quote:

Originally posted by DonDraper:

quote:

Originally posted by mutedblade:


You've got some explaining to do Mr. Draper. Why do you own a Volkswagen? Are you a Nazi?

Adolf Hitler and Volkswagen

That's all you can come up with? Run out of logical adult things to say did we? You might fall into that special category I mentioned before. I'd almost guarantee it.


Keeping it cool here as requested though, just thought it wouldn't be so dramatic to express my fucking disdain for Nazis. I still won't check for a permit to walk out on the street when they show up in my town. Good luck with all that, have a glorious day all.

I get what you are saying. It's an emotional response, and I feel the same way. The thing is the founding fathers set up this country to protect people from oppression. That means there's a trade-off. In order for you to get freedom of expression, it means so does everyone else, no matter how detestable their views are. As long as the Nazi's are not committing a crime, their thoughts are not illegal.

Can you understand that concept?

As for you going and giving them a piece of your mind. Is it really worth it? What good would come of it? You just legitimize them by paying attention to them. If you ignore them they go back in their holes.

Krauthammer is an idiot and Laura Ingraham just smacked him down on Fox News. She is good. Hopefully the segment will be online soon if you missed it live.

I'll keep an eye out for it and try to link it.

quote:

Originally posted by Skins2881:...I get what you are saying. It's an emotional response, and I feel the same way. The thing is the founding fathers set up this country to protect people from oppression. That means there's a trade-off. In order for you to get freedom of expression, it means so does everyone else, no matter how detestable their views are. As long as the Nazi's are not committing a crime, their thoughts are not illegal.

Can you understand that concept?...

Apparently the answer would be no.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:
ensigmatic,
I don't really want to argue with you...

I don't want to argue, either. Debate, though, is good

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:
but would you agree that on the right we want individual liberty, ie. as little government as possible?

That's actually a libertarian and classical liberal ideal. (They're nearly indistinguishable from one another.) The right has its own ideas of what constitutes "liberty," just as does the left. The right has been as guilty of book-burning as the left. The right remains the primary opposition to decriminalizing recreational drug use (other than alcohol). The right is the one most opposed to gays freely engaging in relationships of their choosing. It is the right that wants to end abortion entirely, even in the cases of rape and incest.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:
Does "A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator" sound like individual liberty to you?

Begs the question. (Answered above.)

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:
If the far left is complete and total government, everything in the state, nothing outside the state.... then the far right would be NO government, or anarchy.

Nope. Just a different set of restrictions. That is why libertarians and classical liberals often refer to Democrats (overwhelmingly leftists, these days) and Republicans (mostly inordinately influenced by the religious right) as "two sides to the same coin."

Here is the "old" libertarian "political spectrum" diagram:



It's now inaccurate, because the old "left liberal" is no longer liberal. They're just leftists, these days. No better regarding personal liberties than the "right conservative" is--or, at least, used to be. ("Right Conservatives" are significantly more libertarian than they were 20-30 years ago.)

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:
Fascism has always been understood to be on the left, up until recent revisionism has attempted to confuse people into thinking fascism is on the right.

That is precisely backwards.

There was nothing "socialistic" about Nazi Germany at all. Nor was their anything even remotely socialistic about Italy under Mussolini, or any of the violent right-wing fascist governments in S. America.

I learned about fascism in high school, over a half century ago. So if the thinking of fascism being right-wing is "recent revisionism," then I guess, by "recent," you mean a long time ago by my reckoning

quote:

Originally posted by Jimineer:
Krauthammer is an idiot and Laura Ingraham just smacked him down on Fox News. She is good. Hopefully the segment will be online soon if you missed it live.

I'll keep an eye out for it and try to link it.

Please link it, I'll re-watch that one. KO for Laura!

As Mussolini himself said, "everything in the state, nothing outside the state"....

I take it you haven't watched the Dinesh D'Souza video.

Here is an article analyzing the socialism of the Nazis, and touching on Mussolini's socialism.

https://mises.org/library/why-...cialism-totalitarian

On another matter, Krauthammer is an intelligent guy, and his story of overcoming severe injury is inspiring. But politically he is GOPe all the way, proving one can be very smart and also stupid.

quote:

Originally posted by Jimineer:
Krauthammer is an idiot and Laura Ingraham just smacked him down on Fox News.

What did he say?

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:

quote:

Originally posted by Jimineer:
Krauthammer is an idiot and Laura Ingraham just smacked him down on Fox News.

What did he say?

Krauthammer: ""What Trump did today was a moral disgrace," Krauthammer said. "He reverted back to Saturday."

More here. It went on...

http://insider.foxnews.com/201...graham-debate-racism

I'm not watching any of it. These days, there are times when you should refrain from trying to watch any "news" programs. I can stomach only so much absurdity.

If something newsworthy happens, I'll likely find it here first.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
I'm not watching any of it. These days, there are times when you should refrain from trying to watch any "news" programs. I can stomach only so much absurdity.

If something newsworthy happens, I'll likely find it here first.

Well I'm with you on your point of refraining from watching the news these days. I just happened to catch this bit and loved seeing Laura taking his NeverTrump ass on. That fucker doesn't have a clue what the South is about. He acts like the South is just a bunch of racists. Fuck him.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:
As Mussolini himself said, "everything in the state, nothing outside the state"....

And some Americans are all about "America: Love it or leave it," "America: Right or wrong," and other such slogans. Does that make them fascists?

Look: There is a lot of debate as to whether fascism is right, left or something else entirely. My position is it's neither right nor left, but can be expressed at either end of the right/left bipolar political spectrum.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:
I take it you haven't watched the Dinesh D'Souza video.

I followed the link and watched a (very good) video about food stamps and read a Twitter comment

I believe that many of the violent left have developed a false sense of security and power from the false conclusion that just because we are peaceful we do not know how to be violent. The terrifying reality that we have the capacity for violence on a scale they could never imagine in their worst nightmare if they come to harm lose and that which we love. I also believe that they do have a complete lack of morals which will lead to very different levels of commitment when it comes to a head. Most of them have never experienced violence on the scale of a real war. Once the righteous man draws his sword, he does not stop until the evil is destroyed and can not rise again.

For those who I love, I will do great and terrible things.

Never mind what I said about Krauthammer being intelligent and yada yada.

He's an asshole.

Any respect I had for Krauthammer has left the building, starting about November last. He and Charlie Gasparino, who is about as accurate as Mel Kiper Jr and his NFL draft predictions.

I can't stomach the bickering on tv. No one changes their mind from harangeing. I much prefer to read the transcripts than listen to them bark. Ingraham is very good. I hoped Trump would appoint her communications director but she is probably more effective doing what she's doing. She should have her own show.

I think Virginia is a set up.No doubt. Race card, It's what the dems always do and the punk driver is proving to be a Soros fraud. Step back and deep breaths. Rats and msm are gonna press full court but they don't have staying power. Now would sure be a good time to put a rat like DWS or Rice or Lynch et al behind bars. I'm just dreaming but I thought a kick ass guy like Sessions would be perp walking rats by now.

quote:

Look: There is a lot of debate as to whether fascism is right, left or something else entirely. My position is it's neither right nor left, but can be expressed at either end of the right/left bipolar political spectrum.

I will grant you that it depends on your political spectrum. I will also say that I was taught in grade school, the same as you, that fascism is on the right.

quote:

I learned about fascism in high school, over a half century ago. So if the thinking of fascism being right-wing is "recent revisionism," then I guess, by "recent," you mean a long time ago by my reckoning

It wasn't until after WWII that fascism was blamed on the right. But the history is clear. What is fascism? It's the ideology of the centralized state. There have been 3 major collectivist movements in recent times: communism, fascism, and progressivism.

So... after degrees in politics, philosophy, and law... I have re-thought this spectrum.
I now think, as D'Souza, that it's much simpler, and more useful to look at the spectrum as being from complete and total government on the left, to NO government, or anarchy on the right.

Your "old" libertarian "political spectrum" diagram is useful in that authoritarian (complete or total government: tyranny) is on the opposite side of libertarian (no government, anarchy). But the left/liberal and right/conservative I don't find very useful.
Unless... you say that "liberal" tends toward the authoritarian and that "conservative" tends toward the libertarian.

BTW: I agree with you that on the right we want individual liberty, ie. as little government as possible ... and that it's actually a libertarian and classical liberal ideal. (They're nearly indistinguishable from one another.)

But I think you are helping my argument that as little government as possible, a classical liberal ideal, is what those of us on the right strive for...

quote:

quote:
Originally posted by chellim1:
I take it you haven't watched the Dinesh D'Souza video.

I followed the link and watched a (very good) video about food stamps and read a Twitter comment

Well, I'm sorry, but you watched the wrong video.
If the video posted near the bottom of page 15 of this thread doesn't work for you, try this link.
It starts with a discussion on race relations in Baltimore... it's well worth the 19:37 it takes to watch.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfEomcHLGfg

http://www.paulcraigroberts.or.../14/charlottesville/

Charlottesville

Paul Craig Roberts

Listening to NPR this morning confirmed what I already knew. Charlottesville is being turned into another nail in President Trump’s coffin.

NPR had no interest whatsoever in reporting the actual facts about what had occurred in Charlottesville. The several “interviews” with the like-minded were orchestrated to produce the desired propaganda result: It was all Trump’s fault.

It was Trump’s fault for many reasons. He had stirred up White Supremacists and Nazis by appealing during the presidential election campaign to their supremacist views with his slogan “America first.”

Of course, what Trump means by “America first,” is precisely what the voters understood him to mean—the interest of the broad American public should come before trade deals that serve the interests of other countries and the narrow profit interests of global corporations. However, the NPR propagandists put words in Trump’s mouth and twisted the meaning of the slogan to be “White America Comes First.”

In other words, “America first” according to NPR is code language to white supremacists to take advantage of the electoral college and elect a leader over the popular vote of the heavy population densities in the narrow geographical areas that comprise the northeast and west coasts, the centers of moral rot. Thus, Trump was the candidate of white supremacists and, thereby, illegitimate.

NPR next conveyed the message that Trump proved he was the Nazis’ candidate when he criticized both sides for the trouble in Charlottesville. NPR used its orchestrated interviews to place all blame for violence on the group that had a permit for their rally. According to NPR, the group that had no permit and formed in order to protest the rally consisted entirely of white hats defending America from free speech from alleged Nazis and racists.

There is no doubt that a rally of what is called the “alt-right” will pull into itself all sorts of extremists and that the cause of the rally, apparently defending a statue of Robert E. Lee from demolition or perhaps simply gaining attention for the organizers, was done harm by the young, apparently unbalanced, man who drove a car into counter-marchers, after the permitted rally had ended. The nonsensical element of this act has convinced some Americans that the entire scene was an orchestration by the deep state as a weapon against Trump and civil liberty.

Charlottesville has many aspects that are ignored by NPR and the rest of the presstitutes. For example, how does the Bush/Cheney/Obama/neoconservative assertion that Americans are the “exceptional people” whose country is the “indispensable country” differ from Trump’s proclamation of “America first”? No one among the liberal/progressive/left was disturbed when Obama proclaimed to the world that Americans are the exceptional, indispensable people. Doesn’t Obama use much clearer language that puts America first? If Americans are exceptional, everyone else is unexceptional. If Americans are indispensable, everyone else is dispensable.

What is the difference? One difference is that Obama was elected by the good people, the non-racist, non-misogynist, non-white-supremacist people, and Trump was elected by “the deplorables,” to use Hillary’s term. Little wonder she lost, having dismissed everyone between the two coasts as “deplorables.” But she didn’t lose, right? Putin and Trump conspired to steal the election from her. Trump is illegitimate and therefore must be driven out of office. He is doubly illegitimate because white heterosexual males elected him. This bogus charge despite the fact that Hillary got 2 million less votes from women than did Obama. Either the 2 million women didn’t vote or they voted for Trump.

The other difference is that Trump’s use of “America first” refers to the loss of millions of American middle class jobs and tax base for former manufacturing cities and states, whereas the Bush/Cheney/Obama/neoconservative use of “exceptional, indispensable America” refers to Washington’s right to bomb other peoples into the stone age for not complying with Washington’s orders.

The campaign to drive Trump out of office has been going on 24/7 since Trump confounded the pundits and won the election. For the liberal/progressive/left Trump is the enemy against whom they are conducting war, and as in war, truth is crowded out by propaganda. The liberal/progressive/left gets away with this abuse of news reporting because Trump’s intent to reduce tensions with Russia is seen as threats to the income and power of the military/security complex and the hegemonic ideology of the neoconservatives. Powerful material interests, ideology, and media together comprise a very strong force against which a mere president hasn’t a chance.

Few Americans understand the fundamental transformation of their politics and society since the 1960s when the Civil Rights Act was stood on its head by EEOC compliance chief Alfred W. Bloomrosen. The Civil Rights Act explicitly prohibited racial and gender quotas as methods to combat “discrimination,” which was mainly a product of history rather than of the motivations of white males. But it is difficult to make history a villain, and social engineering benefits from having a villain to overcome. Thus was the foundation of Identity Politics laid.

The initial stage of the new politics was that quotas established privilege for “preferred minorities,” and preference began prevailing over merit. Over the decades white males have slowly but surely experienced discrimination in university admissions, hiring, promotions, university appointments, and in their ability to exercise free speech. Remember, only a few days ago a senior male engineer at Google was fired because he expressed a truthful fact—men and women have different traits—that is unacceptable to feminists.

Perhaps somewhere at some time a woman or a black has been fired for saying something unacceptable to a white male, but I know of no such case. Indeed, it is common parlance that white heterosexual males are racists, sexists, and homophobic. This is the accepted language of Identity Politics. Few of us are brave enough to challenge it.

The liberal/progressive/left along with the media has abandoned the working class for Identity Politics. Identity Politics teaches that women, blacks, and homosexuals are all victims of white heterosexual males who are characterized as the victimizer class, that is, those who victimize others. The doctrine delegitimizes white heterosexual males in the same way that Nazi doctrine delegitimizes Jews and communist doctrine delegitimizes capitalists. There is no difference.

Initially, white males, such as the University of Virginia history professor on NPR today who obligingly demonized the white males who do not accept their second class status, survive by mouthing Identity Politics and crawling on their knees. But this is a temporary respite. For Identity Politics the only acceptable white heterosexual males are those who admit their gender and sexual preference guilt and accept their punishment for being the victimizers of women, blacks, and homosexuals.

In 1995 in our book, The New Color Line, How Quotas and Privilege Destroy Democracy, Larry Stratton and I describe how one EEOC bureaucrat by ignoring the statutory language of the Civil Rights Act, legislation the intent of which was to enforce equality before the law, reintroduced legalized discrimination into US law, thus beginning the process of delegitimizing the white male. Today some would turn their backs on this fact, not because it is invalid but because it is politically incorrect. When our book was published 22 years ago, the major media endorsed our argument:

“A forceful and convincing case . . . vividly dramatic.” — New York Times Book Review

“There are important lessons to learn . . . not least how good intentions can go badly awry.” — The Wall Street Journal

“Roberts and Stratton make a strong case that the civil rights legislation of the 1960s has been distorted beyond recognition.” — The Washington Post

The consequence of quotas wasn’t obvious at first, and there were claims that the quotas were temporary, but today the consequence is obvious. Heterosexual white males are deplorables. Today on NPR one male said that the views of white males who defend both themselves and dead white males from attacks should not be allowed a voice in American politics.

The liberal/progressive/left asserts that everyone knows that Robert E. Lee was an evil racist who fought for slavery and everyone who wants to protect his statue is obviously the same. Such people deserve no voice, no vote. They must be excluded from public discussion.

Imagine saying this about any other group, especially women, blacks, and homosexuals. How is it possible for the liberal/progressive/left to really believe that they are oppressed by powerful white male heterosexuals when they can demonize white males at will and prevent any backtalk?

If white males are so powerful, how can they be so easily fired by feminist thought control czars for “expressing harmful gender stereotypes.” Harmful to who? How harmful is getting fired?

As Faith Goldy and Stefan Molyneux predict http://www.naturalnews.com/201...ar-in-the-media.html , white males have had enough of their demonization and the demonization of our country’s heros. They see the writing on the wall and are organizing to defend themselves.

As anti-white male propaganda is apparently the only mental activity of which the liberal/progressive/left is capable, Faith Goldy and Stefan Molyneux are probably correct that America, broken into pieces by Identity Politics, is heading into civil war.

I wonder which side will control the nukes and bio-chemical weapons.

If the white heterosexual males lose, I wonder who will protect the white women. Are they destined for the same rape and butchery as befell German women from the Russians and Americans once the Wehrmacht surrendered?

Of course, this is an impermissible question.

The liberal/progressive/left are incapable of understanding that by demonizing white heterosexual males they are demonizing all whites and, thereby, themselves.
They should go ask the liberal whites in Rhodesia how well they are faring in Zimbabwe under Robert Mugabe. They should ask South African whites how secure they believe themselves to be now that they have turned over power and a second black political party has risen, forcing political competition between black politicians into which black party hates whites the most.

These also are impermissible questions.

Identity Politics always leads to violence, and Americans will not be spared.