Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Why don't you start with Mein Kampf and work from there...
Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler
Volume Two - The National Socialist Movement
Chapter IV: Personality and the Conception of the Folkish State
It would be absurd to appraise a man's worth by the race to which he belongs and at the same time to make war against the Marxist principle, that all men are equal, without being determined to pursue our own principle to its ultimate consequences. If we admit the significance of blood, that is to say, if we recognize the race as the fundamental element on which all life is based, we shall have to apply to the individual the logical consequences of this principle. In general I must estimate the worth of nations differently, on the basis of the different races from which they spring, and I must also differentiate in estimating the worth of the individual within his own race. The principle, that one people is not the same as another, applies also to the individual members of a national community. No one brain, for instance, is equal to another; because the constituent elements belonging to the same blood vary in a thousand subtle details, though they are fundamentally of the same quality.
The first consequence of this fact is comparatively simple. It demands that those elements within the folk-community which show the best racial qualities ought to be encouraged more than the others and especially they should be encouraged to increase and multiply.
---
The folkish philosophy is fundamentally distinguished from the Marxist by reason of the fact that the former recognizes the significance of race and therefore also personal worth and has made these the pillars of its structure. These are the most important factors of its view of life.
If the National Socialist Movement should fail to understand the fundamental importance of this essential principle, if it should merely varnish the external appearance of the present State and adopt the majority principle, it would really do nothing more than compete with Marxism on its own ground. For that reason it would not have the right to call itself a philosophy of life. If the social programme of the movement consisted in eliminating personality and putting the multitude in its place, then National Socialism would be corrupted with the poison of Marxism, just as our national-bourgeois parties are.
The People's State must assure the welfare of its citizens by recognizing the importance of personal values under all circumstances and by preparing the way for the maximum of productive efficiency in all the various branches of economic life, thus securing to the individual the highest possible share in the general output.
Hence the People's State must mercilessly expurgate from all the leading circles in the government of the country the parliamentarian principle, according to which decisive power through the majority vote is invested in the multitude. Personal responsibility must be substituted in its stead.
So, the answer really is 'no'?
Have you read Mein Kampf? And if you answer yes, then you would know that Goldberg's book is false.
"O con noi o contro di noi"--You're either with us or against us.
Benito Mussolini
"It is with absolute frankness that we speak of this struggle of the proletariat; each man must choose between joining our side or the other side. Any attempt to avoid taking sides in this issue must end in fiasco."
Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
"Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."
George W. Bush
"While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives."
Robert Altmeyer - The Authoritarians
Libertarianism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)Libertarianism, in the strict sense, is the moral view that agents initially fully own themselves and have certain moral powers to acquire property rights in external things. In a looser sense, libertarianism is any view that approximates the strict view.
...
Libertarianism is often thought of as “right-wing” doctrine. This, however, is mistaken for at least two reasons. First, on social—rather than economic—issues, libertarianism tends to be “left-wing”. It opposes laws that restrict consensual and private sexual relationships between adults (e.g., gay sex, extra-marital sex, and deviant sex), laws that restrict drug use, laws that impose religious views or practices on individuals, and compulsory military service. Second, in addition to the better-known version of libertarianism—right-libertarianism—there is also a version known as “left-libertarianism”. Both endorse full self-ownership, but they differ with respect to the powers agents have to appropriate unowned natural resources (land, air, water, minerals, etc.). Right-libertarianism holds that typically such resources may be appropriated by the first person who discovers them, mixes her labor with them, or merely claims them—without the consent of others, and with little or no payment to them. Left-libertarianism, by contrast, holds that unappropriated natural resources belong to everyone in some egalitarian manner. It can, for example, require those who claim rights over natural resources to make a payment to others for the value of those rights. This can provide the basis for a kind of egalitarian redistribution.
The best known early statement of (something close to) libertarianism is Locke (1690)
Socialism: A stage of socio-economic development withing a society characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist and egalitarian principles.
Authoritarian is found on both sides of the spectrum. Go to politicalcompass.com to find out where you and other historical characters are on the model.
Authoritarian is found on both sides of the spectrum. Go to politicalcompass.com to find out where you and other historical characters are on the model.
They have found that about 1% of the left could be classified authoritarian. I suggest you do some research before you make a blanket statement making it look anywhere near equal.
Authoritarian is found on both sides of the spectrum. Go to politicalcompass.com to find out where you and other historical characters are on the model.
They have found that about 1% of the left could be classified authoritarian. I suggest you do some research before you make a blanket statement making it look anywhere near equal.
I suggest you take the quiz and see where you land, and then reconsider your statement.
What, exactly, qualifies you to decide for other people what their best interests are? And is it just coincidence that their best interest is keeping liberals in power?Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence...
That's odd, considering liberals don't trust the people. They think the people are too stupid to take care of themselves and liberals must make all their decisions for them.
How many times have you and your fellow liberals used the phrase "voting against their best interests"?
Maybe not stupid, but ignorant of facts. For example, how many seniors will switch to voting Republican because they think their Medicare is going to be cut? What they don't realize (ignorance of the facts) is that it WOULD be, if a conservative majority has its way. So they are indeed voting against their best interests.
Ignorance is curable; stupidity is not.
"Quick fact check" = "update programming".Why don't you report us to [email protected]?The fringe lunatics from the far right are an embarrassment for their master Rush and his cronies. Better tell Snerdly on them.
Oh, yeah, you probably already have.
You serve your masters well, and you will be rewarded.
That website turned out to be completely unnecessary. All we had to do was tune into the right wing noise machine; then do a quick fact check and take appropriate action.
Hardly. When I move to a rural area, you can be damn sure I'll pay the VFD fee. This guy didn't think the rules applied to him.
And whose fault was that?
Oh, yeah...the guy who didn't pay his 75 bucks.
That incident sickened me. And stop defending it--you just confirm that you're a robotic asshole without a conscience.
Ummm...who gets the shit kicked out of them for not paying property taxes?What if the police didn't respond to you getting the shit kicked out of you just because you hadn't paid your property taxes yet? Same fucking thing.
Libertarianism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)Libertarianism, in the strict sense, is the moral view that agents initially fully own themselves and have certain moral powers to acquire property rights in external things. In a looser sense, libertarianism is any view that approximates the strict view.
...
Libertarianism is often thought of as right-wing doctrine. This, however, is mistaken for at least two reasons. First, on socialrather than economicissues, libertarianism tends to be left-wing. It opposes laws that restrict consensual and private sexual relationships between adults (e.g., gay sex, extra-marital sex, and deviant sex), laws that restrict drug use, laws that impose religious views or practices on individuals, and compulsory military service. Second, in addition to the better-known version of libertarianismright-libertarianismthere is also a version known as left-libertarianism. Both endorse full self-ownership, but they differ with respect to the powers agents have to appropriate unowned natural resources (land, air, water, minerals, etc.). Right-libertarianism holds that typically such resources may be appropriated by the first person who discovers them, mixes her labor with them, or merely claims themwithout the consent of others, and with little or no payment to them. Left-libertarianism, by contrast, holds that unappropriated natural resources belong to everyone in some egalitarian manner. It can, for example, require those who claim rights over natural resources to make a payment to others for the value of those rights. This can provide the basis for a kind of egalitarian redistribution.
The best known early statement of (something close to) libertarianism is Locke (1690)
Socialism: A stage of socio-economic development withing a society characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist and egalitarian principles.
so will the real libertarian please stand up....?
you've provided two widely diverse viewpoints of libertarianism....one believes in private property rights and the other doesn't....i believe the former are called libertarian capitalists while the latter are called libertarian socialists.....
i guess it takes a linquistics master like Chomsky to deal with the twisted pretzel meanings of libertarian socialism...
Authoritarian is found on both sides of the spectrum. Go to politicalcompass.com to find out where you and other historical characters are on the model.
They have found that about 1% of the left could be classified authoritarian. I suggest you do some research before you make a blanket statement making it look anywhere near equal.
libertarian socialism....?
wouldn't that be a tad bit of an oxymoron....emphasis on moron....?
Just spitballing here, but I'd imagine Libertarian Socialism means you're in favor of personal privacy and freedom, i.e. do what you want as long as you don't harm others, while maintaining that essential services should be run by the government.
That isn't that crazy of an idea all in all. Sounds pretty close to my philosophy.
So what happens to your great libertarian "personal freedom" when you say, start your own business, but at some point they (the state powers that be) decide to take it from you and make it part of the socialist collective....?
[you've provided two widely diverse viewpoints of libertarianism....
one believes in private property rights and the other doesn't....i believe the former are called libertarian capitalists while the latter are called libertarian socialists.....
They have found that about 1% of the left could be classified authoritarian. I suggest you do some research before you make a blanket statement making it look anywhere near equal.
I suggest you take the quiz and see where you land, and then reconsider your statement.
I have taken it and posted it here months ago. I suggest you consider the concept of parochial indoctrination. Don't be confused by left/right based on your parochial indoctrination. Let's take Josef Stalin; at ten, he began attending church school and he received a scholarship to a Georgian Orthodox seminary at 16. What orthodoxy, traditions, beliefs, tenets and values would Stalin hold dear? Free market capitalism, adherence to the US Constitution, democratic institutions?
They have found that about 1% of the left could be classified authoritarian. I suggest you do some research before you make a blanket statement making it look anywhere near equal.
I suggest you take the quiz and see where you land, and then reconsider your statement.
I have taken it and posted it here months ago. I suggest you consider the concept of parochial indoctrination. Don't be confused by left/right based on your parochial indoctrination. Let's take Josef Stalin; at ten, he began attending church school and he received a scholarship to a Georgian Orthodox seminary at 16. What orthodoxy, traditions, beliefs, tenets and values would Stalin hold dear? Free market capitalism, adherence to the US Constitution, democratic institutions?
Why don't you start with Mein Kampf and work from there...
Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler
Volume Two - The National Socialist Movement
Chapter IV: Personality and the Conception of the Folkish State
It would be absurd to appraise a man's worth by the race to which he belongs and at the same time to make war against the Marxist principle, that all men are equal, without being determined to pursue our own principle to its ultimate consequences. If we admit the significance of blood, that is to say, if we recognize the race as the fundamental element on which all life is based, we shall have to apply to the individual the logical consequences of this principle. In general I must estimate the worth of nations differently, on the basis of the different races from which they spring, and I must also differentiate in estimating the worth of the individual within his own race. The principle, that one people is not the same as another, applies also to the individual members of a national community. No one brain, for instance, is equal to another; because the constituent elements belonging to the same blood vary in a thousand subtle details, though they are fundamentally of the same quality.
The first consequence of this fact is comparatively simple. It demands that those elements within the folk-community which show the best racial qualities ought to be encouraged more than the others and especially they should be encouraged to increase and multiply.
---
The folkish philosophy is fundamentally distinguished from the Marxist by reason of the fact that the former recognizes the significance of race and therefore also personal worth and has made these the pillars of its structure. These are the most important factors of its view of life.
If the National Socialist Movement should fail to understand the fundamental importance of this essential principle, if it should merely varnish the external appearance of the present State and adopt the majority principle, it would really do nothing more than compete with Marxism on its own ground. For that reason it would not have the right to call itself a philosophy of life. If the social programme of the movement consisted in eliminating personality and putting the multitude in its place, then National Socialism would be corrupted with the poison of Marxism, just as our national-bourgeois parties are.
The People's State must assure the welfare of its citizens by recognizing the importance of personal values under all circumstances and by preparing the way for the maximum of productive efficiency in all the various branches of economic life, thus securing to the individual the highest possible share in the general output.
Hence the People's State must mercilessly expurgate from all the leading circles in the government of the country the parliamentarian principle, according to which decisive power through the majority vote is invested in the multitude. Personal responsibility must be substituted in its stead.
So, the answer really is 'no'?
Have you read Mein Kampf? And if you answer yes, then you would know that Goldberg's book is false.
"O con noi o contro di noi"--You're either with us or against us.
Benito Mussolini
"It is with absolute frankness that we speak of this struggle of the proletariat; each man must choose between joining our side or the other side. Any attempt to avoid taking sides in this issue must end in fiasco."
Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
"Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."
George W. Bush
"While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives."
Robert Altmeyer - The Authoritarians
I suggest you take the quiz and see where you land, and then reconsider your statement.
I have taken it and posted it here months ago. I suggest you consider the concept of parochial indoctrination. Don't be confused by left/right based on your parochial indoctrination. Let's take Josef Stalin; at ten, he began attending church school and he received a scholarship to a Georgian Orthodox seminary at 16. What orthodoxy, traditions, beliefs, tenets and values would Stalin hold dear? Free market capitalism, adherence to the US Constitution, democratic institutions?
You are as indoctrinated as the far right, and I will leave it at that. And while you are at it, talk to the survivors of the Khymer Rouge. I have no more use for Political Chics of the left than I do for her on the right. None at all.
We all have a right to our opinions but not to our set of facts and definitions.
So, the answer really is 'no'?
Have you read Mein Kampf? And if you answer yes, then you would know that Goldberg's book is false.
"O con noi o contro di noi"--You're either with us or against us.
Benito Mussolini
"It is with absolute frankness that we speak of this struggle of the proletariat; each man must choose between joining our side or the other side. Any attempt to avoid taking sides in this issue must end in fiasco."
Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
"Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."
George W. Bush
"While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives."
Robert Altmeyer - The Authoritarians
Wow...you will go to quite some lengths not to admit you don't read it, but still have strong opinions about the book....
But, I must admit, that technique sure is a time saver..
I have taken it and posted it here months ago. I suggest you consider the concept of parochial indoctrination. Don't be confused by left/right based on your parochial indoctrination. Let's take Josef Stalin; at ten, he began attending church school and he received a scholarship to a Georgian Orthodox seminary at 16. What orthodoxy, traditions, beliefs, tenets and values would Stalin hold dear? Free market capitalism, adherence to the US Constitution, democratic institutions?
You are as indoctrinated as the far right, and I will leave it at that. And while you are at it, talk to the survivors of the Khymer Rouge. I have no more use for Political Chics of the left than I do for her on the right. None at all.
We all have a right to our opinions but not to our set of facts and definitions.
What is so hard to understand? Do you subscribe to some dumb theory that the rest of the fucking world revolves around YOUR Americanized indoctrination definition of left/right, liberal/conservative? Does the rest of the world follow some version of drains swirling the opposite way in the southern hemisphere?
ANY form of government can be totalitarian, BUT it is run by conservatives in THAT culture. Other cultures do NOT conform to YOUR Americanized indoctrination definition of left/right, liberal/conservative.
The Khmer Rouge were communists that believed people were tainted with capitalism.
WHAT would a conservative in Russia look like, a liberal in America? And would liberals in Russia be conservatives in America?
Fucking WOW!
