Boris Souveraine, Bayard Rustin, Irving Howe and Max Shachtman.


en.wikipedia.org...




The Reichstag Fire was blame upon the Communists, which was based upon the evidence
of the presence, at the time, of a renowned Communist, Marinus van der Lubbe, who was publicly indicted
by Hermann Goering and accused of planning and starting the event. As a result, Hitler suspended habeas corpus for the Communists and rounded up thousands of them with out trial or recourse.

The very rise of Nazi Germany was cemented by people's distrust and fear of Marxism ~
Hitler used this fear to gain control of the government and imprison his greatest political
rivals, the KPD or the German Communist party



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 12:34 AM
link   
reply to post by campanionator
 


I agree that the desire for a small government is a social aspiration rather than a determination of left or right. And also that desiring a small government is sold by the right (at least what they call right/left here in the states) but can also be associated with some aspects of the left's ideology.
It does seem to be a little easier sell on the right side though simply because the left tends to be more supportive of social programs which inherently mean a bigger government.

But communism & fascism are definitely not about having a small government since both systems require government control ie. Communism (state controls everything) vs. Facism (state owns everything) & that obviously requires a very large government
edit on 26-9-2012 by coldkidc because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 12:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by campanionator

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by RealSpoke
 





Someone that has never read a sentence from Marx/Engels, yet really thinks they are an expert on it.


This is a strawman if I ever heard it. I can't believe my eyes when I see people posting this same argument. Read Alinsky much?


It is funny because the right wing brings it up so much, I think you guys are actually projecting.

You guys use such tactics with a straight face day in and day out.


Surely you jest. You must know that Alinksy was decidedly left wing and the Occupiers in chief have been using Alinksy techniques for some time. Obama's ACORN was part of the Alinksy methodology. Community Organizing was the Alinsky creation. This all came out during the 08 election cycle.




There were diametrically opposed ideologies


Only in Hegelian dialectical reasoning. In the Hegelian model, any two ideas can be pitted against each other for the purpose of conflict. The late Antony Sutton explained the process nicely.


Probably the most difficult task in this work will be to get across to the reader what is really an elementary observation: that the objective of The Order is neither "left" nor "right." "Left" and "right" are artificial devicces to bring about change, and the extremes of political left and political right are vital elements in a process of controlled change.



The answer to this seeming political puzzle lies in Hegelian logic. Remember that both Marx and Hitler, the extremes of "left" and "right" presented as textbook enemies, evolved out of the same philosophical system: Hegelianism. That brings screams of intellectual anguish from Marxists and Nazis, but is well known to any student of political systems.



The dialectical process did not originate with Marx as Marxists claim, but with Fichte and Hegel in late 18th and early 19th century Germany. In the dialectical process a clash of opposites brings about a synthesis. For example, a clash of political left and political right brings about another political system, a synthesis of the two, niether left nor right. This conflict of opposites is essential to bring about change. Today this process can be identified in the literature of the Trilateral Commission where "change" is promoted and "conflict management" is termed the means to bring about this change.

In the Hegelian system conflict is essential. Furthermore, for Hegel and systems based on Hegel, the State is absolute. The State requires complete obedience from the individual citizen. An individual does not exist for himself in these so-called organic systems but only to perform a role in the operation of the State...


www.prisonplanet.com...
edit on 26-9-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 01:04 AM
link   
reply to post by campanionator
 





The Reichstag Fire was blame upon the Communists


Obama and Hillary seem to hate each other too, but does that mean they are not on the same side? Mafia bosses killed each other and their lackeys.
Hitler was born to a Jewish family. Does that mean Hitler hated himself? It is also said that Hitler was a tool of the Illuminati and he was preoccupied with gaining power from certain religious items such as the Spear of Destiny and the Shroud of Turin.

Whatever reason Hitler had for hating communists is not that they had any kind of fundamentally different philosophy than him. I would imagine that it evolved more or less out of the general split between the communist party and the socialist International.



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 01:10 AM
link   
Looks like ElectricUniverse derailed the thread in their usual manner



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 01:23 AM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 



Surely you jest. You must know that Alinksy was decidedly left wing and the Occupiers in chief have been using Alinksy techniques for some time.


Ummm the Tea Party has used his teachings too, I guess you chose to ignore that on the last page because it didn't fit in with your mental anti-leftist dialogue.


Adam Brandon, a spokesman for the conservative non-profit organization FreedomWorks, which is one of several groups involved in organizing Tea Party protests, says the group gives Alinsky's Rules for Radicals to its top leadership members. A shortened guide called Rules for Patriots is distributed to its entire network. In a January 2012 story that appeared in The Wall Street Journal, citing the organization's tactic of sending activists to town-hall meetings, Brandon explained, "his tactics when it comes to grass-roots organizing are incredibly effective." Former Republican House Majority Leader Dick Armey also gives copies of Alinsky's book Rules for Radicals to Tea Party leaders.[23]



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 01:23 AM
link   
reply to post by aaron2209
 


Why not start a thread titled Left wing echo chamber and see who "derails" it.



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 01:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Surely you jest. You must know that Alinksy was decidedly left wing and the Occupiers in chief have been using Alinksy techniques for some time. Obama's ACORN was part of the Alinksy methodology. Community Organizing was the Alinsky creation. This all came out during the 08 election cycle.


Surely you think right wingers are not too stupid to apply the wisdom to their own political
machine...

the Right is OBSESSED with Alinsky, the popular left learned about him from critiques of
Glenn Becks show.





Only in Hegelian dialectical reasoning. In the Hegelian model, any two ideas can be pitted against each other for the purpose of conflict. The late Antony Sutton explained the process nicely.


So are you a communist because you have diametrically inclined arguments with left wingers here
on ATS?

The fact is, America was founded by Federalist and Anti Federalists who both believed in freedom and
liberty.

By your toe deep logic, you are inferring that the founding fathers were communists.

ECHO CHAMBER



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 01:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by aaron2209
 


Why not start a thread titled Left wing echo chamber and see who "derails" it.


Key words there are "start a thread". That's exactly what one should do rather than derail with what looks like copy/pastes from other threads the same person has parroted the "Hitler was a dirty commie/socialist" lines.



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 01:38 AM
link   
reply to post by RealSpoke
 


On what last page? Did you intend to post my reply as an off-site text and then correlate it with some site referencing the Tea party and then somehow forget to post the url source?

Was that just oversight on your part or a deliberate misrepresentation?



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 01:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by campanionator
 





The Reichstag Fire was blame upon the Communists


Obama and Hillary seem to hate each other too, but does that mean they are not on the same side? Mafia bosses killed each other and their lackeys.
Hitler was born to a Jewish family. Does that mean Hitler hated himself? It is also said that Hitler was a tool of the Illuminati and he was preoccupied with gaining power from certain religious items such as the Spear of Destiny and the Shroud of Turin.

Whatever reason Hitler had for hating communists is not that they had any kind of fundamentally different philosophy than him.


I don't know if we should talk if you can not apply a base level of logic to your world view.
You want all of us to assume that Europe did not have a right wing population or political
party, that is pretty deficient logically speaking.



I would imagine that it evolved more or less out of the general split between the communist party and the socialist International.


You will imagine anything that keeps the echo chamber safe and alive. You are the master and
protector of it!
edit on 26-9-2012 by campanionator because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 01:59 AM
link   
reply to post by campanionator
 


Alinsky was a left winger. There's no doubt. Glenn Beck exposed the Alinsky method on his show, and the Tea Party figured out how to use community organizing. The Alinsky method was developed as a primary tool to help leftists achieve their goals.
edit on 26-9-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 02:00 AM
link   
reply to post by campanionator
 


I see now you have taken to insulting my ability to use logic in my arguments. When losing an argument just start insulting.




You want all of us to assume that Europe did not have a right wing population


When did I say Europe did not have any right wing? Did you read the Antony Sutton article I posted? It really explains the dialectical methodology.

Here is an article which also explains the error in considering Hitler right wing

whyamericansaredumb.com...

Also the OP has repeatedly said that he himself is not left wing, that he was Republican and so on, but I have never seen him post anything remotely Republican. I have always seen him as left wing, though he claims not to be. Maybe therein lies the real conundrum why left wingers try to deny their left wingedness and say that conservatives are the real nazis.
edit on 26-9-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 02:01 AM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 



Mr. Alinsky, who died in 1972 at age 63, was a Chicago-born social-movement organizer whose success has been praised by Democrats and Republicans alike. He was grudgingly admired by conservative hero William F. Buckley Jr., who called him "very close to being an organizational genius." Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, a Republican, gives copies of Mr. Alinsky's book "Rules for Radicals" to tea-party leaders.



Adam Brandon, spokesman for FreedomWorks, which has been organizing tea-party activists and includes Mr. Armey as chairman, says the group gives Mr. Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals" to its top leadership members. A shortened guide called "Rules for Patriots" is distributed to its entire network.


online.wsj.com...



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 02:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by sheepslayer247
 


It is no use arguing with these two, they see Leftist agenda on cereal boxes. Paranoid delusion abounds in their posts and there is absolutely no reasoning or debating. It matters not what Hitler/Mussolini called themselves... they used Socialist tools to lure in the masses and then turned on Unions, Communists etc... they turned on Socialism and ushered in Fascism, they both ruled as Fascists (ultra right wing) we know it, the world knows it.



Me three.
 


And I see the Hefty Lefty tactics are alive and well today !!

Grampaw Karl would be proud. After all, he started the whole agenda at the request of the Rothschilds of the day.

He did a good job as it seems to have convinced many supporters.

By design, the commie funnel has many filters at the narrow end.

What filters through depends on the screen size.


Here is some reference material for the beginners.....
(always be aware of this !!)

Rules for Radicals

Good Old Liberal Debate Tactics



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 02:09 AM
link   
reply to post by RealSpoke
 


Just because I've read the Communist Manifesto does not make me a communist or a Marxist. I believe in knowing what your enemy is about. But Alinksy's Rules for Radicals was written as a tool for leftist radicals as the title suggests, and Alinsky was a leftist radical.
How hard is this to understand?



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 02:12 AM
link   
What I've never understood, is why do people align themselves to a political party and class themselves as either Republican or Democrat, or here in Australia its either Labour or Liberal, in advance to an election ?
Wouldn't a more common sense approach be to not align one's self to a party and keep all options open and only select a party based on POLICY, rather than the party leaders personality or charisma ?
When people class themselves as Democrat or Republican, they have already made their decision and seem to vote for that party, regardless of that parties policies. I can't see how this can be a good thing for any society classing itself as a Democracy.
Here in the city i live in, its been known as a long time safe Labour seat. My parents, and most of my friends parents have all been long time Labour supporters and voters, and when the next election comes they will all more than likely all vote Labour again, despite this city having record unemployment, company closure after company closure,and job loss after job loss. Labour has knnown for a long time that this city is a safe seat and doesn't have to spend any money on this city because they know they have a safe seat and those long time life Labour voters will just keep voting Labour because they have already picked a side and refuse to accept any form of change.
Its only when a city falls into the "marginal" seat category that either party will take an interest in that city, trying to turn a marginal seat into a majority by investing in that city. But when a party knows its a safe seat, they spend no money because they know its safe because of the supporters that only vote one way for their entire voting life. The other party also realises that its a safe seat, so they stay away from that city, knowing they won't get the votes and leave it a one party city, which smacks in the face of a so-called Democracy !
Personally, I have never aligned myself to either party, firstly because this city will always vote labour as a majority and voting for the other party, Liberal, would just be a wasted vote.
So my advice is, don't class yourself as Democrat or Republican, class yourself as a citizen of the United States who will give their vote to the party with the best policies which are in the best interests of the United States people. And when by now, most people on ATS know that both parties in a 2 party system are really in bed together behind the scenes and both feeding from the same trough, then classing oneself as either Republican or Democrat really makes no sense, other than falling for the classic trick of divide and conquer, where the people align themselves to one side and are too busy arguing with each other, instead of focusing on the policies and making sure those "elected" carry out those promises and policies.
Once a politicain, either in the US or in Australia gets on the gravy train, then there is no 2 party system to them. there is just a gravy train, and they'll do what ever it takes to stay on it, even if it means selling you and your city down the drain.
The 2 party system is created to first of all, to split us all into 2 groups, then when each party has their own elections, we are split into even smaller groups depending on which candidate you may prefer [much like we already do by picking our sporting team and refusing to acknowledge any fair point raised by the rival teams supporters, who also do the same thing in return] . Divide and conquer at its most obvious !
So don't vote for a party, vote for a policy. If there are no policies that you agree with then exercise your right not to vote, and enjoy that right, as here in Australia we don't have it, we are forced to vote or face a fine, and only 2 parties have ever won "elections" in Australia while i've been alive, Labour or Liberal, so we a re forced to either vote Labour or Liberal, or vote for a smaller party which only see's our vote then go to one of the 2 parties, Labour or Liberal, under the preferential voting system we have here. Forcing people to vote and threatening with a fine is the absolute opposite of what a democracy is supposed to be. If we vote by policy and not by party, then the option of NOT voting should be available to the voter if they aren't happy with any of the parties policies.
Politicians always say that they represent THE people, they don't say "only represent VOTING people", but THE people. So hold them to this statement and enjoy your right not to vote if you don't like either sides policies. And if you've aligned yourself to a party but can;t agree on that parties policies, then perhaps its time to realise that keeping your options open and not aligning yourself to a party, was the smart option all along ?
While we keep falling for this 2 party system scam, we fall into a definition of insanity....................
"To do the same thing over and over, but expect a different outcome each time !"



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 02:15 AM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


This one works especially well around here


18. BAIT YOUR OPPONENT. Needle him, tease him, call him names until he makes an inappropriate post, then scream bloody murder to the Moderator.


battalions2.wordpress.com...



new topics

top topics



 
48
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join