The original 19th century European definition of left and right refers to where members of parliament were seated. Revolutionary socialists were seated on the left and militant monarchists were seated on the right. Since the USA has no king, there are no rightists of the traditional european sense here. So the right in the USA refers to the "classic liberals" who defend the constitution as the founding fathers intended it to be. Today's "classic liberals" are conservatives and libertarians.
@jadedmastermind Keep in mind, in the original seating in the French revolutionary assembly the Jacobins (who were the radical antimonarchists, antichristians and antifreemarketers) sat on the left, while the Girondins (who were constitutional republicans and constitutional monarchists) sat on the right.
@jadedmastermind Well put. although in the French revolutionary assembly (and the subsequent French republics) the radical socialists and jacobins sat on the left, while the moderate constitutional republicans and girondins sat on the right.
@peopleareapes, @drcruel, @jazzbo66zz, @laffin2much, @danwk7, Any 'coercive socialism' is unethical. And it's almost always the Leftists who organize 'thug groups'('brown shirts/ UAF') to disrupt, dis-invite, shout-down, or push-around dissenting speakers, demonstrations, etc.
Ask Ward Connerly re his efforts to offer ballot referendum questions against anti-White/anti-male policies.
I hate liberalism and I agree with Goldberg's charges of its close political proximation to fascism, but his attack of Hitler's abolition of state religion is hypocrisy beyond excuse - indoctrinating kids with your religion of choice is fascist. I'm glad he wrote his book but this man is no champion of liberty and justice
The very process of parenting can be described as "indoctrinating" the little savages into civility.
And there is no shortage of such "indoctrination" by Atheist parents of theirs, and everyone else's for that matter, whenever and wherever they have the opportunity.
The fascist part is when they do so by gov't force or sponsorship, e.g., through the Teachers' labor unions & universities, where atheist socialism is proselytized and entirely unopposed.
. . . it's almost as if we'll soon see anarchists and socialists marching in lock-step agreement at their countless "peace marches", as they lob Molotov Cocktails, bludgeon people, and otherwise attack Western civilization.
Jonah Goldberg speaks for the Fortune 500 & the ideology of big business. Deregulation and the suspension of law governing the conduct of American foreign policy and big business is symptomatic of liberalism. The conflation of liberty with unrestrained power over our lives by corporate hegemony is the Heritage Foundation's agenda and this explains why it was founded by corporate billionaires like Joseph Coors. In other words the interests of Haliburton and Bechtel are not advanced by democracy.
What bothers me is that the government doesnt have to force it that hard.. The individuals on the left are begging and pleading for fascism to control them.
Tyler, I commend you. Liberals are interested in nothing more than strengthening and perpetuating the power of the state and degrading those who oppose.
Goldberg's book SHOULD be required reading for all high school and college aged people.
the biggest problem with fascism, which he never really addresses - is that fascism constitutes the state control of the economy, its a command economy rather than a free-market economy based upon free enterprise. Socialists and fascists are exactly the same in that regard - but also, socialism taken to its logical conclusion is the 'whithering away of the state' - big government becomes zero gov't. that's the step that conservatives always leave out.
You mean communism in theory eventually whithers away the state, the in theory part is very important, because this massive switch from an extremist left wing totalitarianism to an extremist right wing anarchy is a ridiculous theory. You'll aways end up with totalitarianism that doesn't go away which is why we don't mention that in theory it's supposed to according to the communists.
Communism and socialism is dangerous. But atleast with "men" dictators you can revolt against them and overturn them (after all Hitler is dead!) but with "god" there is no room for disent....EVER It's inherently more dangerous (Look at Islam). Combine the 2 and we are f*ucked! We have to have a secular gov. with freedom of religion, but need to keep it seperate. Some of the conservatives are ruining the core of why people love individual freedom with all their religious retoric.
The fact that anyone would group conservatism with fascism or nazism still amazes me; the main point being that conservatives want to downsize government and its authority of the individual, while liberals believe they know whats best for everyone so they want to pass policies they think will improve everyone's lives. Sounds nice, but they themselves dont even know that my last sentence is just a smiley term for government control. They dont seem to understand what fascism actually is.
Conservatives don't want to downsize the government you idiot. Conservatives want to make federal laws laws that interfere with legal contracts between consenting adults. They want to tell consenting adults what they can and cannot do in the privacy of their own bedroom. They want to continue to dump resources into a failed war on drugs. They want to tell women what to do with their bodies etc. Oh, and let's not forget about the patriot act.
Social issues aside, the expansion of government is antithetical to the tenents of American conservatism in general. I am a conservative, but I do not personally believe in any of the ideas presented above, except that I am absolutely pro-life in all circumstances, which includes my opposition to capital punisment. The fundamental point Mr. Goldberg is trying to make is that the conservative-fascist comparison is based on mischaracterizations of both ideologies, as well as being purely illogical
Heres the problem, American conservatism is purely American. Fascism in European and most of its values are radically conservative. Hinting from the sound of the word, conservatism aims to CONSERVE traditional values, fascism does just that in a violent and oppressive way. Socialism aims to do quite the opposite.
Im not convinced that your logical reasoning and understanding of history and historiography is genuine. Furthermore, im done trying to have a discourse with you right wing nuts, take care
@peopleareapes well libs are for big goverment and think we should all be oblogated to the state or people as libs would put it ! thats when government force is used !
@peopleareapes The problem being that Nazism was quite anti-conservative, indeed violently so. They were also extremely socialist.
If you want to make a claim for fascism being conservative, you'd be better put to stick to the Iberian models. In fact Spanish fascism, at least under Franco, was quite classically Rightist - Franco was a monarchist and a friend of the Catholic church. So also, to a somewhat lesser extent, was Salazar of Portugal. But the Falange was much more "Leftist".
So even though historically and currently even though the BNP gets most of their support from those on the left, the dishonest labour party and media parrot the lie that they are a right wing facist party, when in fact they are a fascist party with left wing socialist policies
The BNP here in the uk are called in the media as right wing facsits because they they have a policy for races that are not indigenous to the uk to return to their countries of origin but the fact is that their policies on the whole are socialist which is goverment intervention and control and most of their supporters come from the disillousioned labour voters and that is because the accusation is the labour party is not left wing enough so they gravitate to the left wing BNP.
Goldberg is trying to insinuate that those who support feasible socialism, which originally began as a Christian movement, also support the genocide of Jews and non-white people as did the German National Socialists! Now that is a fallacy if I ever saw one. So in Goldberg's mind, if I favor Social Security Insurance (SSI) I must be a Nazi who supports the murder of Jews.
i think its generally held by civilized man that almost all fascists have hidden their fascism behind happy-sounding words.
The L-word has no innate repellent qualities thereof.
The term itself -- Liberal Fascism -- was proposed by a so-called Liberal of the era, before that particular brand of socialism showed its fangs, and specifically for use as a self descriptive title for his political ilk.
Ideas are what need "defending", as you put it, not merely the words used to refer to them by proponents, or by opponents to deceive. Distinction is epsecially needed if the latter succeed.
Less cautiously, pre-McCarthy, American socialists openly advocated the tactic of hiding under the L-word. They have since succeeded.
Today's so-called Liberals are disparate socialist tribes aligned only by their mutual contempt of classical liberalism; of American ideals.
i dont think its fair of you to clump all liberals in that basket, for example, im an anarchist, a socialist philosophy, and a liberal belief to. but it hasn't got so much to do with comtempt for capitalism (although thats part of it) but statism. decides theres a lot to be said about ''american ideals'' all of it bad from me, when i think of american ideals i think ''money money money''
The first thing socialists do when holding government authority is take monopolistic control of all forms of education and media, and use them both to proselytize their toxic notions. The governments of Western civilization are infested with such types.
E.g., in the USA, the media is typically 90% Democrat. The teachers' labor unions' exec's are 100% Democrat. And Europeans consider ours LESS biased.
Thus, your bizarre misunderstanding of free enterprise is neither surprising nor rare.
You're right, the facts never speak any truth. Where is he wrong?
What's this ''understanding'' the left? I think he understands the left, he doesn't agree with it, but to most leftists not agreeing with left wing politics is just not understanding it. Funny how facts have nothing to do with left wing politics and beliefs. It's full of theory and moral relativism.
Stating that Hitler was a vegetarian who loved whole grains, and Himmler loved his dog etc, and these similarities to modern liberals makes them all fascists, is ludicrous! There are thousands of books written on this era and this one would have failed the required peer review standard. It is exactly this type of lazy intellectualism that keeps conservatives out the halls of higher education! If he hates being called a fascist, he should look at himself instead of attempting to rewrite history.
What keeps Conservatives "out the halls of higher education" are the Liberal fascists who own and control them; who have owned and controlled them ever since they kicked McCarthy's ass.
To the victor went the spoils.
Once children grow up and mature, many realize the wall of lies and deceptions, and seek a more reasoned understanding of the world around them. That is why Conservative books sell and Liberals' don't.
See the video's description section ("more info") for links to other books.
The Nazi Party came to power in Germany in 1933 as a direct counter to Bolshevik Socialism, inspired by Vladimir Lenin, which was spreading rapidly through Europe at that time. The fact that both Bolshevik Socialism and National Socialism contain the word socialism, does not mean that Hitler was a socialist. These two movements are opposite ends of the political spectrum. One is far left, the other is far right. No amount of spin doctoring on the part of Mr. Goldberg can change that fact.
So we're in agreement that all Socialism sucks, right? And therefore we should strive for the opposite of socialism right? So why did you vote for a Socialist again? The thing Lenin and Stalin had in common was that they both believed the state (under themselves) knows best, which is what today's democrat party believes. You liberals have caveats for every one of your beliefs - it's funny to watch you chasing your tails around in circles.
The reason for the counter was that they were competing for the same followers. They were nearly Identical. The rhetoric WAS identical and the actions were also.
it's kinda odd to me that it's always refered to the jewish holocaust when it was a Christian Holocaust.I think people should think a little more about what some evil people will do to further their cause.Go look up the Name Ashkenazi Jew,.most history is not all that accurate.the worst holocaust that should always be remembered is the Native American Holocaust which we did.fu** anyone who thinks themselves more important than another we are more than our outer shell of flesh
So you don't like Goldberg's personality, therefore he is wrong? I have noticed that people who use the word "opinionated" as an epithet usually suffer from the same character flaw.
haha We're all opinionated. To deny that is to deny your own existence. What he is saying is true. I wasn't listening very hard when I heard him say that. He was imitating a hippie i guess, saying that the conservatives are to blame for our current situation. Real conservatives are not what people have made them out to be(war mongers and devout nationalists). These people are neo-cons. We've turned into a complete imperialistic mindset as a country. America = World Police
Consider learning history instead of pasting unhappy words on your opposition while claiming ownership of all happy words. And there's no need for you to apologize for your ignorance.
Unlike you, I actually went to college. While neither the left or right, liberal or conservatives in America can be considered strictly "fascist" The main social gears of fascism have always been.
Nationalism, An extreme form of blind patriotism
Anti-intellectualism, a hatred for universities and colleges.
Anti-multiculuralism, a one language, one culture state.
Austin W. Bramwell for the American conservative agrees that Goldberg misrepresents the term liberalism.
Nationalism -- The Left LOVE labor price-fixing cartels, whose motto for generations is "Buy American". Obama originally called his pro-labor-cartel law initiative the "Patriot Employers Act"
Anti-intellectualism -- Universities blacklist & deride any & all who dissent from Liberal fascism. Their hatred spills over into violence and overt censorship. Conservatives invited to speak are routinely shut down, & require body guards.
The quote evidences the political bent of the entire faculty who selected the genocidal racist in a peer review process over countless other applicants. You mistakenly, tacitly, acknowledged that such is Liberal, which is insightful all by itself. Your refusal to examine anything, even your own mind, doesn't make the observation "irrelevant".
Though you appear to be innoculated from reality, here's an article for the reader's edification on this topic:
I really doubt he would be expressing his "genocidal racist" views during selection (he's an African American studies professor) or has ever shown them outside of C-SPAN.
Has it ever occurred that conservatism and intelligence don't go hand in hand? Seriously some of the best minds in history are all very liberal (just my opinion I realize it's a fallacy).
Also there are "conservative" universities so I don't see you're problem.
I merely pointed to the toxic effects of Liberal fascism. I never suggested that you would see any problem with it.
As for the "best minds in history", if you find any liberals prior to FDR, then you're talking about classical liberalism which is the polar opposite of its modern fraud.
Modern liberals are typified by those who select genocidal racist law professors in a peer review process.
No intelligent people are always left leaning even in the "modern liberal" sense.
I love how you use the one professor for a thing he said once to try to represent the whole of liberals as "mindless fascists" because individual freedoms are just so fascist.
Now we can add intelligence to the list of words your fail to comprehend.
As for the peer reviewed, vetted genocidal racists rewarded and selected by Liberals, the one example I provided is one more than you offer to back up your twaddle.
Kevin MacDonald thinks Jews where inherently and racially different even before the holocaust and thinks Eugenics works. His academic work is considered mediocre but is loved by neo-nazi groups.
According to Liberal faculty, MacDonald advocates nothing of the sort of your genocidal racist.
I QUOTED your vetted genocidal racist, and the best you can do is put words in the mouth of a scientist whose findings & theory on evolutionary psychology disturbs you.
Even there, all you did was expose your ignorance & amorality regarding eugenics, which is openly practiced by left- & right-wing socialists. Scientists don't question whether or not eugenics "works", but rather its depravity.
There you go again appealing to a nonexistent authority. You have yet to articulate ANY reasoning for your claims of racism.
As for "how" your genocidal racists are vetted, ask the faculty at Howard University Law School who vetted their genocidal racist, choosing him over all other applicants for the professorship to which they appointed him.
Your fits of stupor are progressing toward idiocy.
I already said why the guy was racist, he thinks Jews are inherently different (even without the holocaust) and states that jews have hurt other gentiles in their various political movements.
"I already said why" -- and I already noted that you put words in his mouth to portray him as a racist.
Also, he's a radical LIBERAL who marched with Democrats when they aided & abetted the communist North Vietnamese in their war against Sout Vietnam & the USA.
Further, Identity Politics are advocated, adored, sponsored & practiced by Liberals, and rejected by Conservatives.
Indeed, whenever Conservatives object to Identity Politics -- e.g., The Black Caucus -- Democrats squeal "racist".
Are you really so ignorant of history that you ignore that fact that North Vietnam (communists) wanted elections while South Vietnam (capitalists) didn't?
Did I just shatter your black and white world view?
You leave it out of context, even though you're not telling the whole story.
But putting the "who wanted democracy" discussion aside, had the N Vietnamese won, the South knew they'd be harrassed slaughtered by the millions. Very similar to the situation in the Spanish Civil War.
Well, the North got their way eventually. Congrats, 2 million dead.
"You can pick communist A or communist B" yeah that's completely different then picking "capitalist A or capitalist B". or "republican A or republican B".
Basic property rights, the right to leave the country, the right to engage in commerce, the right to choose your school.
I suggest a trip to Garden Grove CA where you can meet many of these supposed dictatorial people who fled the N Vietnamese regime. You'll find that they love freedom.
I like that it's a "fact" that the South Vietnamese "didn't have any rights." Again, go to Garden Grove CA and say that line. People would laugh you off the street.
What's funny is how capitalism is dominating the landscape in Vietnam today.
Setting aside your ignorance of Nazism -- it's a sect of socialism,not conservatism -- the only ones sponsoring Nazi rallies are Liberal Democrat organizations, e.g., the ACLU.
I don't know if you know what the word "sponsor" means. It means to financially support an event. The ACLU never sponsored Nazi rallies, but they did represent the ANP in court when there was a challenge against their right to free speech. They did the same for the Klu Klux Klan. Do you believe that liberals are hard core white supremecists as well?
Financial sponsorship is ONE type of sponsorship. Providing free legal services is sponsorship. Vouching for someone is sponsorship. Advocating for someone is sponsorship.
Learn the English language.
The ACLU sponsors ALL of Americas genocidal racist organizations, from the Democrat spawned KKK to the La Raza (The Race).
More notably, there are VASTLY more such well educated, rich Liberal scum than there are in the tiny groups they sponsor.
Reciting your original idiocy doesn't make it any less fallacious, especially so after I debunked it.
Again, Neo-nazism is based on Nazism, which is socialist, not conservative.
Again, the groups sponsoring Neo-Nazis are so-called Liberal, not Conservative.
Rather than posting a presumptuous question, try logic, reasoning and/or lessons of history to back up your claim. What characteristic of "neo-nazis" would you claim are conservative?
Was arson and knee surgery mainly done by criminals? (Do attempt lucidity.)
Democrats are the party of slavery, segregation, Jim Crow laws, & the KKK. Today, Democrats federally enforce "affirmative" race-based discrimination across a rainbow of races.
Contrarily, "Southern Strategy" is a blurb from a TV interview of some guy in the 1970's, from which Democrats conjured an entire mythology, which smears their racist stink on those who fight it.
Modern Liberalism is the polar opposite of classical liberalism, as Goldberg discusses at length. As I've pointed to, Liberals today LOVE fascism and all manner of socialist and totalitarian government. Most recently, they've even criminalized soap, in Oregon.
And the Civil Rights Act was "created" by Congress and passed with 80% Rep approval, and only about 60% Democrats.
There are so many glaring facets of the historical record which debunk the Democrat's Southern Strategy mythology that one wonders what mental dysfunction causes them to cling to their mythology so stubbornly.
Nixon ran on a campaign for "states rights" in 1968 (as in against the Civil rights act) to appeal to the south. The worst was George Wallace who ran as an independent in 1968.
Carter didn't try to get southern voters angry at the civil rights act when he ran.
What the fuck are you talking about? Are you seriously denying the fact that Nixon tried to appeal to racist voters by using "states rights" to imply that he was going to get rid of the civil rights act?
First, Carter is far more racist than Nixon. Just read his books.
Second, you totally ignore the context of "states rights" and back it up with no evidence. You hanged yourself as all libs do trying to make this false claim.
Nixon desegregated public schools & repeatedly called segregation a moral evil. Even against JFK who refused to acknowledge it.
READ, READ, READ. Stop spouting off stupid stuff. Stop reading unsourced Wikipedia articles. Read transcripts, not NY Times op/eds.
It's called having no evidence and just reporting a lie back and forth to each other over and over again for years until it becomes a "fact" relayed on a YouTube comment section.
Being for states' rights does not connote being a racist, no matter what the NYT says, no matter how much the media bootstrap.
I am sure gay people in Massachusetts love their states' rights too.
Jesus christ do you not understand how back then "states rights" was essentially a code word for "get rid of the civil rights act"?
A lot of southern states opposed the legislation so when people (mostly George Wallace) campaigned for States' rights it was implied to mean that (as voter percentages showed).
Also there weren't even that many "states' rights" the federal government even controlled at that point.
Around the time it was used as a code word for pro-segregation politicians.
Obviously it has other meanings wasn't always used to mean that but around that time it was predominantly used to mean "get rid of the civil rights bill"
I never said said any of that. You literally just put words in my mouth and used a straw man.
But yes during the 68 election "states rights" was a code word for abolishing the civil rights bill and I guess by extension "racist".
Ever notice how the endpoint of all conservative discussions ends with conservatives calling liberals socialist, fascist or using straw man arguments?
I'm not left or right. But I'm curious. Are conservative christians anti-health/environment? I guess Jesus will save us from this polluted earth, so who cares what we do to it while we're here.
I REPEAT, THERE IS NO LEFT OR RIGHT ONLY CORPORATIONS. Don't fall into the trap of left vs right.
no conservatives are not anti health or enviorment. conservatives are pro individualism. if your question stems from the media saying conservatives dissagree with nationalized healthcare and the global warming craze then ill comment this way......the healthcare system in america is the technological advanced in the world. we have the best doctors and tools. now with saying that unfortunately to recieve certain services comes at a premium. if healthcare were to be socialized..(cont)..
(cont)..then obviously everyone would be eligible to any type of service/treatment. the problem is that the cost for service will have to be compted from somewhere. thats where the average working taxpayer comes in. in essence they will be paying the tab in the form of higher installed taxes to compensate for services/treatment rendured but the inability to pay. basically since im working i am able to fork out more taxes for the people that dont work and honestly wont need to, to recieve care
Enviorment. - Its common knowledge that global warming is an issue on both sides..left and right..but as a conservative I think governemt should not be the ones to regulate businesses to adjust their production and make it "green".point in case the auto industry..the production of hybrid electric cars were demanded by government to offset the demand of oil whether it be foreign or domestic. Production of these type of vehicles require that these companies re-tool their entire operation..(cont)
(cont/enviorment)..This meant that the automakers had to invest more financially into each car made. if you invest into something with low return you eventually end up in debt. yeah sure the sales of green cars rose during the gas prices spikes..but now that the cost is low again no one feels the need to buy these "gas sippers". now the automakers are in horrible debt..mostly in the name of governemt demanding eco friendly cars. i as a conservative believe u or i have the right to buy any car!
Well put, but devout Democrats aren't as ignorant as their posts attempt to demonstrate. It's much worse than that. They are inoculated from reality.
Notice that the devotee first claims to be "not left or right", and then immediately recites a caricature of a Leftist contrivance to deride the so-called Right.
Clearly, that evidences more than merely ignorance; it's a rabid devotion to what is aptly termed political theology -- modern Liberalism.
i looked up the meaning of "democrat" and it said one who believes in social equality or discounts distinctions in rank. now you tell me what that sounds like..to me that sounds like communist beliefs. here we have obama wanting to spread wealth for the equality of all. so what hes saying is individualism is wrong because no one should have more or less..and when i have my way this is how its going to be!
Yes, socialists are always marketing their toxic policies under happy-sounding words and phrases.
Equality -- of what, is the question. The socialist answer is of outcomes, not of rules.
Socialists boast of their double standards and selective application of rules, and will even point to the damage they inflict as if it evidences a need for more of them -- from tax rates to "affirmative" racism.
I support the 1st amendment, therefore I am opposed to the Democrats and the Obamocracy.
I support the 1st amendment, therefore I am opposed to fascist liberal HOLLYWOOD hypocrites who would do everything they could to prevent you or I from speaking,but they would totally flip out if anyone tried to do the same thing to them.
And when you realize this, it becomes easier to see why the right-wing is likened to the Nazi's since a great deal of the idioliogy is derived from the bible. The bible whose scripture the right wing is always trying to have enacted into law.
There is only one party in America who is proud that we judicially segregated the citizenry into protected and unprotected classes, just as did the Nazis.
Communist gulags were pretty terrible too; the thing that holds Nazism and communism together is statism. Collectivism erodes respect for individual human beings, individual life.
As a liberal (a capitalist with a conscience) I seek to find the source of where the left turned right. I often am led back to the early 1900's with the beginnings of the American Historical Association and then on to the mid 1950's where much of the confusion of how liberal movements were orchestrated by socialists. I believe there's truth in the middle, but the middle keeps moving, no doubt by the wealthy socialist internationals known as "The GROUP."
In the 50's, a congressional investigation was ordered by Rep. Carroll Reece. Norman Dodd was appt. lead investigator. The objective was to determine motives of tax-exempt foundations.
Simply put the agenda of these foundations were to take control of the public education system through the state dept and direct capitalism with a conscience (democracy) towards socialism. In Dodds words to "merge the US with the Russia."
This was the ideology, not a physical process The slimy path can be traced.
i take some exception to that statement "a capitalist with a conscience" as being the definition of a liberal. Liberals can often be the most hypocritical group out there, calling the right racists, bigots, and a group of evil men (the same claims they "hate" the right for). They seek freedom throuh government intvernetion and increasing the size of government to solve EVERY problem. All the "leaders" of theses international corporations are socialists (liberals with no conscience)
I take acception that free-enterprise is evil and someone has to have to adjust it. I don't see the logic in this when I know a lot of business owners who are good people and are no worse than anyone else. I would like to know if we can say "unionist" with a concionse.
No it's not that modern liberals are denial of humanity's darker aspects. It's that they SEE humanity as such. Evil ideas are projected by evil mindsets - the whole "I'm the moon reflecting on water" Buddhist THING. Comes down to whether you believe that people are inherently good (capitalism) or evil (Socialims) & MUST BE CONTROLLED AND/OR ERRADICATED
The original 19th century European definition of left and right refers to where members of parliament were seated. Revolutionary socialists were seated on the left and militant monarchists were seated on the right. Since the USA has no king, there are no rightists of the traditional european sense here. So the right in the USA refers to the "classic liberals" who defend the constitution as the founding fathers intended it to be. Today's "classic liberals" are conservatives and libertarians.
jadedmastermind 4 months ago
@jadedmastermind Keep in mind, in the original seating in the French revolutionary assembly the Jacobins (who were the radical antimonarchists, antichristians and antifreemarketers) sat on the left, while the Girondins (who were constitutional republicans and constitutional monarchists) sat on the right.
pittland44 1 month ago
@jadedmastermind Well put. although in the French revolutionary assembly (and the subsequent French republics) the radical socialists and jacobins sat on the left, while the moderate constitutional republicans and girondins sat on the right.
pittland44 1 month ago
@peopleareapes, @drcruel, @jazzbo66zz, @laffin2much, @danwk7, Any 'coercive socialism' is unethical. And it's almost always the Leftists who organize 'thug groups'('brown shirts/ UAF') to disrupt, dis-invite, shout-down, or push-around dissenting speakers, demonstrations, etc.
Ask Ward Connerly re his efforts to offer ballot referendum questions against anti-White/anti-male policies.
ProNorden 7 months ago
I hate liberalism and I agree with Goldberg's charges of its close political proximation to fascism, but his attack of Hitler's abolition of state religion is hypocrisy beyond excuse - indoctrinating kids with your religion of choice is fascist. I'm glad he wrote his book but this man is no champion of liberty and justice
acphenom 8 months ago
@acphenom
Parenting a child is fascist?
The very process of parenting can be described as "indoctrinating" the little savages into civility.
And there is no shortage of such "indoctrination" by Atheist parents of theirs, and everyone else's for that matter, whenever and wherever they have the opportunity.
The fascist part is when they do so by gov't force or sponsorship, e.g., through the Teachers' labor unions & universities, where atheist socialism is proselytized and entirely unopposed.
TylerNull 7 months ago 4
left and right, two hands of the same devil, theres only good and bad. truth, freedom, humanity. end all empires!
slade420 1 year ago
@slade420
. . . it's almost as if we'll soon see anarchists and socialists marching in lock-step agreement at their countless "peace marches", as they lob Molotov Cocktails, bludgeon people, and otherwise attack Western civilization.
Oops, they've been doing that for GENERATIONS.
TylerNull 1 year ago 10
Hitler sounded just like John Lennon here. I'm not surprised.
ronpaulisacommunist 1 year ago 4
National socialism = RACIST left wing nationalism
Marxist LIBERATION THEOLOGY = racist socialism too
Racist KKK nazi Democrats are Satanic Marxist theocrats,hahaha.
LFETISTS are trying to end freedom on this planet and create some kind of unholy new world order.
God bless America and Israel. ; )
ronpaulisacommunist 1 year ago 4
Jonah Goldberg speaks for the Fortune 500 & the ideology of big business. Deregulation and the suspension of law governing the conduct of American foreign policy and big business is symptomatic of liberalism. The conflation of liberty with unrestrained power over our lives by corporate hegemony is the Heritage Foundation's agenda and this explains why it was founded by corporate billionaires like Joseph Coors. In other words the interests of Haliburton and Bechtel are not advanced by democracy.
jazzbo66zz 1 year ago
What bothers me is that the government doesnt have to force it that hard.. The individuals on the left are begging and pleading for fascism to control them.
SwingingDickOfDoom 1 year ago
Tyler, I commend you. Liberals are interested in nothing more than strengthening and perpetuating the power of the state and degrading those who oppose.
Goldberg's book SHOULD be required reading for all high school and college aged people.
laffin2much 1 year ago 4
the biggest problem with fascism, which he never really addresses - is that fascism constitutes the state control of the economy, its a command economy rather than a free-market economy based upon free enterprise. Socialists and fascists are exactly the same in that regard - but also, socialism taken to its logical conclusion is the 'whithering away of the state' - big government becomes zero gov't. that's the step that conservatives always leave out.
MrSodapopinski51 2 years ago
You mean communism in theory eventually whithers away the state, the in theory part is very important, because this massive switch from an extremist left wing totalitarianism to an extremist right wing anarchy is a ridiculous theory. You'll aways end up with totalitarianism that doesn't go away which is why we don't mention that in theory it's supposed to according to the communists.
retsep81 2 years ago
So true, its quite the opposite of big government, Rome killed Christ b/c he was not following the rules and was a threat.
mycaddigo 2 years ago
So fricken true
mycaddigo 2 years ago
Communism and socialism is dangerous. But atleast with "men" dictators you can revolt against them and overturn them (after all Hitler is dead!) but with "god" there is no room for disent....EVER It's inherently more dangerous (Look at Islam). Combine the 2 and we are f*ucked! We have to have a secular gov. with freedom of religion, but need to keep it seperate. Some of the conservatives are ruining the core of why people love individual freedom with all their religious retoric.
InFromTheVoid 2 years ago
how is God a dictator?
Yes, God is the immortal influence of certain dictators, like communism is the immortal influence of other dictators...
Dadutta 2 years ago
The fact that anyone would group conservatism with fascism or nazism still amazes me; the main point being that conservatives want to downsize government and its authority of the individual, while liberals believe they know whats best for everyone so they want to pass policies they think will improve everyone's lives. Sounds nice, but they themselves dont even know that my last sentence is just a smiley term for government control. They dont seem to understand what fascism actually is.
Rammagith 2 years ago 25
Conservatives don't want to downsize the government you idiot. Conservatives want to make federal laws laws that interfere with legal contracts between consenting adults. They want to tell consenting adults what they can and cannot do in the privacy of their own bedroom. They want to continue to dump resources into a failed war on drugs. They want to tell women what to do with their bodies etc. Oh, and let's not forget about the patriot act.
hitballfootler 2 years ago
Social issues aside, the expansion of government is antithetical to the tenents of American conservatism in general. I am a conservative, but I do not personally believe in any of the ideas presented above, except that I am absolutely pro-life in all circumstances, which includes my opposition to capital punisment. The fundamental point Mr. Goldberg is trying to make is that the conservative-fascist comparison is based on mischaracterizations of both ideologies, as well as being purely illogical
Hesperell 2 years ago
Heres the problem, American conservatism is purely American. Fascism in European and most of its values are radically conservative. Hinting from the sound of the word, conservatism aims to CONSERVE traditional values, fascism does just that in a violent and oppressive way. Socialism aims to do quite the opposite.
peopleareapes 2 years ago
Fascism is the liberal use of government force, therefore Liberals are fascists.
(See, I can do it too.)
TylerNull 2 years ago 5
How is the use of government force by definition liberal?
peopleareapes 2 years ago
I'm not convinced that your English incomprehension is genuine, and even if it is that doesn't leave much room for discourse.
TylerNull 2 years ago
Im not convinced that your logical reasoning and understanding of history and historiography is genuine. Furthermore, im done trying to have a discourse with you right wing nuts, take care
peopleareapes 2 years ago
@peopleareapes
left wing nazi scum
shutupstupid9 2 years ago
how is communism communism in anything but name? but that's the name it uses, so that's the name we use -
Dadutta 2 years ago
@peopleareapes
liberal = goverment control of people
shutupstupid9 2 years ago
@peopleareapes well libs are for big goverment and think we should all be oblogated to the state or people as libs would put it ! thats when government force is used !
shutupstupid9 1 year ago
@peopleareapes Liberals want everything done by the government. Big government is a trademark of the left.
danwk7 1 year ago
@peopleareapes The problem being that Nazism was quite anti-conservative, indeed violently so. They were also extremely socialist.
If you want to make a claim for fascism being conservative, you'd be better put to stick to the Iberian models. In fact Spanish fascism, at least under Franco, was quite classically Rightist - Franco was a monarchist and a friend of the Catholic church. So also, to a somewhat lesser extent, was Salazar of Portugal. But the Falange was much more "Leftist".
DrCruel 1 year ago
So even though historically and currently even though the BNP gets most of their support from those on the left, the dishonest labour party and media parrot the lie that they are a right wing facist party, when in fact they are a fascist party with left wing socialist policies
ProudToBLoud 2 years ago
The BNP here in the uk are called in the media as right wing facsits because they they have a policy for races that are not indigenous to the uk to return to their countries of origin but the fact is that their policies on the whole are socialist which is goverment intervention and control and most of their supporters come from the disillousioned labour voters and that is because the accusation is the labour party is not left wing enough so they gravitate to the left wing BNP.
ProudToBLoud 2 years ago
Goldberg is trying to insinuate that those who support feasible socialism, which originally began as a Christian movement, also support the genocide of Jews and non-white people as did the German National Socialists! Now that is a fallacy if I ever saw one. So in Goldberg's mind, if I favor Social Security Insurance (SSI) I must be a Nazi who supports the murder of Jews.
mujaku 2 years ago
Read his book--he discusses all of your points. You have it all wrong.
toiseywoisey 2 years ago
i think its generally held by most historians that almost all fasists have been extemely anti liberal.
Aeon135 2 years ago
i think its generally held by civilized man that almost all fascists have hidden their fascism behind happy-sounding words.
The L-word has no innate repellent qualities thereof.
The term itself -- Liberal Fascism -- was proposed by a so-called Liberal of the era, before that particular brand of socialism showed its fangs, and specifically for use as a self descriptive title for his political ilk.
TylerNull 2 years ago
a real shame too, it seems your defending liberalism now, fascists hid behind it, is that what your saying?
Aeon135 2 years ago 2
Ideas are what need "defending", as you put it, not merely the words used to refer to them by proponents, or by opponents to deceive. Distinction is epsecially needed if the latter succeed.
Less cautiously, pre-McCarthy, American socialists openly advocated the tactic of hiding under the L-word. They have since succeeded.
Today's so-called Liberals are disparate socialist tribes aligned only by their mutual contempt of classical liberalism; of American ideals.
TylerNull 2 years ago
i dont think its fair of you to clump all liberals in that basket, for example, im an anarchist, a socialist philosophy, and a liberal belief to. but it hasn't got so much to do with comtempt for capitalism (although thats part of it) but statism. decides theres a lot to be said about ''american ideals'' all of it bad from me, when i think of american ideals i think ''money money money''
Aeon135 2 years ago
The first thing socialists do when holding government authority is take monopolistic control of all forms of education and media, and use them both to proselytize their toxic notions. The governments of Western civilization are infested with such types.
E.g., in the USA, the media is typically 90% Democrat. The teachers' labor unions' exec's are 100% Democrat. And Europeans consider ours LESS biased.
Thus, your bizarre misunderstanding of free enterprise is neither surprising nor rare.
TylerNull 2 years ago
someone has just informed me by PM that i should not argue with you because your are a fascist, so i wont, goodbye
Aeon135 2 years ago
No reasoning mind will require a private message (PM) to conclude that you are easily led by like minded dolts who bitterly cling to socialist dogma.
Good riddance.
TylerNull 2 years ago 2
If you think "money" then you are simply misinformed about American Ideals.
The Ideals of America are FREEDOM FREEDOM and FREEDOM.
ToddAldrich 2 years ago 5
I think it would be a miss-label to call American democrats liberal.
mackdan7 2 years ago
fuck this guys is full of shit, doesnt even understand left wing ideas but still talk about the left like he knows what they preach.
hithlum 2 years ago
You're right, the facts never speak any truth. Where is he wrong?
What's this ''understanding'' the left? I think he understands the left, he doesn't agree with it, but to most leftists not agreeing with left wing politics is just not understanding it. Funny how facts have nothing to do with left wing politics and beliefs. It's full of theory and moral relativism.
usmm05 2 years ago 4
Stating that Hitler was a vegetarian who loved whole grains, and Himmler loved his dog etc, and these similarities to modern liberals makes them all fascists, is ludicrous! There are thousands of books written on this era and this one would have failed the required peer review standard. It is exactly this type of lazy intellectualism that keeps conservatives out the halls of higher education! If he hates being called a fascist, he should look at himself instead of attempting to rewrite history.
mrekbass 2 years ago
What keeps Conservatives "out the halls of higher education" are the Liberal fascists who own and control them; who have owned and controlled them ever since they kicked McCarthy's ass.
To the victor went the spoils.
Once children grow up and mature, many realize the wall of lies and deceptions, and seek a more reasoned understanding of the world around them. That is why Conservative books sell and Liberals' don't.
See the video's description section ("more info") for links to other books.
TylerNull 2 years ago
Those are NOT the reasons they are fascists!!! Those were just instances of agreement.
As for the Fascism it is the supremacy of the state over the rights of the individual.
THAT is EXACTLY what the LEFT is foisting on us today.
ToddAldrich 2 years ago 7
Would it be funny if...at the moment that Mussolini dared God to strike him down...OUTSIDE, lightning and thunder would crash?
youtube the
novanine9 2 years ago 2
The Nazi Party came to power in Germany in 1933 as a direct counter to Bolshevik Socialism, inspired by Vladimir Lenin, which was spreading rapidly through Europe at that time. The fact that both Bolshevik Socialism and National Socialism contain the word socialism, does not mean that Hitler was a socialist. These two movements are opposite ends of the political spectrum. One is far left, the other is far right. No amount of spin doctoring on the part of Mr. Goldberg can change that fact.
mrekbass 2 years ago
"...a direct counter to Bolshevik Socialism"
Yes, the National Socialist Workers' Party (NAZI) opposed another sect of socialism. So, what?
The king of England and the king of France "opposed" each other. Does that mean that the king of England was "the opposite" of a monarchy?
Do more thinking and less mindless recitals of socialist mythology and socialist dogma.
TylerNull 2 years ago
So we're in agreement that all Socialism sucks, right? And therefore we should strive for the opposite of socialism right? So why did you vote for a Socialist again? The thing Lenin and Stalin had in common was that they both believed the state (under themselves) knows best, which is what today's democrat party believes. You liberals have caveats for every one of your beliefs - it's funny to watch you chasing your tails around in circles.
stoutamire77 2 years ago 3
The reason for the counter was that they were competing for the same followers. They were nearly Identical. The rhetoric WAS identical and the actions were also.
ToddAldrich 2 years ago
it's kinda odd to me that it's always refered to the jewish holocaust when it was a Christian Holocaust.I think people should think a little more about what some evil people will do to further their cause.Go look up the Name Ashkenazi Jew,.most history is not all that accurate.the worst holocaust that should always be remembered is the Native American Holocaust which we did.fu** anyone who thinks themselves more important than another we are more than our outer shell of flesh
jesse2076 2 years ago
So you don't like Goldberg's personality, therefore he is wrong? I have noticed that people who use the word "opinionated" as an epithet usually suffer from the same character flaw.
dragknuckle 2 years ago 4
haha We're all opinionated. To deny that is to deny your own existence. What he is saying is true. I wasn't listening very hard when I heard him say that. He was imitating a hippie i guess, saying that the conservatives are to blame for our current situation. Real conservatives are not what people have made them out to be(war mongers and devout nationalists). These people are neo-cons. We've turned into a complete imperialistic mindset as a country. America = World Police
ThePoisonYouth 2 years ago
Fascism in the past has been more about conservative ideology. Sorry, That's just the way it is.
jrmsher33 2 years ago
Consider learning history instead of pasting unhappy words on your opposition while claiming ownership of all happy words. And there's no need for you to apologize for your ignorance.
TylerNull 2 years ago
Unlike you, I actually went to college. While neither the left or right, liberal or conservatives in America can be considered strictly "fascist" The main social gears of fascism have always been.
Nationalism, An extreme form of blind patriotism
Anti-intellectualism, a hatred for universities and colleges.
Anti-multiculuralism, a one language, one culture state.
Austin W. Bramwell for the American conservative agrees that Goldberg misrepresents the term liberalism.
Whose ignorant?
jrmsher33 2 years ago
Nationalism -- The Left LOVE labor price-fixing cartels, whose motto for generations is "Buy American". Obama originally called his pro-labor-cartel law initiative the "Patriot Employers Act"
Anti-intellectualism -- Universities blacklist & deride any & all who dissent from Liberal fascism. Their hatred spills over into violence and overt censorship. Conservatives invited to speak are routinely shut down, & require body guards.
(word limit)
Your politics are divorced from reality.
TylerNull 2 years ago
Please show me this "blacklist" all universities apparently have.
KidsTrax 2 years ago
If you ever attend college, you will experience it for yourself.
Here's an example of what university faculty select as their peers:
"The only solution in my estimation is to exterminate white people. We have to exterminate white people off of the face of the planet."
-- Professor Kamau Kambon,
Howard University Law School,
C-SPAN, October 14, 2005
TylerNull 2 years ago
Oh cool a single irrelevant quote. That clearly counts as evidence there is a conservative blacklist....
Seriously you don't think conservative professors said stupid shit before? That quote doesn't even illustrate a "blacklist" it's just a stupid quote.
KidsTrax 2 years ago
The quote evidences the political bent of the entire faculty who selected the genocidal racist in a peer review process over countless other applicants. You mistakenly, tacitly, acknowledged that such is Liberal, which is insightful all by itself. Your refusal to examine anything, even your own mind, doesn't make the observation "irrelevant".
Though you appear to be innoculated from reality, here's an article for the reader's edification on this topic:
"The Campus Blacklist", by D. Horowitz.
TylerNull 2 years ago
I really doubt he would be expressing his "genocidal racist" views during selection (he's an African American studies professor) or has ever shown them outside of C-SPAN.
Has it ever occurred that conservatism and intelligence don't go hand in hand? Seriously some of the best minds in history are all very liberal (just my opinion I realize it's a fallacy).
Also there are "conservative" universities so I don't see you're problem.
KidsTrax 2 years ago
I merely pointed to the toxic effects of Liberal fascism. I never suggested that you would see any problem with it.
As for the "best minds in history", if you find any liberals prior to FDR, then you're talking about classical liberalism which is the polar opposite of its modern fraud.
Modern liberals are typified by those who select genocidal racist law professors in a peer review process.
Today's Liberals are mindless fascists.
TylerNull 2 years ago
No intelligent people are always left leaning even in the "modern liberal" sense.
I love how you use the one professor for a thing he said once to try to represent the whole of liberals as "mindless fascists" because individual freedoms are just so fascist.
KidsTrax 2 years ago
Now we can add intelligence to the list of words your fail to comprehend.
As for the peer reviewed, vetted genocidal racists rewarded and selected by Liberals, the one example I provided is one more than you offer to back up your twaddle.
TylerNull 2 years ago
So wait just because one "genocidal racist" was selected that means this happens at a regular basis?
I don't understand your problem with "liberal" colleges as there are other "conservative" colleges with nothing but conservative staff.
Seriously there's conservative college professor racists like Kevin MacDonald so citing a single professor is barely evidence towards anything.
KidsTrax 2 years ago
"So wait just because one ..."
Even after providing articles for their edification, Liberals bitterly cling to their ignorance.
"there's conservative college professor racists" -- calling Jews smart is racist? California State U. is racist?
Liberalism -- a severe mental disorder.
TylerNull 2 years ago
Kevin MacDonald thinks Jews where inherently and racially different even before the holocaust and thinks Eugenics works. His academic work is considered mediocre but is loved by neo-nazi groups.
Kinda racist is you ask me.
KidsTrax 2 years ago
According to Liberal faculty, MacDonald advocates nothing of the sort of your genocidal racist.
I QUOTED your vetted genocidal racist, and the best you can do is put words in the mouth of a scientist whose findings & theory on evolutionary psychology disturbs you.
Even there, all you did was expose your ignorance & amorality regarding eugenics, which is openly practiced by left- & right-wing socialists. Scientists don't question whether or not eugenics "works", but rather its depravity.
TylerNull 2 years ago
His work is considered faulty (let alone racist) by just about every academic. Are you seriously endorsing him?
Also how is the guy a "vetted" racist. He made a single remark while MacDonald's body of work encompasses his racism.
KidsTrax 2 years ago
There you go again appealing to a nonexistent authority. You have yet to articulate ANY reasoning for your claims of racism.
As for "how" your genocidal racists are vetted, ask the faculty at Howard University Law School who vetted their genocidal racist, choosing him over all other applicants for the professorship to which they appointed him.
Your fits of stupor are progressing toward idiocy.
TylerNull 2 years ago
I already said why the guy was racist, he thinks Jews are inherently different (even without the holocaust) and states that jews have hurt other gentiles in their various political movements.
The other guy has one quote.
KidsTrax 2 years ago
"I already said why" -- and I already noted that you put words in his mouth to portray him as a racist.
Also, he's a radical LIBERAL who marched with Democrats when they aided & abetted the communist North Vietnamese in their war against Sout Vietnam & the USA.
Further, Identity Politics are advocated, adored, sponsored & practiced by Liberals, and rejected by Conservatives.
Indeed, whenever Conservatives object to Identity Politics -- e.g., The Black Caucus -- Democrats squeal "racist".
TylerNull 2 years ago
I put words in his mouth? He thinks Jews' political movements have somehow undermined the gentiles and were based on false promises.
You do realize that North Vietnam offered elections while the South didn't and was ruled by a dictator?
We were on the wrong side during the Vietnam war.
KidsTrax 2 years ago
I keep making wild claims about Liberal fascists and their endless betrayals of America, while they keep proving my claims for me.
It's like having my own troop of trained monkeys.
TylerNull 2 years ago
Are you really so ignorant of history that you ignore that fact that North Vietnam (communists) wanted elections while South Vietnam (capitalists) didn't?
Did I just shatter your black and white world view?
KidsTrax 2 years ago
Yes, communist Vietnam, communist China, communist Russia, communist North Korea & communist Cuba are famous for their democratic traditions.
XKG80 2 years ago 4
North Vietnam wanted to hold elections, South didn't because they knew they would lose.
KidsTrax 2 years ago
And... And...?
You leave it out of context, even though you're not telling the whole story.
But putting the "who wanted democracy" discussion aside, had the N Vietnamese won, the South knew they'd be harrassed slaughtered by the millions. Very similar to the situation in the Spanish Civil War.
Well, the North got their way eventually. Congrats, 2 million dead.
XKG80 2 years ago 3
South Vietnam was lead by a dictator who was addicted to opium and who worshiped Hitler (no joke).
Things would of been much, much worse if South Vietnam would of won.
KidsTrax 2 years ago
Yeah, just disagree totally.
I'd rather live in Japan, South Korea, Taiwan or the Phillippines than China, North Korea and Vietnam.
XKG80 2 years ago 2
bahaha you actually think it's better to be lead by a dictator then it is to be lead by a communist who allows elections.
Those countries have nothing to do with North v South Vietnam you literally just used a straw man.
CartoonDiablo2 2 years ago
There are elections in Vietnam? Dude, I can feel the earth shake with laughter. What a fucking idiot. LOL
You can pick communist A or communist B. That's not an election. That's a puppet show. Good call there, little brain.
And there are sometimes dictatorships that do guarantee more personal rights than countries with communist puppet show elections.
I can't believe you fell for that. My God...
XKG80 2 years ago 2
"You can pick communist A or communist B" yeah that's completely different then picking "capitalist A or capitalist B". or "republican A or republican B".
And yes they do have elections.
CartoonDiablo3 2 years ago
I always wondered how countries like Vietnam, Cuba and Venezuela got away with calling themselves democracies.
But now I know it's because of idiots like you!
XKG80 2 years ago
North Vietnam > South Vietnam is the point here not ALL COMMUNIST COUNTRIES EVER ARE DICTATORSHIPS.
In fact you have not once provided evidence to show why South Vietnam is better.
CoolBuffMan 2 years ago
Oh, I dunno...
Basic property rights, the right to leave the country, the right to engage in commerce, the right to choose your school.
I suggest a trip to Garden Grove CA where you can meet many of these supposed dictatorial people who fled the N Vietnamese regime. You'll find that they love freedom.
XKG80 2 years ago 5
South Vietnam didn't have any rights do you remember anything or are you intentionally suppressing facts?
South Vietnam was lead by a dictator who's people had less rights then North Vietnam did.
CoolBuffMan 2 years ago
"Didn't have any rights" is such a weak claim. There are Americans who say we didn't have any rights against Bush.
It all depends on your perspective.
For me, having basic property rights, being able to flee a country if you don't like it, being able to have a bank account, etc. are good rights.
For you, living a rat cage, forced indoctrination, forced family separations, genocide, etc. are important rights.
XKG80 2 years ago 14
I like that it's a "fact" that the South Vietnamese "didn't have any rights." Again, go to Garden Grove CA and say that line. People would laugh you off the street.
What's funny is how capitalism is dominating the landscape in Vietnam today.
They've learned. You still haven't.
XKG80 2 years ago 2
Oh yeah, and that whole little genocide thing.
XKG80 2 years ago 5
What the war? There was no separate "genocide thing" only war casualties.
CoolBuffMan 2 years ago
Funny, that's exactly what Neo-Nazis say about the Jews.
XKG80 2 years ago 3
Nope. Post-war, the Chinese minority were the objects of considerable violence.
DetectiveTackett 2 years ago
Hope all you self-righteous snobs were happy with the Indochina Holocaust.
I suppose Mao's massacres would be blamed on the United States had they tried to stop them too.
Well, congrats to you. 2 million dead. Great moment in liberal foreign policy. Glad all the "peaceniks" got their way.
XKG80 2 years ago
Ironically the Cultural revolution of China was used to purge "liberal bourgeoisie" elements.
KidsTrax 2 years ago
Next you're going to tell me Bush did it.
XKG80 2 years ago
I've never met a liberal neo-nazi. Plenty of conservative ones, though.
bricitybrac 2 years ago
Setting aside your ignorance of Nazism -- it's a sect of socialism,not conservatism -- the only ones sponsoring Nazi rallies are Liberal Democrat organizations, e.g., the ACLU.
TylerNull 2 years ago
I don't know if you know what the word "sponsor" means. It means to financially support an event. The ACLU never sponsored Nazi rallies, but they did represent the ANP in court when there was a challenge against their right to free speech. They did the same for the Klu Klux Klan. Do you believe that liberals are hard core white supremecists as well?
bricitybrac 2 years ago
Financial sponsorship is ONE type of sponsorship. Providing free legal services is sponsorship. Vouching for someone is sponsorship. Advocating for someone is sponsorship.
Learn the English language.
The ACLU sponsors ALL of Americas genocidal racist organizations, from the Democrat spawned KKK to the La Raza (The Race).
More notably, there are VASTLY more such well educated, rich Liberal scum than there are in the tiny groups they sponsor.
Democrats & Racism -- Life Partners
TylerNull 2 years ago
Why are neo-nazis so conservative?
bricitybrac 2 years ago
Reciting your original idiocy doesn't make it any less fallacious, especially so after I debunked it.
Again, Neo-nazism is based on Nazism, which is socialist, not conservative.
Again, the groups sponsoring Neo-Nazis are so-called Liberal, not Conservative.
Rather than posting a presumptuous question, try logic, reasoning and/or lessons of history to back up your claim. What characteristic of "neo-nazis" would you claim are conservative?
TylerNull 2 years ago
Do you fancy the BNP liberal?
bricitybrac 2 years ago
You didn't answer my question, or address my post in any way.
TylerNull 2 years ago
"Democrats & Racism -- Life Partners "
Was Segregation and the southern strategy mainly done by democrats?
KidsTrax 2 years ago
Was arson and knee surgery mainly done by criminals? (Do attempt lucidity.)
Democrats are the party of slavery, segregation, Jim Crow laws, & the KKK. Today, Democrats federally enforce "affirmative" race-based discrimination across a rainbow of races.
Contrarily, "Southern Strategy" is a blurb from a TV interview of some guy in the 1970's, from which Democrats conjured an entire mythology, which smears their racist stink on those who fight it.
Then & now, Democrats are racist scum.
TylerNull 2 years ago
Slavery was abolished by republicans because political parties were opposite back then with Republicans being the liberals.
And modern democrats created the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
KidsTrax 2 years ago
Modern Liberalism is the polar opposite of classical liberalism, as Goldberg discusses at length. As I've pointed to, Liberals today LOVE fascism and all manner of socialist and totalitarian government. Most recently, they've even criminalized soap, in Oregon.
And the Civil Rights Act was "created" by Congress and passed with 80% Rep approval, and only about 60% Democrats.
TylerNull 2 years ago
Sadly, you've omitted a very important fact.
The Senate Republicans approved the bill by 91%.
:)
XKG80 2 years ago 2
Except they didn't....
KidsTrax 2 years ago
I never said 1800s Republicans were "classical liberals" because they really weren't. I meant liberal in a very general sense.
Saying liberals love totalitarian governments isn't just a stupid generalization but its completely the opposite of what a liberal is.
I have never heard of "liberals criminalizing soap" but ok.
That would be cool if it weren't for the fact that JFK (a "LIEberal") created the bill and more actual Democrats voted for it then republicans.
KidsTrax 2 years ago
The Southern Strategy was in fact so effective in 1972 that Nixon was able to win every single northern state except for Massachusetts.
In 1976, the Southern Strategy was so effecitve that JIMMY CARTER won every southern state except Virginia.
XKG80 2 years ago 2
Well noted.
There are so many glaring facets of the historical record which debunk the Democrat's Southern Strategy mythology that one wonders what mental dysfunction causes them to cling to their mythology so stubbornly.
TylerNull 2 years ago
Furthermore, your opponent alleges that Republicans were once "liberals" who opposed slavery.
In fact, it was the Evangelical Christians of the perfectionist movement that helped spur abolition.
It was Evangelical Christianity, not some left-wing theory, that provided the moral backing to end slavery.
XKG80 2 years ago 4
Evangelicalism barely even existed in the states until WWII and the perfectionist movement did nothing in the Civil War.
You have no idea what your talking about.
KidsTrax 2 years ago
Barely existed? How would you describe the Puritans and the Quakers, young brain? ;)
OK, you don't like the word 'Evangelical.' Fine. How about 'religious conservatism'?
Religious conservatism, to a very large extent, mobilized the Republican Party.
Learn to spell "you're" before you tell someone they don't know what they're talking about.
XKG80 2 years ago 2
Nixon ran on a campaign for "states rights" in 1968 (as in against the Civil rights act) to appeal to the south. The worst was George Wallace who ran as an independent in 1968.
Carter didn't try to get southern voters angry at the civil rights act when he ran.
KidsTrax 2 years ago
Good response after getting owned.
Why not just say you were wrong?
XKG80 2 years ago
What the fuck are you talking about? Are you seriously denying the fact that Nixon tried to appeal to racist voters by using "states rights" to imply that he was going to get rid of the civil rights act?
Like seriously?
KidsTrax 2 years ago
You misrepresent the facts, but that's not a surprise.
XKG80 2 years ago
First, Carter is far more racist than Nixon. Just read his books.
Second, you totally ignore the context of "states rights" and back it up with no evidence. You hanged yourself as all libs do trying to make this false claim.
Nixon desegregated public schools & repeatedly called segregation a moral evil. Even against JFK who refused to acknowledge it.
READ, READ, READ. Stop spouting off stupid stuff. Stop reading unsourced Wikipedia articles. Read transcripts, not NY Times op/eds.
XKG80 2 years ago
"Nixon's Southern strategy: 'It's All in the Charts'"
It's a 70s New York Times Article.
KidsTrax 2 years ago
It's called bootstrapping.
XKG80 2 years ago
what does bootstrapping have to do with the southern strategy?
KidsTrax 2 years ago
It's called having no evidence and just reporting a lie back and forth to each other over and over again for years until it becomes a "fact" relayed on a YouTube comment section.
Being for states' rights does not connote being a racist, no matter what the NYT says, no matter how much the media bootstrap.
I am sure gay people in Massachusetts love their states' rights too.
XKG80 2 years ago 2
Jesus christ do you not understand how back then "states rights" was essentially a code word for "get rid of the civil rights act"?
A lot of southern states opposed the legislation so when people (mostly George Wallace) campaigned for States' rights it was implied to mean that (as voter percentages showed).
Also there weren't even that many "states' rights" the federal government even controlled at that point.
KidsTrax 2 years ago
It's not "essentially a code word."
The South has a long tradition of decentralized rule that predates blacks' rights. To say it's all because of race is short-sighted.
Due to monetary and population patterns, they always have had a natural interest in keeping federal power in check.
Surely some wanted to circumvent the CRA of 64 but not all white Southerners think alike. The election results defeat these assumptions.
XKG80 2 years ago
Around the time it was used as a code word for pro-segregation politicians.
Obviously it has other meanings wasn't always used to mean that but around that time it was predominantly used to mean "get rid of the civil rights bill"
KidsTrax 2 years ago
Anyone who says "states' rights" is a racist.
Anyone who disagrees with big government is a racist.
Well, that's original, isn't it?
You ever notice that the endpoint of all liberal discussions end with calling someone a racist, homophobe or evil Christian?
I refuse to accept that this is the extent of their intellect.
XKG80 2 years ago
I never said said any of that. You literally just put words in my mouth and used a straw man.
But yes during the 68 election "states rights" was a code word for abolishing the civil rights bill and I guess by extension "racist".
Ever notice how the endpoint of all conservative discussions ends with conservatives calling liberals socialist, fascist or using straw man arguments?
KidsTrax 2 years ago
I didn't call you a socialist, fascist or use a strawman. I said you're re-writing history and doing so incorrectly.
But, according to my prior calculation, you did say Nixon's campaign was racist.
You accused them speaking in secret "code" talking about "states' rights" even though this concept, by far, predates segregation.
You offered no statement by Nixon that shows racism, and as I've already pointed out, the election results do not back up your claims.
XKG80 2 years ago
"or use a strawman"
"Anyone who says "states' rights" is a racist."
I don't think you understand the phrase "around that time".
KidsTrax 2 years ago
Obviously I was referring to that time frame: You can't say states' rights in the years approximately 1964-1970 without being deemed a racist.
If JFK said it in 1961, he's not racist. If Deval Patrick says it in 2009, he's not racist.
Southerners liked Jefferson and Jackson (and alternately hated Adams and Hamilton) long before Nixon started speaking in "code."
By the way, putting the "words" aside, Nixon's actions were strongly pro-black.
Wonder if Orval Faubus liked Richard Nixon.
XKG80 2 years ago
I'm not left or right. But I'm curious. Are conservative christians anti-health/environment? I guess Jesus will save us from this polluted earth, so who cares what we do to it while we're here.
I REPEAT, THERE IS NO LEFT OR RIGHT ONLY CORPORATIONS. Don't fall into the trap of left vs right.
funnyguise 2 years ago
no conservatives are not anti health or enviorment. conservatives are pro individualism. if your question stems from the media saying conservatives dissagree with nationalized healthcare and the global warming craze then ill comment this way......the healthcare system in america is the technological advanced in the world. we have the best doctors and tools. now with saying that unfortunately to recieve certain services comes at a premium. if healthcare were to be socialized..(cont)..
jhummus 2 years ago
(cont)..then obviously everyone would be eligible to any type of service/treatment. the problem is that the cost for service will have to be compted from somewhere. thats where the average working taxpayer comes in. in essence they will be paying the tab in the form of higher installed taxes to compensate for services/treatment rendured but the inability to pay. basically since im working i am able to fork out more taxes for the people that dont work and honestly wont need to, to recieve care
jhummus 2 years ago
Enviorment. - Its common knowledge that global warming is an issue on both sides..left and right..but as a conservative I think governemt should not be the ones to regulate businesses to adjust their production and make it "green".point in case the auto industry..the production of hybrid electric cars were demanded by government to offset the demand of oil whether it be foreign or domestic. Production of these type of vehicles require that these companies re-tool their entire operation..(cont)
jhummus 2 years ago
(cont/enviorment)..This meant that the automakers had to invest more financially into each car made. if you invest into something with low return you eventually end up in debt. yeah sure the sales of green cars rose during the gas prices spikes..but now that the cost is low again no one feels the need to buy these "gas sippers". now the automakers are in horrible debt..mostly in the name of governemt demanding eco friendly cars. i as a conservative believe u or i have the right to buy any car!
jhummus 2 years ago
jhummus,
Well put, but devout Democrats aren't as ignorant as their posts attempt to demonstrate. It's much worse than that. They are inoculated from reality.
Notice that the devotee first claims to be "not left or right", and then immediately recites a caricature of a Leftist contrivance to deride the so-called Right.
Clearly, that evidences more than merely ignorance; it's a rabid devotion to what is aptly termed political theology -- modern Liberalism.
TylerNull 2 years ago
i looked up the meaning of "democrat" and it said one who believes in social equality or discounts distinctions in rank. now you tell me what that sounds like..to me that sounds like communist beliefs. here we have obama wanting to spread wealth for the equality of all. so what hes saying is individualism is wrong because no one should have more or less..and when i have my way this is how its going to be!
jhummus 2 years ago
Yes, socialists are always marketing their toxic policies under happy-sounding words and phrases.
Equality -- of what, is the question. The socialist answer is of outcomes, not of rules.
Socialists boast of their double standards and selective application of rules, and will even point to the damage they inflict as if it evidences a need for more of them -- from tax rates to "affirmative" racism.
TylerNull 2 years ago
I support the 1st amendment, therefore I am opposed to the Democrats and the Obamocracy.
I support the 1st amendment, therefore I am opposed to fascist liberal HOLLYWOOD hypocrites who would do everything they could to prevent you or I from speaking,but they would totally flip out if anyone tried to do the same thing to them.
HippiesAreNazis 3 years ago
Does anyone know if there is a transcript of this lecture/discussion anywhere?
laffin2much 3 years ago
buy the book?
magneticskull 2 years ago 2
And when you realize this, it becomes easier to see why the right-wing is likened to the Nazi's since a great deal of the idioliogy is derived from the bible. The bible whose scripture the right wing is always trying to have enacted into law.
lardman10 3 years ago
There is only one party in America who is proud that we judicially segregated the citizenry into protected and unprotected classes, just as did the Nazis.
Guess who?
TylerNull 3 years ago
Hitler was a baptized roman catholic The idea to kill all Jewish people was instilled in him from his days in the catholic church.
lardman10 3 years ago
Your mythology is almost as impressive as your ignorance.
Nazism is a pagan theology that backed their sect of socialism.
"The Führer is deeply religious, though completely anti-Christian, ... He views Christianity as a symptom of decay."
-- Joseph Goebbels, Minister of Propaganda, December 28, 1939.
TylerNull 3 years ago
Communist gulags were pretty terrible too; the thing that holds Nazism and communism together is statism. Collectivism erodes respect for individual human beings, individual life.
MetaMorphy 3 years ago 3
What a tool. He clearly didn't even bother to read hedge's book.
side1981 3 years ago
As a liberal (a capitalist with a conscience) I seek to find the source of where the left turned right. I often am led back to the early 1900's with the beginnings of the American Historical Association and then on to the mid 1950's where much of the confusion of how liberal movements were orchestrated by socialists. I believe there's truth in the middle, but the middle keeps moving, no doubt by the wealthy socialist internationals known as "The GROUP."
See wiki for more on Jonah Goldberg
SevenMinusOne 3 years ago
In the 50's, a congressional investigation was ordered by Rep. Carroll Reece. Norman Dodd was appt. lead investigator. The objective was to determine motives of tax-exempt foundations.
Simply put the agenda of these foundations were to take control of the public education system through the state dept and direct capitalism with a conscience (democracy) towards socialism. In Dodds words to "merge the US with the Russia."
This was the ideology, not a physical process The slimy path can be traced.
SevenMinusOne 3 years ago
i take some exception to that statement "a capitalist with a conscience" as being the definition of a liberal. Liberals can often be the most hypocritical group out there, calling the right racists, bigots, and a group of evil men (the same claims they "hate" the right for). They seek freedom throuh government intvernetion and increasing the size of government to solve EVERY problem. All the "leaders" of theses international corporations are socialists (liberals with no conscience)
EmptyBottleTherapies 3 years ago 3
I take acception that free-enterprise is evil and someone has to have to adjust it. I don't see the logic in this when I know a lot of business owners who are good people and are no worse than anyone else. I would like to know if we can say "unionist" with a concionse.
timbosforporn 3 years ago
No it's not that modern liberals are denial of humanity's darker aspects. It's that they SEE humanity as such. Evil ideas are projected by evil mindsets - the whole "I'm the moon reflecting on water" Buddhist THING. Comes down to whether you believe that people are inherently good (capitalism) or evil (Socialims) & MUST BE CONTROLLED AND/OR ERRADICATED
novanine9 3 years ago
dumass librals
CzarNick13 3 years ago