Not sure why the hate. I agree with this. As a former anarchist I had to become conservative because of the communist infiltration, and without the protections of some government and a well armed military commies will always try to infiltrate.
even a society whose every member were fully rational and faultlessly moral, could not function in a state of anarchy; it is the need of objective laws and of an arbiter for honest disagreements among men that necessitates the establishment of a government.
See the chicken and the egg problem there?
If a society DID have 100% fully rational and faultlessly moral people, then they would necessarily have objective laws ("laws" meaning that the laws of man would reflect the objective laws of nature). It would function just fine without an official government.
However ...
If the society is NOT made up 100% of those people, the argument goes that a government MUST be instituted to enforce these objective laws. HOWEVER, if the people who do NOT agree with the morality of natural law are the ones who gain control of that government, then they WILL use the power of that government to enforce what THEY want, even though it violates natural law.
You can't have a FREE society that is also IMMORAL (violates the laws of Nature and of Nature's God).
We are witnessing this EXACT situation today.
Personally, I am a minarchist. I believe that the minimum of government is the most likely to be the best. If that means no government, I am cool with that AS LONG AS it comes about in a philosohpical way, such that MOST people understand WHY it has happened this way. The American founding fathers came closest to this ideal.
But since we are a LONG way away from that today, thanks to GOVERNMENT-CONTROLLED schools indoctrinating the population to believe anti-human (anti-moral) ideas, there is likely some need of government. That being the case, we should INSIST on the Constitution being upheld, AS WRITTEN, and should be opposed to any constitutional convention that would undoubtedly sabotage that system.
We should enforce the Constitution against the employees of government, and their co-conspirators hiding in the shadows, by prosecuting them for their crimes.
If we got back to a system where the Constitution was followed, I think we might eventually get to a philosohpical place where we could make even that voluntary.
But there are over 200 countries in the world, and you just know that someone out there will be infiltrated by the very same criminals who have always wanted to be tyrants. So, it would take some time for a true voluntary system to ever be fully implemented.
Until then, we are stuck with the Catch-22, where (a) good people don't need government, (b) but not everyone is good, which is the argument to have a government, even though most people in government are also not good.
"The two enemies of the People are criminals and government. Let there be no talk of confidence in man, but bind them down from mischief with the chains of the Constitution, so that the latter do not become the former." -- Thomas Jefferson
It ain't exactly a new concept -- that people with a tyrant mindset tend to be attracted to government. It has been known for thousands of years (at least).
The past 2 years should have erased any such doubt.
I know. That's what I thought. My question was whether or not you see the problem, and I suspected that you did not see it. Thanks for confirming (even though you didn't intend to).
I was responding to a premise, not stating one.
If this is from Ayn Rand, then you must know she was a minarchist, not an anarchist. And her vision of government was a far cry from what we have today. Even the Constitution was too much government for her. She wanted only: military, police, and courts. And those must be funded by voluntary means, according to her.
She was as close to an anarchist as anyone in history, without actually being one.
I do not agree with her conclusion that you can get an "ought" from an "is." But other than that, she was spot on in most of her writing. She lived through the first attempt of communist takeover in Russia in 1905, so she had strong opinions that were opposed to big government.
Today, she would have been appalled at the thought that her ideas could be miscontruted as advocating for any sort of government that comes close to what we have today. She was outspoken against such a thing back in the 1960's and 1970's when she was alive. To take her ideas out of context (a big thing with her, which she called "context-dropping") is mentally lazy.
I was pointing out that the idea that government is needed because not everyone is moral (which she would NOT have defined as having anything to do with religion) is a concept that fails when we take into account the fact that the very people in charge of that government are themselves not moral, and therefore will attempt to use that political power against everyone else, thereby defeating the whole point of creating the government.
That is WHY she insisted on ONLY military, police, and courts. She could not figure out how to make these completely voluntary (and nobody else has, either), other than the funding should be 100% voluntary.
She was a true anarchocapitalist's minarchist. But that point seems to have evaded you.
Now take that line. twist it once, and join the ends together.
You have the reality of it as a mobius.
This is due to the 'winged' nature of politics.
Corporate Fascism is the enemy to focus on at the moment, whatever its color.
When government and corporations are in cahoots to control and profit,
It masquerades as dichotomy and strife between left and then right as Hegelian Dialectic to confuse and conceal. It is then presented as left and right interchangeably to continue the game.
Hitler came in as both socialist and fascist. Then ran death squads on leftist groups. His most staunch rightwing supporters were marginalized or killed.
(Roehmer, Rommel et al). Labeling was the method.
With politics as mobius strip, the idea of liberty has two 'sides'.
Just as 'Anarchy' does.
Philosophical, Anarchy is defined as perfect order with no need for 'government', while in practice with imperfect subjects, it becomes the opposite as chaos.
Libertarianism has both left and right wing proponents.
This dualistic extreme is played upon (politics) using the dichotomy to divide as the Hegelian Dialectic.
The fulcrum of the teeter totter is the middle, a theorectical zero sum point of stability.
The cabal wears purple (men - purple ties) to pretend they are a blend of red and blue, when in fact they keep the colors separate by need.
The Purple Partison Political People eater - Where's that party and how would it recruit?
People who hate the idea of no government existing, or who fear what might happen if there were no government, attempt to re-define "anarchy" to mean "chaos." In reality, having a BIG government (people with political power, whether acquired lawfully or not) HAS resulted in chaos.
The American founding fathers warned about this very issue, time and time again. Limiting political power was their primary motive in setting things up the way they did. They saw political power as the enemy of the people, because they knew it would lead to a chaotic society, just like we have today. Today, people with political power tell other people to wear a mask on their face, inject a mystery drug into their body, and to hand over 50%+ of their earnings to other people who waste it. It is a society in chaos due to political power.
An-archy means "no government" or "no ruler."
Monarcy = one person rules.
Oligarchy = a few people rule.
Anarchy = no person rules.
There are two schools of thought when it comes to anarchy: anarchocommunism (also called left anarchy) and anarchocapitalism (also called voluntaryism).
Anarchocommunists are real communists. Marx said that communism would be where the "state withers away" and is no longer needed. However, socialism would be forced by the state until "good" communism could be beaten into people (more or less).
Anarchocapitalists are real capitalists. They believe that a voluntary society would emerge if there were no government. It would not be a commual society, as in communism, but rather a free, voluntary society where people would create voluntary police forces and similar functions in society.
The best example of anarchocommunism was the British colonies in America in the very early days. They tried a communal system and they nearly starved to death. It was a disaster. It was only when they switched to capitalism that they began to thrive.
Anarchocapitalism existed in Ireland for almost 1,000 years, more or less, due to being on an island. They had no government, per se, as each village decided things for themselves. For this reason, it took England hundreds of years to conquer Ireleand. When they did, the White English made the White Irish into slaves.
More recently, the government of Somalia collapsed due to massive corruption in the 1990's. It was replaced with no government, and the people were generally better off than their neighbors who all had governments. The problem came about due to foreign governments -- United States and Russia -- interferring and trying to back various goon squads to establish a government by force.
So, such a society would have to come about in a philosohpical way, similar to how the USA was founded. Otherwise, it would open the door to gang warfare, since those people do not believe in having no government, and people who are attracted to government tend to be tyrannical by nature.
Regarding Hitler, the jews had used a communist movement to overthrow Russia and institute a new government there. They were trying to do the same thing in post-WWI Germany.
Hitler and his National Socialists were trying to stop the dirty commies. It just so happened that jews were the ones leading the dirty commies, and also had declared world war on Germany.
That's not to say that Hitler was any sort of anarchist. Far from it. He was a dictator. He and many of his followers saw his form of dictatorship as a better option than a jewish communist takeover like in Russia, where brutal murder had been the norm.
All anyone has to do today is take a look around. We have massive government AND we also have chaos.
RULE OF LAW. Either we all respect it, or not. THAT is the key.
It is not respected by the gangs in the hood on the south side of Chicago, and it is also not repected by the gangs wearing suits in Washington, DC.
One is all colors smooshed together, creating black by interference/blocking between colors.
One is white light divided into freq/colors individually spaced.
A third, is the light undivided.
Totalitarians both 'left' and 'right', use their supposed OPTIC opponent, 'anarchy' aka chaos as an ally, to achieve their goal. This suggests that the cabal understands and attempts to control this spectrum as dichotomy, they don't choose a side.
Heaven is perfection in theory, but hell on earth creates its own opponent.
So "the devil goes to and fro upon the earth"....in the dualist nature of matter, and having a choice, stresses differences which divides.
The Nazis fought Communism like the twisted sisters they are and both saw the other as the enemy.
I agree that corporate fascism is on the rise, and their use of ideology masuerading as business sense.
Anglosphere: New Public Management = Public Private Partnerships = stakeholder investment = merger of state and private sector = fascism, but used to stamp out communism.
However, ex-communist countries use Public Values to disassociate from the state and improve client/public service, and even starting up talent retention strategies to keep their public servants.
Hitler hated communism it’s what brought him to power as Germany was in a degenerative state because it , he adopted the fascist ideology of National socialism where the populace and industry worked for the betterment of the state
Your the moron pal , I’m merely stating historical facts that doesn’t mean that I support it or that I’m a Nazi it’s fuck wits like you that come along and ruin it here for everyone else that wants to contribute.
Do you acknowledge that the jews declared war on Germany in 1933?
Do you acknowledge that because jews declared war on Germany that many jews living within Germany saw their own mission in life to destroy Germany from within?
Do you acknowledge that any society has a right to root out such enemies within, and deport them somewhere else, such as Palestine?
And the German concept of "socialist" had nothing at all to do with the Marxist concept of "socialist."
Marxists are socialists in the sense of taking over control of government by oligarchs, as a means to the end of instituting "true communism," where the state withers away. They think society should live in a large commune, where prosperity and freedom are irrelevant concepts. Only "equality" matters. In reality, of course, the state only grows stronger because the tyrants who benefit from such a system never want it to go away. In fact today, those people want world government -- the exact opposite of the Marxist utopia.
The German socialists were quite different. They wanted the society to be moral and devoid of unjust advantage, which is why they were fighting against communist jews, who had been responsible for the immorality and suffocating laws and financial practices that benefited them over the rest of the German people.
I think Hitler was more like the dictator who runs Singapore today, rather than the dictatorships of Mao or Stalin. But the Hitler chapter was never completed, so we will never know for sure.
I think the American system, as created by the founders, was better than Singapore today. But Singapore today is better than California today, which is not (yet) as bad as the Soviet Union was.
We have to go beyond the mere use of words (rascist! homophobe! trannyphobe! socialist! capitalist!) ... and discuss the CONCEPTS that the words represent (or misrepresent, in many cases).
Don't try talking any sense into these retards. They see "socialist" and their brains stop working. They're incapable of understanding that people can be socially conservative and fiscally liberal at the same time. You're absolutely right about Hitler and his people being patriots. They were Germany first, not everyone else first. That's why they were able to achieve what they did in such a short amount of time.
They were staunchly fighting communists. Also they burned liberal and communist books. I don't want to speculate too further with comparisons because the liberals will say "Aha!"
The fascists and communists were never fighting over ideology, they were fighting over power. If there were another fascist movement within 1930's Germany, Hitler would have targeted them as enemies too. We know this because Hitler ordered the assassination of any NSDAP (Nazi) party member who could pose a political threat to him. He killed hundreds of party members who were loyal to him. A true ideologue would not be motivated to do this.
The communists were no different. They had their own Night of Long Knives where they assassinated hundreds of loyal party members. Also, Stalin had a pleasant relationship with Hitler as long as he limited his conquest to Europe.
These authoritarian movements are never truly about ideology. That's for the rubes and common folk to believe. It's always about power.
Exactly! These retards won't look into it though. They've been brainwashed by ((them)) for decades to believe that they were the worst people on the planet, while also believing that all the attacks on Trump are unjustified but not putting two and two together. ..
The father of fascism was Benito Mussolini. He and his father were devout socialists, and he remained devoted to socialism until his death. Fascism was socialism that adopted a few changes like state corporatism as its economic model. So instead of the means of production being owned by the government (a defining characteristic of socialism) it was owned by industry leaders who were controlled by the state. If you've noticed this is the exact economic model of China, then you're correct, China is technically fascist rather than socialist today.
There are a couple of other differences, like allowing people to own property, but otherwise fascism and communism are close cousins within the authoritarianism family. The idea that they're opposite came from Stalin's propaganda about his fascist enemies, which was exported to the West through media and universities.
Also, one small disagreement about the political spectrum graphic in the post -- the extreme right should not be anarchy, it should be tribalism. If there are no laws, neighbors will band together in tribes to protect each other. Anarchy is simply a tool to tear down the status quo, not a government type. Proof of this is how the left uses anarchy today.
Anarchy is simply a tool to tear down the status quo, not a government type. Proof of this is how the left uses anarchy today.
I would argue that the individuals who claim to be "anarchists" and act by looting cities and causing violence are, in fact, not anarchists at all. They are tools, as you say, by the George Soros types to instill fear (they are terrorists) and to get people to equate "anarchy" with "chaos."
In fact, today we are witnessing "government" being the same thing as "chaos," due to the complete lack of respect for Rule of Law.
A free society must respect Rule of Law, no matter how that society is structured, and whether or not it has a government.
Socialists, communists, fascists, and these fake anarchists all refuse to respect the Rule of Law -- as does the FJB administration.
What made America different was an establishment of, and respect for, Rule of Law.
And by "Rule of Law," I do not mean anything the dictator says is the rules. I mean what the founders meant: a respect for Natural Law, meaning a respect for cause-and-effect as "the laws of Nature and of Nature's God" dictate.
I would argue that the individuals who claim to be "anarchists" and act by looting cities and causing violence are, in fact, not anarchists at all.
Consider the old saying "Scratch a liberal and you'll find an authoritarian," you could also add "Scratch an anarchist and you'll find a phony."
In fact, today we are witnessing "government" being the same thing as "chaos," due to the complete lack of respect for Rule of Law.
You'll find every authoritarian leader never really cares about their professed ideologies or the government body, only their image. You see it today in the way the CCP is very sensitive to criticism from abroad. They activate Lebron James or they shame John Cena. As our earthly gods, they must be adored.
Socialists, communists, fascists, and these fake anarchists all refuse to respect the Rule of Law -- as does the FJB administration.
Related to the previous point, grassroots supporters of revolution don't really believe their own ideology and whatever new order it brings, they're just banking on being part of a privileged class during post-revolution. But in all these revolutions, those are the first people to get slaughtered by the communist dictators. Lenin's first purges were of the workers unions who supported him.
And by "Rule of Law," I do not mean anything the dictator says is the rules. I mean what the founders meant: a respect for Natural Law, meaning a respect for cause-and-effect as "the laws of Nature and of Nature's God" dictate.
One significant difference between the left and right is that the right understands the difference between order and authoritarianism while the left does not. Order is having a referee on the field. Authoritarianism is the ref scripting the game.
One thing is for sure, they are both very kosher. Who won World War ii? Who benefited? Why were 130,000 Jews serving in the German army and why were there only 160 to 170,000 Jews living in Germany at the start of the war? How is it possible that 98.5% of Jews in Poland were killed during the holocaust, accounting for half the 6 million total? The majority of the German army was on the Russian Battlefront. Poland was not the Battlefront. Where were the resources to round up 3 million people and where is the video and forensic evidence?
Nazi are to the right of communists / socialists, as they encouraged business production in a gov / business endeavor. Not whole takeover like communists do.
Thry are still left of center but def not left of communists..
"As the author of Common Sense and other writings without which America wouldn't have come to exist....Am I the radical everyone said I was, including many 'Founding Fathers' who were my peers, or do I qualify as "The Center"? And if so, why did Teddy Rosenfeld (Roosevelt) call me a 'filthy little atheist', and Washington left me to rot in a french prison? And what happened to my head and hands?"
----- American' Libertarian' Hero--Thomas Paine
Uh.....no....if you look, you can see that Isaac Rosenfeld is a descendant.....he varied the spelling.....something JEWS did often to disguise their you know.....dutch...background.
You protest too loudly about a detail that is moot in the point....it wasn't being 'dutch' that made the Rosens a dynasty was it? A Rosen by any other varied spelling still smells like a fucking cabalist when your head isn't up your ass, got a stiffy for Teddy or are a glowfag for the Phoenician navy.
Teddy's team paved his way by offing McKinnley btw, and here come the salty tears.
This chart should be two charts. Communism is a pie in the sky leftist economic model. Fascism is merely totalitarianism or “force-ism.” You can’t get free intelligent people with freedom of speech to accept Communism so you implement a totalitarian regime to force them to. They’re both on the left but you’re comparing apples and oranges.
I agree that there are most fundamentally totalitarians and freedom people, but there are still many issues & differences; levels of gun control; taxation; the proper and just role of government, etc. etc.
I do agree that fundamentally you're either a JBT or not, though.
Correct. They try and discuss communism (far left) and nazism (far right), and place them on a number line scale to show polarity, commies on one side, nazi’s on the other. I, however, see that as a line connected at both ends (a loop, if i will)… which places the two extreme ideologies smack next to each other… that is the reality of these two ideologies.
Both ideologies view democracy as an ideology that must be purged from society. This is literally an "us or them" situation, and our democratically elected leaders, both republicans, and democrats, have failed to fully understand that fact, and act accordingly.
Nixon unilaterally, and unconstitutionally, took the US dollar off the gold standard.
Ford buried Nixon's crimes.
Reagan was pretty good, but he let Bush Sr. get away with his crimes in Iran and Central America.
Bush Sr. was one of the most evil individuals who ever set foot in the White House, and he invaded Iraq using lies as his basis.
Bush Jr. pretended that 19 Arabs in caves did 9/11, and then invaded Iraq (like daddy), which had no connection to 9/11, though he also lied about it (like daddy).
Pence allowed the 2020 election to be certified, under the protest of several States' legislatures.
NoName, Romney, Graham, and many others on the "right" are very authoritarian in their mindset.
Very little difference between the Nazis and the communist
Ask yourself what your life would have been like in NSDAP
governed Germany and then ask yourself what your life would have been like in the Soviet Union or communist China.
Germany did not have any death camps (that was a made-up fantasy long after the war was over). It had prison camps for traitors and prisoners of war, just like the USA did (except, the USA imprisoned Japanese-Americans without any pretense that they were real traitors or criminals).
Exactly! Don't expect these sheeple to believe you. They've been brainwashed their entire lives. In their eyes, you telling the truth makes you a racist Nazi...
Not sure why the hate. I agree with this. As a former anarchist I had to become conservative because of the communist infiltration, and without the protections of some government and a well armed military commies will always try to infiltrate.
From your link ...
See the chicken and the egg problem there?
If a society DID have 100% fully rational and faultlessly moral people, then they would necessarily have objective laws ("laws" meaning that the laws of man would reflect the objective laws of nature). It would function just fine without an official government.
However ...
If the society is NOT made up 100% of those people, the argument goes that a government MUST be instituted to enforce these objective laws. HOWEVER, if the people who do NOT agree with the morality of natural law are the ones who gain control of that government, then they WILL use the power of that government to enforce what THEY want, even though it violates natural law.
You can't have a FREE society that is also IMMORAL (violates the laws of Nature and of Nature's God).
We are witnessing this EXACT situation today.
Personally, I am a minarchist. I believe that the minimum of government is the most likely to be the best. If that means no government, I am cool with that AS LONG AS it comes about in a philosohpical way, such that MOST people understand WHY it has happened this way. The American founding fathers came closest to this ideal.
But since we are a LONG way away from that today, thanks to GOVERNMENT-CONTROLLED schools indoctrinating the population to believe anti-human (anti-moral) ideas, there is likely some need of government. That being the case, we should INSIST on the Constitution being upheld, AS WRITTEN, and should be opposed to any constitutional convention that would undoubtedly sabotage that system.
We should enforce the Constitution against the employees of government, and their co-conspirators hiding in the shadows, by prosecuting them for their crimes.
If we got back to a system where the Constitution was followed, I think we might eventually get to a philosohpical place where we could make even that voluntary.
But there are over 200 countries in the world, and you just know that someone out there will be infiltrated by the very same criminals who have always wanted to be tyrants. So, it would take some time for a true voluntary system to ever be fully implemented.
Until then, we are stuck with the Catch-22, where (a) good people don't need government, (b) but not everyone is good, which is the argument to have a government, even though most people in government are also not good.
"The two enemies of the People are criminals and government. Let there be no talk of confidence in man, but bind them down from mischief with the chains of the Constitution, so that the latter do not become the former." -- Thomas Jefferson
It ain't exactly a new concept -- that people with a tyrant mindset tend to be attracted to government. It has been known for thousands of years (at least).
The past 2 years should have erased any such doubt.
I'm arguing with you.
If you are not up to the task, just say so.
I know. That's what I thought. My question was whether or not you see the problem, and I suspected that you did not see it. Thanks for confirming (even though you didn't intend to).
I was responding to a premise, not stating one.
If this is from Ayn Rand, then you must know she was a minarchist, not an anarchist. And her vision of government was a far cry from what we have today. Even the Constitution was too much government for her. She wanted only: military, police, and courts. And those must be funded by voluntary means, according to her.
She was as close to an anarchist as anyone in history, without actually being one.
I do not agree with her conclusion that you can get an "ought" from an "is." But other than that, she was spot on in most of her writing. She lived through the first attempt of communist takeover in Russia in 1905, so she had strong opinions that were opposed to big government.
Today, she would have been appalled at the thought that her ideas could be miscontruted as advocating for any sort of government that comes close to what we have today. She was outspoken against such a thing back in the 1960's and 1970's when she was alive. To take her ideas out of context (a big thing with her, which she called "context-dropping") is mentally lazy.
I was pointing out that the idea that government is needed because not everyone is moral (which she would NOT have defined as having anything to do with religion) is a concept that fails when we take into account the fact that the very people in charge of that government are themselves not moral, and therefore will attempt to use that political power against everyone else, thereby defeating the whole point of creating the government.
That is WHY she insisted on ONLY military, police, and courts. She could not figure out how to make these completely voluntary (and nobody else has, either), other than the funding should be 100% voluntary.
She was a true anarchocapitalist's minarchist. But that point seems to have evaded you.
Now take that line. twist it once, and join the ends together. You have the reality of it as a mobius. This is due to the 'winged' nature of politics.
Corporate Fascism is the enemy to focus on at the moment, whatever its color.
When government and corporations are in cahoots to control and profit, It masquerades as dichotomy and strife between left and then right as Hegelian Dialectic to confuse and conceal. It is then presented as left and right interchangeably to continue the game.
Hitler came in as both socialist and fascist. Then ran death squads on leftist groups. His most staunch rightwing supporters were marginalized or killed. (Roehmer, Rommel et al). Labeling was the method.
With politics as mobius strip, the idea of liberty has two 'sides'.
Just as 'Anarchy' does.
Philosophical, Anarchy is defined as perfect order with no need for 'government', while in practice with imperfect subjects, it becomes the opposite as chaos.
Libertarianism has both left and right wing proponents.
This dualistic extreme is played upon (politics) using the dichotomy to divide as the Hegelian Dialectic.
The fulcrum of the teeter totter is the middle, a theorectical zero sum point of stability.
The cabal wears purple (men - purple ties) to pretend they are a blend of red and blue, when in fact they keep the colors separate by need.
The Purple Partison Political People eater - Where's that party and how would it recruit?
Agreed.
People who hate the idea of no government existing, or who fear what might happen if there were no government, attempt to re-define "anarchy" to mean "chaos." In reality, having a BIG government (people with political power, whether acquired lawfully or not) HAS resulted in chaos.
The American founding fathers warned about this very issue, time and time again. Limiting political power was their primary motive in setting things up the way they did. They saw political power as the enemy of the people, because they knew it would lead to a chaotic society, just like we have today. Today, people with political power tell other people to wear a mask on their face, inject a mystery drug into their body, and to hand over 50%+ of their earnings to other people who waste it. It is a society in chaos due to political power.
An-archy means "no government" or "no ruler."
Monarcy = one person rules.
Oligarchy = a few people rule.
Anarchy = no person rules.
There are two schools of thought when it comes to anarchy: anarchocommunism (also called left anarchy) and anarchocapitalism (also called voluntaryism).
Anarchocommunists are real communists. Marx said that communism would be where the "state withers away" and is no longer needed. However, socialism would be forced by the state until "good" communism could be beaten into people (more or less).
Anarchocapitalists are real capitalists. They believe that a voluntary society would emerge if there were no government. It would not be a commual society, as in communism, but rather a free, voluntary society where people would create voluntary police forces and similar functions in society.
The best example of anarchocommunism was the British colonies in America in the very early days. They tried a communal system and they nearly starved to death. It was a disaster. It was only when they switched to capitalism that they began to thrive.
Anarchocapitalism existed in Ireland for almost 1,000 years, more or less, due to being on an island. They had no government, per se, as each village decided things for themselves. For this reason, it took England hundreds of years to conquer Ireleand. When they did, the White English made the White Irish into slaves.
More recently, the government of Somalia collapsed due to massive corruption in the 1990's. It was replaced with no government, and the people were generally better off than their neighbors who all had governments. The problem came about due to foreign governments -- United States and Russia -- interferring and trying to back various goon squads to establish a government by force.
So, such a society would have to come about in a philosohpical way, similar to how the USA was founded. Otherwise, it would open the door to gang warfare, since those people do not believe in having no government, and people who are attracted to government tend to be tyrannical by nature.
Regarding Hitler, the jews had used a communist movement to overthrow Russia and institute a new government there. They were trying to do the same thing in post-WWI Germany.
Hitler and his National Socialists were trying to stop the dirty commies. It just so happened that jews were the ones leading the dirty commies, and also had declared world war on Germany.
That's not to say that Hitler was any sort of anarchist. Far from it. He was a dictator. He and many of his followers saw his form of dictatorship as a better option than a jewish communist takeover like in Russia, where brutal murder had been the norm.
All anyone has to do today is take a look around. We have massive government AND we also have chaos.
RULE OF LAW. Either we all respect it, or not. THAT is the key.
It is not respected by the gangs in the hood on the south side of Chicago, and it is also not repected by the gangs wearing suits in Washington, DC.
True.
The spectrum presented.
There are three spectrums.
One is all colors smooshed together, creating black by interference/blocking between colors.
One is white light divided into freq/colors individually spaced.
A third, is the light undivided.
Totalitarians both 'left' and 'right', use their supposed OPTIC opponent, 'anarchy' aka chaos as an ally, to achieve their goal. This suggests that the cabal understands and attempts to control this spectrum as dichotomy, they don't choose a side.
Heaven is perfection in theory, but hell on earth creates its own opponent.
So "the devil goes to and fro upon the earth"....in the dualist nature of matter, and having a choice, stresses differences which divides.
The Nazis fought Communism like the twisted sisters they are and both saw the other as the enemy.
The parents of both are indeed the same.
WWG1WGA
noice.
I agree that corporate fascism is on the rise, and their use of ideology masuerading as business sense.
Anglosphere: New Public Management = Public Private Partnerships = stakeholder investment = merger of state and private sector = fascism, but used to stamp out communism.
However, ex-communist countries use Public Values to disassociate from the state and improve client/public service, and even starting up talent retention strategies to keep their public servants.
Scratches head.
Dialectic.
Hitler hated communism it’s what brought him to power as Germany was in a degenerative state because it , he adopted the fascist ideology of National socialism where the populace and industry worked for the betterment of the state
Your the moron pal , I’m merely stating historical facts that doesn’t mean that I support it or that I’m a Nazi it’s fuck wits like you that come along and ruin it here for everyone else that wants to contribute.
You are a jew, right?
Do you acknowledge that the jews declared war on Germany in 1933?
Do you acknowledge that because jews declared war on Germany that many jews living within Germany saw their own mission in life to destroy Germany from within?
Do you acknowledge that any society has a right to root out such enemies within, and deport them somewhere else, such as Palestine?
Either you acknowledge these points, or you evade them -- which is what you seem to usually do.
btw: I made 4 points, not 3.
You are still evading my 4 questions/points.
Which, btw, answers them.
Now that I think about it ...
In the unlikely event that you do answer the 4 questions/points, I will ask 2 more questions:
Was the Balfour Declaration a treasonous act by German jews to attempt to defeat their own country in a time of war?
Should Israel today have open borders to allow anyone and everyone to come on in?
He won't answer/ acknowledge because he's already made up his mind that you're an "Aryan type" (aka Nazi) in his mind.
It's legitimately impossible to have a logical conversation with these ((people)).
The way we use left/right is a great example of a false dichotomy.
Left/right is a euro-centric paradigm describing the political spectrum of totalitarianism.
It honestly has no place in the United States or other countries that value individualism.
This is correct. The terms have be one so twisted today anyway, they are bereft of meaning
Yes, and its frustrating. We've allowed our enemies to define the argument. Still a lot of waking up to do, even on our side.
Apparently Germany's meteoric rise came about when Hitler kicked out the Rothschild central bank. Make of that what you will.
National SOCIALIST
And the German concept of "socialist" had nothing at all to do with the Marxist concept of "socialist."
Marxists are socialists in the sense of taking over control of government by oligarchs, as a means to the end of instituting "true communism," where the state withers away. They think society should live in a large commune, where prosperity and freedom are irrelevant concepts. Only "equality" matters. In reality, of course, the state only grows stronger because the tyrants who benefit from such a system never want it to go away. In fact today, those people want world government -- the exact opposite of the Marxist utopia.
The German socialists were quite different. They wanted the society to be moral and devoid of unjust advantage, which is why they were fighting against communist jews, who had been responsible for the immorality and suffocating laws and financial practices that benefited them over the rest of the German people.
I think Hitler was more like the dictator who runs Singapore today, rather than the dictatorships of Mao or Stalin. But the Hitler chapter was never completed, so we will never know for sure.
I think the American system, as created by the founders, was better than Singapore today. But Singapore today is better than California today, which is not (yet) as bad as the Soviet Union was.
We have to go beyond the mere use of words (rascist! homophobe! trannyphobe! socialist! capitalist!) ... and discuss the CONCEPTS that the words represent (or misrepresent, in many cases).
Don't try talking any sense into these retards. They see "socialist" and their brains stop working. They're incapable of understanding that people can be socially conservative and fiscally liberal at the same time. You're absolutely right about Hitler and his people being patriots. They were Germany first, not everyone else first. That's why they were able to achieve what they did in such a short amount of time.
I think the Founding Fathers, as they envisioned the government, should be much further to the right.
I like your other posts but highly disagree with this one.
As you are entitled to....We cannot always agree...
As they have the right to.
why?
They were staunchly fighting communists. Also they burned liberal and communist books. I don't want to speculate too further with comparisons because the liberals will say "Aha!"
Sunni fights Shia muslim. They are both still muslim
See earlier reply.
The fascists and communists were never fighting over ideology, they were fighting over power. If there were another fascist movement within 1930's Germany, Hitler would have targeted them as enemies too. We know this because Hitler ordered the assassination of any NSDAP (Nazi) party member who could pose a political threat to him. He killed hundreds of party members who were loyal to him. A true ideologue would not be motivated to do this.
The communists were no different. They had their own Night of Long Knives where they assassinated hundreds of loyal party members. Also, Stalin had a pleasant relationship with Hitler as long as he limited his conquest to Europe.
These authoritarian movements are never truly about ideology. That's for the rubes and common folk to believe. It's always about power.
It says “socialism” right in the name. They were fat leftists.
Apparently they also burned faggotry books.
Read what General Patton had to say about WW2. Then go read what JFK had to say about Germany and AH.
Exactly! These retards won't look into it though. They've been brainwashed by ((them)) for decades to believe that they were the worst people on the planet, while also believing that all the attacks on Trump are unjustified but not putting two and two together. ..
The father of fascism was Benito Mussolini. He and his father were devout socialists, and he remained devoted to socialism until his death. Fascism was socialism that adopted a few changes like state corporatism as its economic model. So instead of the means of production being owned by the government (a defining characteristic of socialism) it was owned by industry leaders who were controlled by the state. If you've noticed this is the exact economic model of China, then you're correct, China is technically fascist rather than socialist today.
There are a couple of other differences, like allowing people to own property, but otherwise fascism and communism are close cousins within the authoritarianism family. The idea that they're opposite came from Stalin's propaganda about his fascist enemies, which was exported to the West through media and universities.
Also, one small disagreement about the political spectrum graphic in the post -- the extreme right should not be anarchy, it should be tribalism. If there are no laws, neighbors will band together in tribes to protect each other. Anarchy is simply a tool to tear down the status quo, not a government type. Proof of this is how the left uses anarchy today.
I would argue that the individuals who claim to be "anarchists" and act by looting cities and causing violence are, in fact, not anarchists at all. They are tools, as you say, by the George Soros types to instill fear (they are terrorists) and to get people to equate "anarchy" with "chaos."
In fact, today we are witnessing "government" being the same thing as "chaos," due to the complete lack of respect for Rule of Law.
A free society must respect Rule of Law, no matter how that society is structured, and whether or not it has a government.
Socialists, communists, fascists, and these fake anarchists all refuse to respect the Rule of Law -- as does the FJB administration.
What made America different was an establishment of, and respect for, Rule of Law.
And by "Rule of Law," I do not mean anything the dictator says is the rules. I mean what the founders meant: a respect for Natural Law, meaning a respect for cause-and-effect as "the laws of Nature and of Nature's God" dictate.
Agreed. Good post.
Consider the old saying "Scratch a liberal and you'll find an authoritarian," you could also add "Scratch an anarchist and you'll find a phony."
You'll find every authoritarian leader never really cares about their professed ideologies or the government body, only their image. You see it today in the way the CCP is very sensitive to criticism from abroad. They activate Lebron James or they shame John Cena. As our earthly gods, they must be adored.
Related to the previous point, grassroots supporters of revolution don't really believe their own ideology and whatever new order it brings, they're just banking on being part of a privileged class during post-revolution. But in all these revolutions, those are the first people to get slaughtered by the communist dictators. Lenin's first purges were of the workers unions who supported him.
One significant difference between the left and right is that the right understands the difference between order and authoritarianism while the left does not. Order is having a referee on the field. Authoritarianism is the ref scripting the game.
One thing is for sure, they are both very kosher. Who won World War ii? Who benefited? Why were 130,000 Jews serving in the German army and why were there only 160 to 170,000 Jews living in Germany at the start of the war? How is it possible that 98.5% of Jews in Poland were killed during the holocaust, accounting for half the 6 million total? The majority of the German army was on the Russian Battlefront. Poland was not the Battlefront. Where were the resources to round up 3 million people and where is the video and forensic evidence?
Instead of right and left we should just define as "mucho gov" and "less gov"
Nazi are to the right of communists / socialists, as they encouraged business production in a gov / business endeavor. Not whole takeover like communists do.
Thry are still left of center but def not left of communists..
One of the big reasons for differences of opinion on this is that the schools have been changing the way they teach what these terms mean.
You might be talking with someone who thinks your definitions are wrong due to what they were told to believe in school.
Therefore, it can be a good idea to define terms first, and you just might discover that the real difference is in how you view what the terms mean.
I agree with this. The Nazis and Communist ELITES fought/hated each other. It was all the same misery to the serfs below.
"As the author of Common Sense and other writings without which America wouldn't have come to exist....Am I the radical everyone said I was, including many 'Founding Fathers' who were my peers, or do I qualify as "The Center"? And if so, why did Teddy Rosenfeld (Roosevelt) call me a 'filthy little atheist', and Washington left me to rot in a french prison? And what happened to my head and hands?" ----- American' Libertarian' Hero--Thomas Paine
Wow
How ignorant of you to suggest against fact, that the Roosevelt name isn't originally Rosenfeld.
Or to think that Teddy Rosenfeld had to live contemporaneously with Paine to make comment on his life. Or that it isn't a KNOWN quote to historians.
Gee, I'm now a 'fascist type'. I'm curious as to what a 'fascist type' might be, especially since I'm a virulent anti-fascist as well as anit- antifa.
With all these such obvious ignorances on your part, why would you even BE HERE?
You're welcome for the reeeeeeeeeeeee d pill.
Dutch....that's just frigging hilarious.
The 'dutch' of the Dutch East Indies Company were Phoenician Navy also.
"Rosen is Dutch now?" Gene "the little Dutchboy of Sandy Hook" Rosen
https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roosevelt-rosenfeld-roosevelt-ancestry-history-of-jewish-names/246198
OOPS
You're just a joke without a punchline.
signed The Dutch Embassy:
Isaac Rosenfeld (1918-1956), Jewish-American writer Azriel Rosenfeld (1931–2004), American informatics professor Bella Rosenfeld (1895–1944), Yiddish picture book writer Morris Rosenfeld (1862–1923), Yiddish playwright Roni Rosenfeld (born 1959), Israeli-American computer scientist Šandor Friedrich Rosenfeld (1872–1945), Austrian-Jewish writer
You're welcome for the reeeeeeeeee d pill again.
A daemon is a negative force or energy like your denial of facts.]
Own it.
Uh.....no....if you look, you can see that Isaac Rosenfeld is a descendant.....he varied the spelling.....something JEWS did often to disguise their you know.....dutch...background.
You protest too loudly about a detail that is moot in the point....it wasn't being 'dutch' that made the Rosens a dynasty was it? A Rosen by any other varied spelling still smells like a fucking cabalist when your head isn't up your ass, got a stiffy for Teddy or are a glowfag for the Phoenician navy.
Teddy's team paved his way by offing McKinnley btw, and here come the salty tears.
Don’t believe everything you read. The names are awfully close. Some would call this a “coincidence.” Others of us know better.
This chart should be two charts. Communism is a pie in the sky leftist economic model. Fascism is merely totalitarianism or “force-ism.” You can’t get free intelligent people with freedom of speech to accept Communism so you implement a totalitarian regime to force them to. They’re both on the left but you’re comparing apples and oranges.
The Germans in the thirties we're socially conservative and fiscally liberal. Putting them in the "far left" box is retarded.
Yes, they wanted more government than Republicans but they were more conservative at the same time.
If the average republican sat down to talk with a Nazi of the thirties, they'd have to lot more in common than you think.
Also, national socialism was a political party. Not all Germans were Nazis just like not all Americans are Democrats.
The funny bit is modern anarchist fight for bigger welfare checks. They are pro government
Eh not really.
I agree that there are most fundamentally totalitarians and freedom people, but there are still many issues & differences; levels of gun control; taxation; the proper and just role of government, etc. etc.
I do agree that fundamentally you're either a JBT or not, though.
Bingo.
Correct. They try and discuss communism (far left) and nazism (far right), and place them on a number line scale to show polarity, commies on one side, nazi’s on the other. I, however, see that as a line connected at both ends (a loop, if i will)… which places the two extreme ideologies smack next to each other… that is the reality of these two ideologies.
Both ideologies view democracy as an ideology that must be purged from society. This is literally an "us or them" situation, and our democratically elected leaders, both republicans, and democrats, have failed to fully understand that fact, and act accordingly.
Exactly. Been trying to point this out to many people over the years. Only Nazis are a bit to the right of Communism IMHO.
Muh Nazis are bad...
I couldn't agree more, this is the direction our country would be heading if the our Patriots were not in control.
Nazi literally stands for the National SOCIALIST Workers Party.
This is incorrect dear.
How so? Explain your disagreement so retards like me will understand the true nature of things.
Well it’s missing the vertical axis for starters, which measures “authoritarian” vs “libertarian”. There is left right but also up down. See this for more info https://www.qwant.com/?q=nolan+chart&client=brz-brave&t=web
Authoritarian should be nowhere close to the right.
Nixon unilaterally, and unconstitutionally, took the US dollar off the gold standard.
Ford buried Nixon's crimes.
Reagan was pretty good, but he let Bush Sr. get away with his crimes in Iran and Central America.
Bush Sr. was one of the most evil individuals who ever set foot in the White House, and he invaded Iraq using lies as his basis.
Bush Jr. pretended that 19 Arabs in caves did 9/11, and then invaded Iraq (like daddy), which had no connection to 9/11, though he also lied about it (like daddy).
Pence allowed the 2020 election to be certified, under the protest of several States' legislatures.
NoName, Romney, Graham, and many others on the "right" are very authoritarian in their mindset.
Let's be real, here.
Ask yourself what your life would have been like in NSDAP governed Germany and then ask yourself what your life would have been like in the Soviet Union or communist China.
This is a ridiculous take.
As he said, very little difference.
Soviet Union had death camps for dissenters.
Germany did not have any death camps (that was a made-up fantasy long after the war was over). It had prison camps for traitors and prisoners of war, just like the USA did (except, the USA imprisoned Japanese-Americans without any pretense that they were real traitors or criminals).
Exactly! Don't expect these sheeple to believe you. They've been brainwashed their entire lives. In their eyes, you telling the truth makes you a racist Nazi...
Uneducated reply...
Thanks for your opinion...