The liberal march towards EXTREME fascism

[Rigby5]

I love when the left accidentally speaks the truth about something they work so hard to hide…

CONSPIRACY THEORY? Australian official lets it slip on 'New World Order' | Blaze Media

New South Wales chief health officer Dr. Kerry Chant mentioned the "New World Order" during a press conference about contact tracing, sending the internet into a frenzy. Is this a simple slip of the tongue or are the authoritarian elite exposing their true agenda? Speaking of authoritarians...

www.theblaze.com

A new world order does not at all imply it has to be an evil, imposing, elite, or corrupt world order.
It could just be more orderly, benign, benevolent, efficient, useful, careful, or something else good.
There always has to be some order in the world, and especially with travel and health care, we had better work on some sort of world order.

 

[Rigby5]

Bwahahaha!! It’s an undeniable, indisputable fact that the further left you go on the political spectrum, government gets larger and more powerful, and the further right you go on the political spectrum, government gets smaller and weaker.

But even you know that much already. As usual, you sure to resort to lying because it’s necessary to advance your agenda.

That is silly.
When you go to the right, that requires more government to impose on the poor majority by force, such as all aristocracies, feudalism, kingdoms, etc. of history.
There was no left or democracy until we started rebelling against the right wing capitalist dictatorships, like in France, England, Russia, etc.
Left means populist democracy, while right means the wealthy elite dictate.

 

[surada]

Notice how fast surada ran for the hills when I asked her to explain how fascism could possibly be to the right of libertarianism when everyone knows that the further right you go, government gets smaller and weaker?

They talk a ton of shit, but when it’s time to get down to brass tacks, they run like hell.

I didn't go anywhere, twerp.

Hahaha. Your claim about going further right for small government is a crock of mindless drivel.

 

[surada]

I love when the left accidentally speaks the truth about something they work so hard to hide…

CONSPIRACY THEORY? Australian official lets it slip on 'New World Order' | Blaze Media

New South Wales chief health officer Dr. Kerry Chant mentioned the "New World Order" during a press conference about contact tracing, sending the internet into a frenzy. Is this a simple slip of the tongue or are the authoritarian elite exposing their true agenda? Speaking of authoritarians...

www.theblaze.com

Do you know there have been many, many new world orders?

 

[bripat9643]

That's not true either. Your education is lousy. like soundbites and fast food. He broke with the Socialists in 1926.

Were the Nazis Socialists? | Britannica

Were the Nazis Socialists?

What’s the difference between National Socialists and every other kind of socialist?

www.britannica.com

By the late 1920s, however, with the German economy in free fall, Hitler had enlisted support from wealthy industrialists who sought to pursue avowedly anti-socialist policies. Otto Strasser soon recognized that the Nazis were neither a party of socialists nor a party of workers, and in 1930 he broke away to form the anti-capitalist Schwarze Front (Black Front).

Why should anyone believe Britannica? They are notorious for being leftwing ideologues

 

[bripat9643]

National Socialists were anti-socialists.
Here is the main political parties of the Weimar republic, and there orientaton.

{...
In the Weimar Republic the left consisted of the Communists (KPD) and the Social Democrats (SPD). The Center consisted of the Democratic party (DDP), the Catholic Center Party (Z) and the People’s Party (DVP). The right consisted of the German Nationalist Party (DNVP) and the National Socialist Party (NSDAP-Nazi). Unlike American political parties, German political parties had narrower bases of support generally based on class, occupation and religion. They were therefore less inclined to compromise and more inclined to have programs based on clear sets of ideas (ideologies).
...}

The Weimar Republic: The Fragility of Democracy

Explore the efforts to build a democracy in Germany in the 1920s, and examine the misunderstandings, myths, and fears that often undercut those efforts.

www.facinghistory.org

If you knew more about the history of the Nazis, you would know they came from a right wing veteran's organization of Ernst Roehm, called the SA, (Sturm Abteilung).

I do know the history of the Nazi party. Ernst Roehm was a notorious socialist. It was no "veterans organization" according to the American meaning of the term.

 

[bripat9643]

No, right wing does not at all mean a smaller or weaker government.

Of course it does.

The right always promotes the biggest, strongest government possible because they want to sell the public on all sorts of weapons and munitions, and claim all the workers are potential rebels or anarchists.

Utter bullshit.

Libertarians are a very small fringe group of the extreme right who are against the profiteering of the majority of the right wing capitalists, and believe in a non-coercive state, which is pretty much identical to the very small fringe group of the extreme left, the Anarchists.

You just said the right promotes bigger government. How do libertarians fit that description?

 

[Rigby5]

Why should anyone believe Britannica? They are notorious for being leftwing ideologues

Maybe, but the Nazis and Fascists in WWII, Germany, Italy, and Japan, were all EXTREMELY right wing, based on aristocracies.
In contrast, left wing is always populist, based on democracies.

 

[bripat9643]

Maybe, but the Nazis and Fascists in WWII, Germany, Italy, and Japan, were all EXTREMELY right wing, based on aristocracies.
In contrast, left wing is always populist, based on democracies.

No they weren't.

 

[Rigby5]

I do know the history of the Nazi party. Ernst Roehm was a notorious socialist. It was no "veterans organization" according to the American meaning of the term.

Sure the SA was a veteran's organization.
Not only was Ernst Roehm a career officer, but all of the SA were veterans.
That is how they were able to keep their arms when the Weimar Republic disarmed everyone else with gun control laws.
They held marksmanship classes and competitions.
Ernst Roehm himself may have had some reformations in mind that may be considered socialist, but that is why the aristocracy, military, and corporations insisted that Hitler kill him.
They wanted proof Hitler would do what they told him to, and that he was not a socialist.

 

[bripat9643]

Sure the SA was a veteran's organization.
Not only was Ernst Roehm a career officer, but all of the SA were veterans.
That is how they were able to keep their arms when the Weimar Republic disarmed everyone else with gun control laws.
They held marksmanship classes and competitions.
Ernst Roehm himself may have had some reformations in mind that may be considered socialist, but that is why the aristocracy, military, and corporations insisted that Hitler kill him.
They wanted proof Hitler would do what they told him to, and that he was not a socialist.

There's no point in discussing this with you since you lack the capacity to commit logic.

 

[Rigby5]

Of course it does.



Utter bullshit.



You just said the right promotes bigger government. How do libertarians fit that description?

If you look at any right wing government, it is always huge.
That is because right wing is profit motivated for the wealthy elite, and that requires the largest collection of force.
Force used not only for domestic feudalism, but foreign imperialism and colonialism.
All the big invaders and conquerors are always right wing, like the Spartans, Alexander the Great, the Romans, Genghis Khan, Napoleon, Victorian England, etc.
Left wing is populist, so does not care about profits, so does not invade, so does not need large armed forces, does not abuse so does need prisons, police, etc.

Libertarians are not really right wing.
They are just confused.
They believe government should not be coercive.
And that can only work if people are naturally cooperative.
So Libertarians are actually very far left Anarchists, who believe in the good of human nature.
In reality the right wing would imprison Libertarians as soon as the right had the power to do so.

 

[Rigby5]

No they weren't.

The main focus of the fascists in WWII was profits.
There is nothing left wing about invading Poland, France, or Russia.
The corporations loved it because they were making profits hands over fists.
The decisions by the Fascists all came from the aristocracy, corporations, and military elite.
They people got no say.
Hitler was a good orator, but in no way a populist trying to empower the people.
He was appointed by Hindenburg, after the wealthy elite approved.

 

[Rigby5]

There's no point in discussing this with you since you lack the capacity to commit logic.

Before Hitler was allowed any power, the wealthy elite insisted the SS replace the SA.
Does that sound at all left wing?

 

[bripat9643]

If you look at any right wing government, it is always huge.
That is because right wing is profit motivated for the wealthy elite, and that requires the largest collection of force.
Force used not only for domestic feudalism, but foreign imperialism and colonialism.
All the big invaders and conquerors are always right wing, like the Spartans, Alexander the Great, the Romans, Genghis Khan, Napoleon, Victorian England, etc.
Left wing is populist, so does not care about profits, so does not invade, so does not need large armed forces, does not abuse so does need prisons, police, etc.

Libertarians are not really right wing.
They are just confused.
They believe government should not be coercive.
And that can only work if people are naturally cooperative.
So Libertarians are actually very far left Anarchists, who believe in the good of human nature.
In reality the right wing would imprison Libertarians as soon as the right had the power to do so.

ROFL. You simply label any huge government as "right wing." Can you name a huge government that is "right wing?"

I'm not going down that hole.

 

[bripat9643]

Before Hitler was allowed any power, the wealthy elite insisted the SS replace the SA.
Does that sound at all left wing?

Pure fantasy. Hitler got rid of the SA because they were a threat to his power, not because of any demand from the wealthy. Ca you produce any evidence of this demand?

 

[Rigby5]

ROFL. You simply label any huge government as "right wing." Can you name a huge government that is "right wing?"

I'm not going down that hole.

I am not choosing "right wing" by size, but profit motive.
Any invader like Attila the Hun to the Conquistadors, were all profit motivated.
So they were all right wing.
Their goal was to bring back gold to the wealthy elite.

A left wing government would only care about equitable local sharing of profits from local production, and not to steal from other populations.

Again, the point is when you use profits as the only motivation, then theft becomes acceptable.
Time and time again, capitalism has always resulted in slavery if not strongly regulated to prevent it.

 

[Rigby5]

Pure fantasy. Hitler got rid of the SA because they were a threat to his power, not because of any demand from the wealthy. Ca you produce any evidence of this demand?

From the timeline I remember, Hindenburg told Hitler the ruling class would appoint him if he got rid of Roehm, he had Roehm killed, and then Hitler was appointed Chancellor.
It was pretty clear Hitler did not want to kill Roehm.
It was the military who did not like Roehm, not Hitler.

 

[bripat9643]

I am not choosing "right wing" by size, but profit motive.
Any invader like Attila the Hun to the Conquistadors, were all profit motivated.
So they were all right wing.
Their goal was to bring back gold to the wealthy elite.

A left wing government would only care about equitable local sharing of profits from local production, and not to steal from other populations.

Again, the point is when you use profits as the only motivation, then theft becomes acceptable.
Time and time again, capitalism has always resulted in slavery if not strongly regulated to prevent it.

That isn't how you define "right wing." Virtually any ruler in history was motivated by greed and lust for power. You have simply contrived a definition that allows you to label any villain you like as right wing.

 

[bripat9643]

From the timeline I remember, Hindenburg told Hitler the ruling class would appoint him if he got rid of Roehm, he had Roehm killed, and then Hitler was appointed Chancellor.
It was pretty clear Hitler did not want to kill Roehm.
It was the military who did not like Roehm, not Hitler.

Really? Where is the evidence?