Fascism and Fake Democrats

[MrMrbobblehead]

yea they say we re pro goverment but wants the goverment to censor what we see they want small gov but tell gay people they have no rights they want small go but wants the gov to build a fence on the border everything they say contradicts itself exept the trickle down effect

[mrx0066600]

Very well done graph. This is exactly what we have today.

and actually Obama is a line that is constantly moving further above what was the right wing line as the right wing continually moves their line further to their side because they know Obama would follow and give them more.

[onlyAerik]

the forrest gump theme?

[ThisWeekInFascism]

@onlyAerik Yup. Life is like a box of right-wingers. You always know you're gonna' get it in the ass.

[cpufightclub]

Good video.

[carnypimp]

Wow somebody gets it! To many cheifs(management) not enough Indians ( democrats).

[chuck3377]

WELL DONE, WE DO NOW LIVE IN A CORPORATE FACSIST SYSTEM, THIS IS THE FINAL BATTLE FOR THE MIDDLE CLASS, THE CORPORATE FACSIST/POLITCAL ELITES WANT A 2 CLASS GLOBAL SYSTEM, RICH N POOR, 2% VS 98%

[needlermasta]

Why are democracts on lthe left and republicans on the right.

[ThisWeekInFascism]

Visually, something on the left or moving to the left is more "uncomfortable" than something on the right or moving to the right. The reversed placement has nothing to do with left-right politically, only visually. Visualizing from left to right is more comfortable because that's how we read. For ex., saying "left right" feels more comfortable than saying "right left" because "right left" sounds, and is, backwards. It's also aligned better with the title words.

btw: It's spelled "democrats"

[TheForwardGaze]

The problem is human social hierarchy. Religion, government and capitalism have to go. Maybe in 100 years or so, with enough education and technology, the world will be ready.

[ThisWeekInFascism]

@TheForwardGaze If by "government" you mean anything other than self-government (Constitution, Bill of Rights, a system of checks and balances, justice under the law, etc), I would agree. The hierarchy of self government puts the people on the top. Religion and Capitalism are on a short leash with a vibrant and active self government.

[KangaKucha]

not totally how I would put it, but good job!

[LordSolaris]

This is interesting. The music adds a creepy element to it.

[enlightenusplz]

This is extremely HISTORICALLY accurate. The evidence for the "left" being the fascists is nil. That's how backwards these ron paul supporters, more so the mainstream right wing (but you don't hear from them, if you do you just laugh), but still the right in general are.

[TheGoalSetter]

@enlightenusplz Ron Paul folk are very much against corporatism (fascism). But they do differ from Democrats in that Ron Paul people want less government. It isn't a one-dimensional line. Try the 'world's smallest political quiz' for a more comprehensive mapping.

[ThisWeekInFascism]

@TheGoalSetter I've got an even smaller quiz for you.

"Do you think people are basically good or evil?"

Good=Left. Evil=Right.

[CosmosPrivateer]

@ThisWeekInFascism

I think people are just plain lazy. The political system is setup to make things easy. You have 2 choices right or left and a bunch of people with their own agendas telling us how it is.

We basically are good lazy people that don't know how to govern ourselves so someone else does it for us.

Maybe in 100 years or so we may figure it out.

[get50007]

this video is alright...it still stuck in the left-right paradigm...just because someone is for the private side and free market (Ron Paul for example) doesn't mean they are a fascist. Fascism as defined by Mussolini was a melding of the corporations and governments. That is what we have now, no where near free market. Don't be fooled by this video...it's alright

[ThisWeekInFascism]

The whole idea is to have (at least) two political parties THAT OPPOSE each other to provide for a "system of checks and balances" in our form of government - that we all of course love and want to defend. But we now have two right-wing parties. If Ron Paul or anyone else decides to form a left-wing party to OPPOSE the 2 right wing parties, I'd support him/her. That's the point of this video.

cont'd

[ThisWeekInFascism]

...When this doesn't happen and there's no opposition, we get people who leave comments like this:

"Listen asshole, if anyone is stupid it's you. It's commies like you that are outwardly trying to screw up this country by your twisted lied. Guess what asshole? were on to you and the rest of the left trying to sell out america. FUCK YOU AND THOSE LIKE YOU!!

Just keep it up and see what america does with traitors like you.

UP YOURS PINHEAD!!" -jweinstock1

[jkhereford]

Actually, the whole idea is to have ZERO political parties, and each congressman makes a decision by himself on the merits of each issue. Since that has been empirically unrealistic, the minimum mandatory situation for a functioning political body is to have at least THREE, or more, political parties that have varied agreements and oppositions on multiple different issues.

[ThisWeekInFascism]

Good points. But I think if we had 3 parties we'd also need proportional representation too, because if one of the three parties had total control, 2/3rds of the population would have no power. Maybe a 2 party system with IRV (instant runoff voting) would be best to shake things up.

[jkhereford]

In general it should be assumed that a true multi-party system would have relatively equal representation in each party. If you have 3+ parties, but only one or two parties control 90% of the power, then that's not really a multiparty system...

As for IRV, I am in complete agreement. The key to IRV's statistical success is the ranking, rather than voting for individuals. Ranks averaged over population yield highly accurate projections of popular will.

[jkhereford]

Also note: 2 Parties literally can't work. They will Always collude against the people. Reference: Republicans and Democrats vote together on 85+% of issues. In fact, the only issues they make a regular habit of voting differently on are socially divisive issues (as opposed to policy issues of substance). Two parties is no better than one, and the founding father's agreed. (Madison: "multiplicity of faction." Federalist #10)

[jkhereford]

Checks and balances can't be achieved with only two parties. The parties will always collude against the people. Reference: 'You can't be President: the outstanding barriers to democracy in the US' Author: John D. MacArthur

In the book he'll cite the actual references to statements made by founding fathers.

[ahoyhoy79]

true but if he/she is gonna explain a more realistic model where you have various economic, social and governance models, do you think the average american can handle it?

in no other country do you have ppl calling someone who wants to introduce universal healthcare a stalinist (and somehow equating that with hitler)

[ryno200]

First problem is that fascism does not birth out of conservative views, the Nazis called themselves National Socialists. A conservative viewpoint seeks to restrain government, so how can a totalitarian regime exist in an ideology that says no one person or group (governing body) can exercise absolute control?

[ThisWeekInFascism]

The Nazi's modeled themselves after Mussolini's fascism. That was called "corporatism". America has always been corporatist (since the 1850's). However, since traitors Reagan and Bush(s), America has added on militaristic fascism (like Hitler's Germany, invading countries and hating immigrants, Fox, creating enemies, inciting hatred for our form of government, etc.). America's now BOTH corporatist AND militaristic.

The blame must start somewhere. It's the corporatism, stupid.

[Z200a]

Well said.

[allgoo19]

Great video!!

Truth must be told!!

[KommisarKowl]

The sycophants to the Republican party who read "Liberal Fascism" and claim that Fascism is far leftist have never taken a High School Social Studies course. The Right doesn't mean "no state." The Left doesn't either. One can be a libertarian leftist or a libertarian rightist. The difference is a Libertarian leftist believes that workers should work cooperatively and own the means of production and the rightists believe that workers are subject to corporate executives.

[DoGeeseSeeGod24]

Man, you just made my day. So many people have made this claim, and none of them have any idea what they're talking about. Good to know there's someone on YouTube who understands.

[kempeitai1]

Liberty is "freedom from". Libertarians believe in freedom to do as one pleases so long as it doesn't infringe on the Liberty of another. LESS STATE.

The Right is libertarian economically and the Left is libertarian socially.

The very concept leftist libertarian is contradictory as you can't have Liberty with out private property. You have the liberty to sell your labor to someone or to buy the labor of others - neither is forced.

[ThisWeekInFascism]

You can't have Liberty without HAPPINESS, not property. Private "property"? By that standard, Libertarians are FOR "privacy", which is a contradiction. Yet without enforcement and privacy protections, there is anarchy, not Liberty.

"Benjamin Franklin was in agreement with Thomas Jefferson in downplaying protection of "property" as a goal of government, replacing the idea with happiness." - Franklin, Benjamin (2006). Mark Skousen. ed. Completed Autobiography. Regnery Publishing. pp. 41

cont'd

[ThisWeekInFascism]

The first article of the Virginia Declaration of Rights (NOT the US Constitution) adopted unanimously by the Virginia Convention of Delegates on June 12, 1776 and written by George Mason, is:

cont'd

[ThisWeekInFascism]

"That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety."

[treid100182]

Some would argue that Private Property is the negation of liberty...

...based on the fact that it diminishes PERSONAL freedom to go where one pleases without prosecution...

either way, thanks for the coherent, and well said post,...

its been awhile since I've seen a post with some academic truth.

[Z200a]

Kempeitai1,

You have a uniquely American and entirely rightwing conception of libertarianism. Libertariansim at its heart is opposed to TYRANNY, i.e., the illegitimate exercise of power or authority over people.

People on the left recognize that illegitimate authority can be exercised by government, or by private power.

People like you, on the other hand, completely fail to grasp that tyranny can come from private power. You are blind to it and can only see government tyranny.

[adzug]

if theres no govt what protection does anyone have against your corporate overlords? private business can make policy outside of your garunteed rights. piss in a cup or no job. you must exercise or no health care. wear these clothes, company policy. once theres no govt business will be the defacto govt. the bigger the more powerful, there will be no individual freedoms.

[Z200a]

Adzug,

Well said. You are exactly right. The conservative version of libertarianism, which deprives us of any except the most limited government, enables tyranny by private power. A good representative government is a hedge against the tyranny of private power.

All we have to do is look at the US during the 1800s and early 1900s to get a picture of what conservative libertarianism looks like in practice: pardise for the owning class, and hell for working class.

[SYNPlaymaker88]

This video is a work of propaganda, when the US was founded there were no political parties. The scale should show no govt on the right (anarchy) and totalitarianism (be it Fascist, Communist/ Socialist or even monarchy) on the left with the american govt as it was intended just barely off the right end of the scale. Both Fascism and Socialism are kissing cousins with minute differences in policy, the right has (and always will) represent anarchy and a lack of govt.

[ThisWeekInFascism]

In schools we learn capitalism and socialism are economic systems and fascism and communism are political systems. They also teach about air, water and gravity in school.

Everything's socialism. Hitler's Germany = National socialism (war fever), America since the mid 1800's = corporate socialism. The opposite of all socialisms (working together) is anarchy (every man for himself).

Corporations - Government = Capitalism

Corporations + Government = Fascism

Corporations ÷ Government = Democracy

[Vote3rdParty]

SYNPlay - Anarchism is actually a far-left ideology. Even the "free market" anarchists describe themselves as "leftist" or "left-libertarian." Right-wing has always meant mercentalist, nationalist, capitalist, corporatist, fascist, and statist.

The "American Liberty League," the right-wing "Libertarian Party" of the 1930's and 40's plotted a fascist coup against Roosevelt during the depression.

watch?v=HeUip8BnUus

[Prgrsvs4RspnsblPltcs]

Keep punching yourself in the face sooner or later it will start hurting or maybe you have become numb.

[PavedStones]

@SYNPlaymaker88 Lol, yeah, that is a very useful spectrum you have concocted. I have a suggestion: just define right wing as Good and left wing as Evil, problem solved.

More seriously, left wing = progressive and equalitarian values, and support for the traditionally oppressed or underprivilidged groups (workers, women, minorities, the poor, countries victim of imperialism, etc);

[PavedStones]

right-wing = traditional and conservative values, defence of the traditional family, religion, culture, etc, with the relations that come with it, e.g. patriarchy, class society etc, the defence of the traditionally priviledged or dominant groups within society, etc.

Libertarianism is centrist.

Take a intro course in political studies! :)

[therrydicule]

@PavedStones No it is not to the center. I know it might, sometime, look like it is in a 2 dimensions sets, but politic is not a 2d world. It might be a 7d world. Libertarian ask for the absence or the bare minimum of a government, for various reason, and let the free market and free citizen take care of everything else. What about the thing nobody care to do?

Following these, saying that the libertarian are centrist is like saying that 84 and York is right in the middle of Manhattan.

[bobdylan4evr]

@PavedStones libertarianism is not centerist!

[semoserjr]

I think Obama would fall pretty solidly centrist in several areas, though he's certainly center-right when it comes to military policy. I can't stand it when I hear these howls about Obama being radical or socialist, it's so absurd and exposes some serious ignorance. You're right though: we're still locked into this false notion that we're a "center-right" country. People rarely argue that point in the media, and its sickening.

[Teutonik]

You must have been on the same stuff as most of the people who voted for him. Government management and control of a company (auto-industry) IS socialism. And Obama is very liberal, he was by far the most left voting senator of all time. And he voted against going into Iraq from the beginning. So tell me again how he is center?

[maxine2win]

Teutonik, obama is on the right

your profile indicates your brain is faulty

try reality based thinking

[Stephanjnj]

In fact, Obama is nowhere close to being the "most liberal" Senator. That title is automatically reserved for any Democratic Senator who wins their party's nomination, courtesy of the right-wing propaganda machine. Don't take my word for it. Go to the American Conservative Union (ACU) website and look at the ratings. At 17% conservative Obama actually is right-of-center among Senate Democrats. Hillary got 11% and Ted Kennedy 0% ratings. Another example of wingnuts believing their own lies.

[semoserjr]

Cool video, but why do you have the Republican side on the left and the Democratic side on the right?

[ThisWeekInFascism]

"War is peace", "freedom is slavery". Since everything else is backwards here in opposite-land, I figured what the hell. :-)

[CaledoniaProductions]

Truly inspiring. Except for the fact that you have your left and right mixed up you silly little boy.

And also, Facism is NOT right-wing, it is far closer to left wing, as it favours total government control of everything by one person (a dictator) alongside Communism.

[ThisWeekInFascism]

fascism |ˈfa sh ˌizəm| (also Fascism)

noun

an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.

• (in general use) extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice.

[ThisWeekInFascism]

...The term Fascism was first used of the totalitarian right-wing nationalist regime of Mussolini in Italy (1922 - 43), and the regimes of the Nazis in Germany and Franco in Spain were also fascist. Fascism tends to include a belief in the supremacy of one national or ethnic group, a contempt for democracy, an insistence on obedience to a powerful leader, and a strong demagogic approach.

[semoserjr]

Actually fascism does fall under the right wing of the political spectrum. Was Mussolini was a leftist? Of course not, the man was very far to the right. There can be some debate over these terms, however. For example, Ghandi would be someone who falls under the left end of the spectrum, as does Stalin. (Ghandi was a libertarian leftist, while Stalin was authoritarian left.)

[thenodnarb]

Hello?! The NAZI's were the national SOCIALIST german workers party. Socialism is LEFT. NAZI's were FASCIST.

COMMUNISM IS FASCIST. You can be a left wing Fascist or a right wing Fascist. Fortunately for us, we have both in this country.*Sarcasm*

And this video is BASS- AKWARDS. We have moved decisively LEFT in this country, and Obama is FAR left, but still a fascist.

[SYNPlaymaker88]

thenobnarb has it correct, Mussolini was a life long socialist that left the socialist party to create in his own words "a better, more perfect Socialist party" he was a left wing guy. The only real difference between Fascism and Socialism is the emphasis on fascist nationalism while socialism emphasizes internationalism.

[Z200a]

thenodnarb,

When you say stuff like "COMMUNISM IS FASCIST" you have absolutely no idea how blaringly obvious your stupidity becomes. You might as well scream "HOT is COLD."

Communism and Fascism are both authoritarian and totaliatarian systems of control, but that's where the similarity ends. Fascism is about private corporate power, while communism is about the abolition of private power. Learn some history. Communism and Fascism are mortal enemies: WW1, Spanish Civil War, Cold War, etc.

[JstNEarthling]

It made sense but not enough. Your video was inspiring but lacked too much of the story of the shift even where you began the time line. Maybe you should have narrated to give a perspective. Or go as far as the end of the civil war when the KKK was made of the vile southern democrats. Like you said though it's all relative and they are only names.

[prrolg]

I'm unclear on when and how Bill Clinton told the working class to not work for a living. Also he reformed welfare pretty well moving people from welfare to work helping to balance the budget. The working class invested mostly in IRAS and 401ks but kept working until the corps started downsizing and laying off the 40 somethings (old heads)

[ThisWeekInFascism]

The "working class" earns their money through labor, not investments. "Workfare" and "balancing the budget" is the concern of "managers" (Republicans), while the American left had once concerned itself (relatively) with fairness and equality.

When: 1994-2000

How: By being the best Republican president since Eisenhower.

[prrolg]

Well I guess you mean that Clinton acted as a Republican and was the best since Eisenhower. Well for the record Clinton tried the "fairness and equality" thing but the Republican Gingrich congress would not have it. That and hamstringing by personal problems. Democrat controlled congress and liberal courts were an abject failure at equality and fairness from the 1940's to the 1980's for sure.

[ThisWeekInFascism]

The word is "Democratic".

[prrolg]

If only that party were.

[extradeen]

this video is naive... the democrats had to be pushed extremely hard to pass labor laws in the 30s and ever since then they've pretty much always kicked labor in the teeth. what was new with clinton was the democrats adjusting to corporatism that bloomed especially hard over the past 20 years or so.

[ThisWeekInFascism]

It's "...for the kids".

In fact you could go back even further than the 30s to a time when the right wing was for the working class and even further back to a time when there were no political parties at all. It's all about perspective.

[ali0tis]

Y R the red & blue reversed? & when u say the Republicans go further RIGHT the marker moves LEFT. Please represent the West Coast Commies that survived McCarthy!

[ThisWeekInFascism]

Visually, something on the left or moving to the left is more "uncomfortable" than something visually on the right or moving to the right. The reversed placement has nothing to do with left-right politically, only visually. Someone once told me that visualizing from left to right is more comfortable because thats how we read. For ex., saying "left right" feels more comfortable than saying "right left" because "right left" sounds, and is, backwards. It's also aligned better with the title words.

[ali0tis]

U R aware of the terms RIGHT & LEFT wing eh? Sorry to say your vid only makes since when viewed thru a mirror. Plus Red & Right, alliteration, u c?

[Plutonwolf]

You moved the arrow for the Right too far, you left no room to show where to place Ron Paul.

5 stars, faved and subbed

[extradeen]

Ron paul doesn't fit in this specrtum... in this spectrum there's really no space for libertarianism, only socialism and corporatism

[Plutonwolf]

Ron Paul is a Paleo-Conservative. Call him what ever floats your boat. I could call a Buick a F-22 Raptor, but that won't make it fly at Mach 2.

[extradeen]

ron paul conservatism is pretty different from limbaugh conservatism... mainly in that trillions of our taxpayer dollars are not used in subsidizing evil corporations

[Plutonwolf]

They wont need subsidization, they will roam the land unchallenged and unchecked. His concepts would return us to a feudal society. Think it through to it's logical outcome and this is plain to see.

[extradeen]

would companies have caused financial collapse if they knew no one was going to bail them out?

[Plutonwolf]

No, they would just do it directly. They wouldn't need to go through a second party to drain our blood.

[nowellian]

Excellent video!

I think Obama is on the right wing of the spectrum.

Dennis Kucinich is one of the few democrats who even approach the left side of your scale and he was belittled and ignored by the media. He was not even allowed in the democratic debates when he was the 4th democrat running. The republican were still debating 6 candidates.

It is very dangerous to be a leftist or socialist in the US.

The US is a right wing dictatorship!

[DRopUrGaurd]

I read the other comment before posting and understand his point about the Democratic party not being the Labor Party. What I am asking is what are the "major flaws" YOU were talking about before ubercomrade's comment and what guy are you talking about. I gave an example of why your perception seems flawed. When did right wing and left wing political ideologies ever translate into and represent cardinal direction? You are just being silly at this point by nitpicking at something inconsequential

[ubercomrade]

I like your video but the democrats never stood for labour. Unlike left wing parties in europe or canada, the democrats do not have roots in the labour movement or socialism.

That said, you were 100% right at the end of the video about were the "centre" is in american politics.

[toeg1]

Well,

That was very slick, very well done. Graphics were top notch. Music was well placed. Arrows and all, quite well done (burning the rep arrow was a nice touch).

But you said, "the Republicans moved farther to the right." and then you moved the lines to the left. Right when you stated that, I thought, "Well, this I gotta see. The Republicans are going to move farther to the right where the Democrats are located, wow."

Oh, and there are major flaws in the concept. But it was very well done.

[DRopUrGaurd]

If you were to ask someone to stand across from you and face you then asked them to raise their right hand it would "seem" that they were raising their left hand, because their right will fall to your left. I am not defending any meaning in this video but if you have such a perceptual flaw regarding right, left, and position I wonder what are the conceptual flaws that you speak of?

[toeg1]

Drop,

I apologize. I didn't see the guy back there who was following the commands. Thanks for pointing him out to me.

As far as other flaws are concerned, please read uber's comment above. It appears that he knows of a few. This video shows two separate parties when in fact, it's actually two sides of the same coin.

The perceived difference is a mirage. Hey, maybe it's that same guy you speak of, the one behind the arrows that's following the commands. Wanna ask him for me??