In Congress we now have representatives claiming to be Democratic National Socialists.

I have to wonder if they actually know the acronym for National Socialist. Hint, say it with a German Accent.

Because that acronym is NAZI. Yep, the are all, every single one of them, NAZI's. BTW Google it, you will see it's absolutely true.

Are they really calling themselves "Democratic National Socialists"? I thought it was "Democratic Socialists of America". I don't disagree they/it are functionally identical, but I wouldn't have thought them that blatant.

A rose by any other name...

About who?

Liberty and liberal share the same etymological origin: the Latin adjective liber, meaning “free,” and when referring to the Left, nothing could be further from the truth.

For years I have been objecting to the term “liberal” to refer to leftists because there is nothing liberal about their philosophies, policies, or plans for the rest of us. They are bigoted, intolerant, narrow-minded, in favor of absolute control of everyone (else’s) minds, bodies, and every actions, and are so convinced of their own intellectual and moral superiority that without a thought they would take us back to the days of the most murderous regimes in history whose most numerous victims were members of their own societies.

Their beliefs are secular religions that demand thoughtless and unquestioning obedience to their dogmas that can be changed in a moment by their priests (more commonly priestesses) for the least expediency. They celebrate the breakdown of societal and cultural norms, including the historically most successful, the destruction of the property of others for intimidation and to demonstrate their control, plus physical assaults and outright murder. Their ranks are filled with people who would eagerly form modern day Einsatzkommandos and serve as guards in death camps for their philosophical enemies.

I do note that it seems the term “liberal” is becoming less common these days, even among the Left itself, and for good reason. The rest of us should follow suit.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: sigfreund,

I don't care about the term liberal. I object to the term " progressives" when they describe themselves or their Party. They are anything but. Regressives would be a more appropriate term because that's what they are. There is nothing progressive about them. They will drive us back into the Dark Ages if they succeed.

quote:

Originally posted by Bulldog7972:
Regressives would be a more appropriate term because that's what they are.

That too.

In reference to Communists Adlai Stevenson II is credited with pointing out that, “They have stolen all the good words—words like peace, freedom, and democracy—and turned them into tools of deception.”

There is nothing new about the current Left.

One central tactic of the left is redefining terms. “Liberal” is one such term they co-opted. Another is the word “rights”.

It used to mean maximum individual freedom from government control. A right used to be a freedom one could engage in without outside control. e.g. The right to speak one’s opinion or belief. Now it means a benefit one can demand others provide.

Now liberalism means central government control, in order to service the benefits people demand.

quote:

Originally posted by Opus Dei:
Are they really calling themselves "Democratic National Socialists"? I thought it was "Democratic Socialists of America". I don't disagree they/it are functionally identical, but I wouldn't have thought them that blatant.

No, they didn't claim to be "National". They know they don't have a chance with the mid sections of the country. How modest of these comrades.

quote:

Something to Ponder about Liberals.

That they exist?

quote:

Originally posted by Opus Dei:
Are they really calling themselves "Democratic National Socialists"? I thought it was "Democratic Socialists of America".

No, they are not.

Yes, it is Democratic Socialists.


Besides, even the actual National Socialists (Nazis) only used Socialist as a buzzword. The Nazis were nationalists, but were not liberal/left-wing socialists by the common definition.

The inclusion of Socialist in the name stemmed from public relations/populism. Blue collar/labor-focused popularist politics were big in Germany the 1920s and 1930s in the midst of their massive economic and political crises, so the early Nazi Party called themselves first the German Workers Party and then the National Socialist German Worker’s Party in an attempt to appeal to the current "regular Joe" focused political trends, despite not being (real world) Socialist or leftists. In this way they hoped to pull some of the workers' support away from the typical left-wing workers' parties.

(Similar to how many of the Communist nations were called stuff like the Democratic People's Republic of X, despite not being democratic. It's just a buzzword. Doesn't make them actually democratic.)

Hitler himself objected to the inclusion of "Socialist" in the name change initially, but was overruled (he wasn't yet party head), and he then later attempted in his book Mein Kampf to adapt the definition of "socialism" away from the typical left-wing Marxist-centric economic/political definition, using it instead to refer to the act of sacrificing your individualism in favor of the greater good of your race/nation.

And once the Nazis had absolute power, one of their first acts was to to round up and imprison all of the actual Socialists, alongside the Communists and other left-wing groups.