Rave this: If you think Right Wingers and so called Conservatives, are useful idiots for the Right Wing Fascists.

There is no such thing as a misnomer. All things are named according to what they actually are, especially in politics. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was socialist and republican, not state capitalist, state socialist, or some weird version of totalitarian corporatism. Marxism-Leninism was 100% Marxist. The People's Democratic Republic of China practices extreme populism, radical democracy, and practices only republican values. China is not an authoritarian one-party dictatorship.

How do I know this? Because it's not in their name! They aren't called "the Authoritarian One-Party Dictatorship of China", and that's how you can tell! Everything is named after WHAT IT REALLY IS, it's impossible to name something after what it isn't. The god of naming things won't allow such nonsense.

The National Socialists were 100% pure socialists. They didn't write volumes of propaganda calling communism the international conspiracy of the evil Jews. "Schlageter" wasn't an anti-socialist anti-leftist play by Hanns Johst written for Hitler's birthday, and it didn't explain how racist nationalism is what makes national socialism the "true" socialism, by erasing ideas of "class struggle" and replacing them with "racial struggle". "National" was the irrelevant part of the name "national socialist"; focus on the socialist part and ignore "national". The communists and socialists in Germany weren't the first to get thrown in the concentration camps, because Hitler was a bleeding heart left-wing hippie. He loved Leftists. He signed an alliance with Stalin.

The Nazis were extreme collectivists, because they called themselves socialists. Goebbels, Hitler's propaganda minister, didn't write the following response to an article in US newspapers accusing National Socialism and Bolshevism of being the same ideology:

"International communism would entirely do away with all national and racial qualities ... sacrificing the individual to a hollow mass-idol that is only a travesty of actual life itself. At the same time it ignores and destroys all the idealistic and higher strivings of men and nations, through its own crass and empty materialist principles. On the other hand, National Socialism sees in all these things—in property, in personal values and in nation and race and the principles of idealism—these forces which carry on every human civilisation and fundamentally determine its worth.

"Bolshevism is explicitly determined on bringing about a revolution among all the nations. In its own essence it has an aggressive and international tendency. But National Socialism confines itself to Germany and is not a product for export, either in its abstract or practical characteristics. Bolshevism denies religion as a principle, fundamentally and entirely. It recognises religion only as an “opium for the people.” For the help and support of religious belief, however, National Socialism absolutely places in the foreground of its programme a belief in God and that transcendental idealism which has been destined by Nature to bring to expression the racial soul of a nation ... but the Bolshevics carry on a campaign, directed by the Jews, with the international underworld, against culture as such. Bolshevism is not merely anti-bourgeois; it is against human civilisation itself.

"In its final consequences it signifies the destruction of all the commercial, social, political and cultural achievements of Western Europe, in favour of a deracinated and nomadic international cabal which has found its representation in Judaism. This grandiose attempt to overthrow the civilised world is so much more dangerous in its effects because the Communist International, which is a past master in the art of misrepresentation, has been able to find its protectors and pioneers among a great part of these intellectual circles in Europe whose physical and spiritual destruction much be the first result of a Bolshevic world revolution." (http://www.calvin.edu/academ...

It's just evil progressive US nazi propaganda that says Hitler wasn't Stalin's best friend. We know that's a lie. Hitler was also a vegetarian like Gandhi, so he wouldn't hurt a fly, but Gandhi was probably an evil Nazi, because Britain was one of Hitler's enemies and so was Gandhi. Hitler didn't kill anyone, the Holocaust was a lie. He didn't commit suicide either, he's alive in New Zealand with Elvis and Tupac.

Also, studying books by experts with PhD's from universities will poison your mind with leftist lies. You should only listen to people who don't study, but talk all day on the radio and TV as if they've been studying whatever they talk about their whole lives. Those people "call it like they see it" according to how words sound, and how things are named, and that's more reliable than someone who works in a university, spending their lives researching. People on TV also call themselves "experts", "Christians" and "Patriots", and nothing in the world is ever mislabeled, so neither are they. Except for university experts, they're mislabeled Leftist nazi progressive socialist satanists.

The bad guys are always mislabeled, that's how you know they're bad. The good guys wouldn't mislabel themselves, see the difference?

DEM CONGRESS AND WH....Which Embodies All 14, To Create This Great Economy...

Obama Failure.... ......3-1/2 Years to Do This and Failed...
Campaign for President during 2007-2008, Obama Kept Promising The American Public 7-Facts he would do immediately upon entering the Oval Office....
Acceptance Speech in Jan 2009, promised those same 7-Facts to be fixed immediately....
Fact 1.....Cut the National Debt by Half in his First Term
Fact 2.....Reduce unemployment below 8%
Fact 3.....Bring Manufacturing Back to the US
Fact 4.....Fix the Economy
Fact 5.....Transparent Government
Fact 6.....Promised 10 Day Look On GOV WebSite For Public Review on ALL Bills
Fact 7.....Close Gitmo Immediately
Speech Jan 31, 2009....
Fact 8.....Provide Mortgage Relief
Speech Feb 2009.....
Fact 9.....Fix The Economy in first 3-1/2 years or He Does Not Deserve to Be re-elected to another Term....HIS Own Words...He Does Not Deserve Another Term As He Failed On This Fact
Speech Feb 24, 2009....
Fact 10.....Told American Public, ObamaCare Was Not A Tax....That No One Making Under $250,000, Would Pay Any Increase...Not One Dime...This Is Not A Tax....

Transparant Government....
139 Executive Orders, he has signed behid Congress's Back....With Many Passing OUR Rights and Freedoms To The GOV...such as His Peacetime Marshall Law EO, signed March 16, 2012..
Executive Order -- National Defense Resources Preparedness
NDAA....Revised in 2007 to 2009, Granting More Power To GOV
AGENDA 21....Revised in July 2010, Granting More Power To GOV...

Weecon Marine-XYZ-GFYS-LOL-DIAF or whatever your acronym heavy name is, you didn't mention "fascism" or "fascist" even once. Are you trying to make some kind of point, or just venting rage with a severe case of ADHD? Obama sucks, and there's nothing inaccurate about your little list. However, the topic is about the definition of Fascism, and whether it should be placed on the left or right of the political spectrum. You didn't even try to address that issue, you're just ranting about your own "I hate gubmintz and Obummer is teh gubmintz!" pet obsession.

It's more than tedious, its depressing, because the internet is already top heavy with cruise-control-for-cool capslocks pilots like YOU.

Just out of pure clinical curiosity about your state of mind, are you conscious of the things you type and post, or just running on some kind of emotional autopilot through life? I find it telling about the quality of intellects participating in this thread that your inane rant, one that conspicuously fails to make any particular point or respond to any points previously made, got 6 likes in so short a time. I feel like I'm watching monkeys try to figure out which buttons to push to get treats in a lab...

When you finally take a break from raging at Obummer, if you still have time in your heavy Recon Marine modern warfare assassin's creed schedule of training for your future career as a cafeteria specialist, go see if you can match some of those items you're so fired up about to things Bush did, then do the same for Clinton and every president before him. Don't stop until you find a president you think you're morally satisfied with. Don't be afraid of all the reading this challenge will demand of you, it'll just make you smarter. That's not something you're afraid of, right, mister "I'm hardcore spec ops on the internet"?

Here's a motivational poster, good luck:

Wait, did you just say "I see the Commies filling the left half of Hell and the Nazis the right half of Hell"? After you said "Fascism / Nazism has always been a movement of the Left"?

I'm astonished to see a person from the internet reverse a comment they made that quickly. That takes remarkable integrity, and I sincerely applaud you sir/madame. I agree that Fascism was not a movement of those dirty communist collectivist parasites, Marx being the worst.

Honestly, I know we're raised to think the fascists were bad guys, because we fought a war against them and all, but honestly, before that demon FDR plunged us into a world war to save the economy from his failed New Deal, the conservatives in congress were against war and FOR an alliance with Hitler/Mussolini, as was most of Wall Street and other patriotic US capitalists. If we had made an alliance with them, we would have eradicated Communism at Stalingrad once and for all, and the world would have been a very different place, perhaps. Being a patriot and a conservative, I think the fascists actually EMBODIED the best of our conservative republican values and ideals:

Individualism over collectivism.

Racial segregation over racial tolerance (this isn't politically correct but we see the outcome of multiculturalism)

Merit over equality (code for stealing from the productive to give to the parasites).
Competition over "cooperation" (code for collectivization).
Power politics and militarism over "pacifism" (code for appeasement).
One-person rule or "democracy" (code for mob rule).
Capitalism over Marxism.
Realism over idealism (code for Marxism).
Nationalism over internationalism (code for one world government, UN).
Exclusiveness over inclusiveness (code for letting the immigrants in).
Meat-eating over vegetarianism (code for pacifism).
Gun ownership over gun control (code for tyranny)
Common sense over theory or science (code for atheism).
Pragmatism over principle (pioneer spirit over hollow traditions).
Religion over secularism (code for atheist communism)

So fascism is a CENTRIST-LEFT ideology? How, when the Left has ALWAYS meant something libertarian, something socialist, something communist, something anarchist since the Revolution in France, all the way to the "libertarian socialists" at "Occupy" -- notice their resemblance to the Reign of Terror in France!? How many Ron Paul supporters and "libertarians" showed up to that?? DROVES AND DROVES with their "END THE FED" signs!! That should tell you something!

What you and others in this forum arguing that the "right" is "libertarian" are ignoring is CENTURIES worth of leftist anarchist and marxist thought IN FAVOR OF LIBERTARIANISM. Who's agenda does weak government and a weak military serve if not the Left? These people define what Left wing has ALWAYS meant, and its some kind of Orwellian noospeak to suddenly change the meaning of "libertarian" from Left to Right. It shows the illiteracy of the American public that it could happen with just a few nutcases on TV, and within a single generation no less.

The following is a list of LEFT WING LIBERTARIAN PHILOSOPHIES, many of which are more than a century old, in some cases, older than the US itself (go ahead, look them up!):

Fourierism
Mutualism
Collectivist anarchism
Anarcho-communism
Anarcho-syndicalism
Guild socialism
Revolutionary syndicalism
Social anarchism
Libertarian Marxism
Left communism
Council communism
Platformism
Gandhian economics
Situationist International
Autonomism
Social ecology
Participism
Inclusive Democracy
Zapatismo
Insurrectionary anarchism
Communalism
Communization

The following are LEFT-WING LIBERTARIAN HISTORICAL EVENTS, go ahead look them up!

Diggers
Paris Commune
Haymarket affair
Strandzha Commune
February Revolution
Bavarian Soviet Republic
Biennio Rosso
Free Territory
Left-wing uprisings against the Bolsheviks
Escuela Moderna
Spanish Revolution
Hungarian Revolution of 1956
May 1968 in France
Left Communism in China
Zapatista Uprising
Argentinazo
Occupy Wall Street

*Take Libertarian Marxism as the best example of how the Left is Anti-State Libertarian/Anarchist:

Libertarian Marxism refers to a broad scope of economic and political philosophies that emphasize the anti-authoritarian aspects of Marxism. Early currents of libertarian Marxism, known as left communism, emerged in opposition to Marxism–Leninism and its derivatives, such as Stalinism, Maoism, and Trotskyism. Libertarian Marxism is also critical of reformist positions, such as those held by social democrats. Libertarian Marxist currents often draw from Marx and Engels' later works, specifically the Grundrisse and The Civil War in France; emphasizing the Marxist belief in the ability of the working class to forge its own destiny without the need for a revolutionary party or state to mediate or aid its liberation. Along with anarchism, Libertarian Marxism is one of the main currents of libertarian socialism.

Libertarian Marxism includes such currents as council communism, left communism, Socialisme ou Barbarie Lettrism/Situationism and operaismo/autonomism, and New Left. Libertarian Marxism has often had a strong influence on both post-left and social anarchists. Notable theorists of libertarian Marxism have included Anton Pannekoek, Raya Dunayevskaya, CLR James, Antonio Negri, Cornelius Castoriadis, Maurice Brinton, Guy Debord, Daniel Guérin, Ernesto Screpanti, and Raoul Vaneigem, Subcomandante Marcos, NOAM CHOMSKY!!

My list of fascist positions was also a list of far right-wing positions, and I'll take you for a leftist-anarchist if you think you can reduce it to simply being "for small government", which has never before this last decade been taken by anyone, not any historian or political scientist to mean "right wing", not ever. It doesn't take a PhD, anyone with half a brain would reject that oversimplification as well. This is Paulbot Orwellian noospeak as far as I'm concerned.

--Individualism over collectivism:
Marx, Bakunin, Proudhoun, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Anton Pannekoek, Raya Dunayevskaya, CLR James, Antonio Negri, Cornelius Castoriadis, Maurice Brinton, Guy Debord, Daniel Guérin, Ernesto Screpanti, and Raoul Vaneigem -- these were all collectivists.

Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Pinochet -- all individualists, all free market capitalists, especially Franco and Pinochet who had the luxury of not fighting every nation in the world at the same time, or having the task of redeeming their nation from the ruins of world socialism.

--Racial segregation over racial tolerance (this isn't politically correct but we see the outcome of multiculturalism)
Marx, Bakunin, Lenin, Stalin, Luxembourg -- all these were left wing INTERNATIONALISTS, who demonized racism and even national identity, national unity, and the nation state as tools of exploitative capitlism.

Mussolini, Hitler, and most Fascists differ on their views of race. I will admit that Mussolini was an anti-racist, and that I personally think we should let science decide the definition of such terms. Like Mussolini, I take exception with a great deal of Hitler's racist theory, and honestly, do not think there is such a thing a "pure" race anywhere. I'm a scientist, and science shows that there is no such thing (except perhaps phenotypes). But I do think that race is relevant socially, and that the majority of people believe in race and this determines their behavior; this fact alone makes race a relevant issue, though I would rather compare culture than race (as in the case of Islam vs European civilization).

In this day and age, in the age of militant Islam and Zionist imperialism, we have reasons to be concerned with cultural hegemony and nationalism FROM ABROAD. Its naiive to think that we can sit around holding hands and trying to love people that hate us. WE NEED A STRONG MILITARY, and you can't have one, not at all, WITHOUT AN EQUALLY STRONG STATE TO BUILD IT AND MAINTAIN IT AND TRAIN IT! Just look at the state of our military -- JUST LOOK -- and tell me that's not the direct result of this "libertarian" idiocy, trying to whittle down the state sector and demonize the state. Look at all the support for Ron Paul these idiots in the military are showing, while they refuse to call people to service or make service mandatory, with traitors like Ron Paul talking about "hiding at home" and letting the world be about its business. He lives in Grimm's Fairytales if he thinks that would ever happen! There is a Caliphate on the march!

--Merit over equality (code for stealing from the productive to give to the parasites).
I think its obvious what communists, progressives, anarchists, libertarians and liberals think about never letting anyone fail.

This I think is obvious, what fascists think. Hitler was especially a champion of meritocracy, and to his credit, he freed the Germans from the artificial yoke of reparations (literally, billions of dollars, at the time, would make our deficit look like pocket change). I don't need to summarize what Germany accomplished here, since it is known by all, regardless of your opinion of fascism. Germany was THE world power at the time of fascism.

--Competition over "cooperation" (code for collectivization).
Cooperation is not itself evil, especially if it is understood to mean the patriotic unity of a single people, united for a single cause. The team wins over the individual, everyone who plays sports or has been in the military knows this is truth.
But leftists use "cooperation" as code for nonsense, when there is actually no cooperation present, just people milling about afraid of the commisars.

Need I continue, or can you all see how obvious these comparisons are?

--Power politics and militarism over "pacifism" (code for appeasement).
--Strong executive or "democracy" (code for mob rule).
--Capitalism over Marxism.
--Realism over idealism (code for Marxism).
--Nationalism over internationalism (code for one world government, UN).
--Exclusiveness over inclusiveness (code for letting the immigrants in).
--Meat-eating over vegetarianism (code for pacifism).
--Gun ownership over gun control (code for tyranny)
--Common sense over theory or science (code for atheism).
--Pragmatism over principle (pioneer spirit over hollow traditions).
--Religion over secularism (code for atheist communism)

My purpose is the same as yours, good debate, and to express myself. So what? What does it matter what my purpose is, are you some kind of cop? Its non-sequitor to evade my point to ask me personal questions, unless you're one of the CENTCOM employees Obama hires to direct political opinion on the internet. Not saying that's what you are, just saying that's in their job description.

There are tons of "libertarians" in this thread, in this country, and in every Occupy camp around the world. The American and French revolutions are the definitive secular Liberal anti-monarchist pro-capitalist revolutions of the "Liberal Age of Revolutions", and both were definitive events of the Modern Era, so maybe you had no business teaching anything of the sort.

And yes, Nazi Germany was the premier world power, as evidenced by its ability to fight every member of the Allied powers on multiple fronts, simultaneously, for years on end. Its alliances with the other Axis powers were negligible as were their militaries, and was more to keep them from interference than anything. Germany under Hitler was the first world superpower of the 20th century, as much as Americans are jealous to admit it. And as much as they are ashamed to admit that they nearly lost the war up until 1944, even though they waited for Britain and The Soviet Union to deplete the German military for over 5 years before jumping in an nearly getting rolled into the Atlantic despite their cowardly opportunism. Yes, that is the American legacy, a cheap and unmerited one by comparison, and a false pride.

I'm here because ttrying to increase the knowledge and political literacy of my fellow countrymen and women is the duty of a good patriot. That is all, no more no less.

Hitler DID NOT BAN GUNS (except for known communists and leftists, who were criminal associations in Nazi Germany, groups which he had defeated by his election anyway):

“And the truth is that no gun law was passed in Germany in 1935. There was no need for one, since a gun registration program was already in effect in Germany; it was enacted in 1928, five years before Hitler’s ascendancy. But that law did not “outlaw” guns, it just restricted their possession to individuals who were considered law-abiding citizens, and who had a reason to own one. And there’s no reason to consider that law particularly significant, either; the NAZIs didn’t seize control of their own country with gunpowder. They used a much more potent weapon: propaganda.

"Under their reign, Jews were prohibited from owning guns, just as they were prohibited from doing many things. And it has become an article of faith among the gun culture that had they been armed, the Holocaust would not have happened (that is, among those members of the gun culture who know that the Holocaust really did happen)...

The gun culture is right about one thing, however. Hitler really did enact a new gun law. But it was in 1938, not 1935 ... Furthermore, the new law in many ways LOOSENED gun restrictions. For example, it greatly expanded the numbers who were exempt, it lowered the legal age of possession from 20 to 18, and it completely lifted restriction on all guns except handguns, as well as on ammunition."
http://propagandaprofessor.ne...

Just listen to what Libertarians like Murray Rothbard (an ally of Ron paul) say about their old home with the "New Left":

http://murrayrothbard.com/lib...
http://mises.org/daily/2762/


Or this: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/...

Read deeper you guys! These so-called Libertarians are LEFTISTS! This is a giant scam, why do you think Obama let's it be his "official opposition"??? LOOK DEEPER!

There was indeed a national militia of armed citizens called the Volkssturm. There were enough rifles to put in the hands of every man, woman, and child, and every man woman and child not affiliated with a subversive communist group, or criminal organization, was permitted to own and carry in the open in public as much ammunition and rifles as they cared to, and many did. See the Nazi era play Schlageter, where the NRA phrase "when i hear 'gun control' I reach for my browning" came from.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Non-wiki link for those who hate wiki: http://www.lonesentry.com/art...

[edit] it's convenient I think, that the Tea Party got less resistance from the police and the department of defense than the Occupy movement, which is full of militant Leftists that are traditionally the main competitors of progressive establishment Social Democrats like Obama, who like capitalism, but will pretend to be socialist reformers, and usually ally themselves with international finance covertly. Bilderburg, anyone? Wall Street? Enough said there.

Its convenient that the American libertarian groups are the most well-funded behind the progessive socialist groups, and people like Beck can have a no-holds-barred platform to say the most wildly seditious things with ABSOLUTELY NO RESPONSE from the target of his attacks. Call me paranoid, but given the history of the New Left and the origins of Libertarianism in the Left wing, even recently with the New Left and the Mises institute, I definitely smell a giant stinking rat corpse on the premises, friends. Anarcho-capitalism = "US libertarianism (CATO institute, Ayn Rand variety), and Anarchist has ALWAYS meant socialist or communist (you just have to scratch the surface a bit for the Red to show).

ALSO, Beck is an extremely well-funded, well connected Mormon, just like Romney. If Romney lost in the polls to Ron paul, how was it that Paul gave up so easily, and suddenly Romney is the candidate? No one wanted him, no one, but he's the opposition candidate, with all the same positions as Obama, on everything, from healthcare to wall street to abortion? Gee. Just like Obama was the same as Bush, now Romney is the same as Obama. How convenient. Its all so sickeningly convenient. And Paul and his "libertarians" are no where to be seen ... oh wait, they all want Romney to win now. Gee. How interesting is that. I could overdose on all the interesting things going on.