I loathe when American conservatives define themselves as “right wing” anything, even in jest — just as I loathe when the liberal press uses it as identification for American conservatives — because it is an inaccurate use of the term.
The terms Right and Left were coined during the French Revolution, referring to seating arrangements in parliament; those who sat on the right supported preserving the institutions of the Ancien Régime (the monarchy, the aristocracy and the established church). Use of the term “Right” became more prominent after the second restoration of the French monarchy in 1815 with the Ultra-royalists.
[...]
In the successive legislative assemblies, monarchists who supported the Ancien Régime were commonly referred to as rightists because they sat on the right side.
Ancien Régime is an ideology diametrically opposed to that of American conservatism, which advocates for the bare minimum of authority. The terms are also used to describe a split in modern-day leftist (by the correct definition, “far right”) ideologies in WWI Italy.
A key element in the creation of fascism was the fusion of agendas of nationalists on the political right with Sorelian syndicalists on the left, around the outbreak of World War I.[19]
[...]
Nationalist and militarist influences that had begun to combine with syndicalism since 1907 created a split in the political left.[19] This split was strong in Italy, where nationalists and syndicalists increasingly influenced each other.[19] Maurassian nationalism, close to Sorelism, influenced radical Italian nationalist Enrico Corradini.[56] Corradini spoke of the need for a nationalist-syndicalist movement, led by elitist aristocrats and anti-democrats who shared a revolutionary syndicalist commitment to direct action and a willingness to fight.[56] Corradini spoke of Italy as being a “proletarian nation” that needed to pursue imperialism in order to challenge the “plutocratic” French and British.[57] Corradini’s views were part of a wider set of perceptions within the right-wing Italian Nationalist Association (ANI), which claimed that Italy’s economic backwardness was caused by corruption within its political class, liberalism, and division caused by “ignoble socialism”.
The Italian Nationalist Association?
Corradini occasionally used the term “national socialism” to define the ideology which he endorsed. Though this is the same term used by the movement of National Socialism in Germany (a.k.a.Nazism) no evidence exists to indicate that Corradini’s use of the term had any influence.[4]
In 1914, the ANI began to tilt towards authoritarian nationalism with its endorsement of the creation of an authoritarian corporate state, a radical idea created by Italian law professor, Alfredo Rocco.[3] Such a corporate state led by a corporate assembly rather than a parliament, which would be composed of unions, business organizations and other economic organizations that would work within a powerful state government to regulate business-labour relations, organize the economy, end class conflict, and make Italy an industrial state which could compete with imperial powers and establish its own empire.[3]
In this instance, “left wing” and “right wing” was used to describe a fracture on one side only. No where in political history is “right wing” used to describe the ideology of limited government except during recent times by the left to discredit American conservatism — and many American conservatives allow such an uneducated misuse.
Using Norway’s government as an example: Norway is ruled by the Labour Party, a socialist party, and is affiliated with the Party of European Socialists. The Labour Party embraces the Keynesian economic theory and more centralized state control. This, according to the proper definition of the term “right wing,” would classify not only Norway’s socialist Labour Party as “right wing,” but would also classify America’s Democratic Socialists as “right wing.” Nazis, officially the National Socialist Party, would be correctly classified as “right wing.” Ideologies which oppose such heavy-handed government control would be accurately considered “left-wing.”
Further confusion with the term “right wing” begins by misidentifying the hallmarks of such beliefs. “Right wing” accurately applies to total or increased government control (communism, socialism, monarchy, oligarchy, et al.) where as “left wing” describes either zero or little government control (anarchy, republic). An oldie but goodie video illustrating the differences and identifying factors of both wings:
The media, in misusing “right wing” to immediately politicize the Oslo tragedy, indicted themselves on both ignorance and callousness.
In covering the tragedy in Norway, education on the accurate application and definition of these phrases is important, as is compassion for the suffering of Norway at this time.
More on NazismMarxism/Socialism (cue to 6:18 if you’re short on time). A must watch, courtesy P’oed Patriot:
*Update: Keith Olbermann-n-crue tried to rebut the facts laid out above by pointing out that my radio bio says “member of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.” Unfortunately for Keith, I didn’t write that, my radio station did, and unless he’s more illiterate than I thought, it reads as a joke, borrowing from Hillary Clinton’s favorite phrase in the 90s.
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
150 Comments
Dana,
you did an exceptional job on this article.
Excellent choice of both videos.
Maybe a bit off topic but the picture exempiflies Ms. Ocasio and her ban on the words 'Jesus' or 'God' at the cemetary in Houston.
Well done.
Part of refusing the liberals' narrative is refusing to accept incorrect word definitions.
GAK!!! I'M a LEFTY!!!
HORROR, HORROR, HORROR!!!
I tried explaining this to someone, even pointing out that the US "left" has a nascent aristocracy, or, at least, a wanna-be one. (Al Gore's "Do you know who I am?" as evidence.)
Definitions are relative to space and time and as you said can be purposely warped for propaganda purposes.
A conservative in China is a hard line communist while in the USA a conservative is a free market capitalist. They both want to maintain traditional values inherent in their respective constitutions which of course are very different from each other.
A liberal in the USA today is a progressive, socialist, communist or somewhere in between. In the 18th century liberals were the founding fathers who believed in a small federal government with strict limitations. Today we would have to call them classical liberals so they are not confused with our modern day democrats who are looking for change of a different sort. You could also say they are classical left wing so people don't get confused.
A right winger in Europe or Scandinavia is a socialist, but of a less pure form than the labor parties strive to be. They are against immigration or in favor of being more selective. They would like to preserve traditional values of their culture. An extreme right winger would be a socialist with a heavy dose of racism and perhaps violent rhetoric reminiscent of the Nazi party.
In the USA we would categorize these Euro socialist right wingers as part of the left wing so that it fits in the current paradigm being used, but as you explained Dana the original meanings have been flipped.
Sadly, the term "right-wing" is too ingrained already to try to redefine it to its correct meaning — and, as Dan Loesch points out, too many Conservatives already embraced that label as their own.
So, I usually explain "right-wing" as Constitutionalist-Principled Individualist Freedom (what "liberal" used to mean) as diametrically opposed to "left-wing" Communist/Fascist Statist Collectivism.
And, just like Phillep_Harding above, I attempt to point out that Statists are the "Imperialists" with aristocratic behavior and tendencies — to no avail.
Deep in our hearts we'll know — we are the genuine UBER-LEFT.
The biggest lie yet perpetrated, in all of human history , is that fascism resides on the right.
Wrong!
An intellectual study of the facts, obviously, sez otherwise. Which completely explains the left's utter disdain for fact and historical accuracy.
Witness the appeal to patriotism to increase taxes.
How stupid is that?
Good post, short and sweet and to the point.
American Conservatives seek to conserve Individual Rights/Property Rights – all the variants of the Left seek to consume them.
Well said. You said everything I was thinking saving me the effort. Thanks, because it's just too dang hot to be thinking that hard.
Thank you for this. Well documented and so succinct that anyone other than a tenured college professor should get it. Trying to explain this on college campuses is an effort in futility. I'm glad to see it written/said by someone else from time to time just to make sure I'm not completely insane.
I agree that we have to work within the framework as it is commonly understood. We pretty much have to put socialism on the left and limited government on the right then make sure we correct people trying to soil conservatism by saying the Nazis were right wing.
Great job Dana!! I wish we could show this to the liberals but they'll just blow it off.
Europe gets the difference usually. So along with some of my cousins I'm actually left-wing or liberal until I'm in the US and suddenly am lumped mysteriously into the "right".
Excellent article. However, Over time terms change in meaning through usage. I use the term "right" to mean the correct, logical, or conservative side of an argument – good. Whereas, IMHO, 'left" is the incorrect, statist, fascist, progressive socialist(communist) or radical side of the same argument – sinister.
"Do you know who I am?" Correct response: NOBODY worth knowing!
I knew immediately that when the media started saying this was a "right wing conservative Christian" that there were all sorts of lies in those words.
What a hilarious attempt by a US right-wing propagandist to distance themselves from the right wing. It's no secret that America's right wing is following precisely in the pro-austerity, anti-worker xenophobia of what the right wing itself termed "Old Europe."
The modern American "right"/conservative/Republican seen in the is something almost not seen in Europe: a sort of moral libertarianism (emphasis on the small L). The modern American "left"/liberal/Democrat is a very watered down version of the European left: solidly Keynesian, but rarely overtly socialist (see Sen. Sanders).
The funny thing to me is that both sides in this country caricature the other side as their European counterpart (facist or Communist). This post almost makes me appreciate the two party system.
This is absurd. Does Dana Loesch think she'll write a two-minute piece and disprove decades of scholarly work defining modern-day right and left wing politics? Apparently so. Since she used Wikipedia, I'll use it too.
Global Right-Wing juxtaposed to Left-Wing:
"Stephen Fisher writes in The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics that in liberal democracies the term has been defined as opposition to socialism or social democracy, and that right-wing parties have included the philosophies of conservatism, Christian democracy, liberalism, libertarianism, and nationalism. He says "extreme right parties (have included) elements of racism and fascism" and "In surveys, self-placement on a left-right scale is associated with attitudes on economic policy, especially redistribution and privatization/nationalization and (particularly in Catholic countries) religiosity."
The above is an comparative depiction of right-wing politics in the world versus left-wing in SOCIAL DEMOCRACIES, which is what Norway and to an extent the United States is.
It's no secret that leftists trot out the hyphenated Scrabble endgame words, when they make vacuous assertions. Makes 'em sound more authoritative, don't you know.
What is really no secret, is that the conservative of today, is the liberal of the nation's founding; and the leftist of today, is the doctrinaire descendant of the eugenics peddling progressives of the 20s and 30s, from whom the European fascists took copious notes.
Dana, you must not have had any liberal poli-sci professors. See, their curriculum boils down to Republican = Conservative = right-wing = fascist. Also, they will teach* you that fascism and socialism are not only diametric opposites, but that society must adapt socialism to avoid fascism, and that being opposed to socialism is inherently fascist.
Also, I'm pretty sure every single proggie that posts on here was taught* exactly that…and actually believes it.
* -teach/taught = indoctrinate/indoctrinated in
From some of the proggie posts seen above, I'd say your assessment is spot-on.
You're not off topic one inch.
Somehow with some, the good book and everything this nation was built on is no longer vogue.
Everything you said is an utter lie. The conservatives here in the U.S. support economic freedom and individual liberty. The Left wants top-down big government, with extreme regulations that hinder economic freedom. If anything, we support the worker, and the upward mobility of the worker!
The Left in the U.S. not only wants to keep the rich separated from the "worker" but actually encourages minorities and the poor not to pro-create. THe Left wants to build government to overpower the individual in society–and to dictate everything from business to social mores to "thinking." If your cause is "for" the worker, you picked the wrong
side.
You really should read "Liberal Fascism." Much more in-depth than a dictionary entry. You just choose to be a bigot.
So, has any group that has argued for less government ever committed atrocities such as these?
It doesn't even matter what labels I use. If you want, I'll call the Tea Party red and the Liberals blue. That would change the fact that conservatives and liberals in America have a certain set of beliefs, and it just so happens that the Norway shooter shares almost exactly the same beliefs as American conservatives.
Why is that you say "extreme right parties" have included elements of racism and fascism and don't acknowledge that "extreme left parties" also exhibit elements of racism and fascism? Is that something you don't want to acknowledge?
Progressives hijacked the meaning of the word liberal back in the 1930s. Wilson made progressive a hated word, so the progressives called themselves liberals. So now we have to define liberal by classical liberal and social liberal. But liberal, as you know, comes from libertarian, which is a belief in less government and more individual freedoms, totally opposite of today's social liberal. Fascism and National Socialists are both on the left end of the spectrum away from personal liberty and toward totalitarian authority, like the progressives.
Thank you! I made nearly this same point on another post.
REAL conservatives like Paul Craig Roberts are not right wing.
The cabal of quasi-terrorist neocons ARE right wing, however. ALL in favor of big government to suit THEIR goals. People like West, Bachman, and Cain and well as Rick Perry and Mitt Romney. They all have that in common – all neocon right-wingers. Time to dump them all and field REAL conservatives like Pat Buchanan.
But that would mean abandoning the BIG GOVERNMENT programs like the Military-Industrial Complex and the Welfare-for-Foreigners-who-attack-us program of supporting Israel (and as a result, Egypt – combined they make up the lion's share of our foreign aid.)
You sexy redwood of a woman, Dana, there is hope for you, yet.
You are a moron. What's the point in even trying to have a dialog with a stupid bigot like you…
What part of politicizing tragedy do you find so appealing? You're disgusting. I pray for the victims in Norway and I pray for your dark, evil heart.
what's a quasi-terrorist neocon?
Who are the folks being interviewed in the second video? There aren't any identifying captions.
Those who support the terrorist quasi-nation of "Israel."
what's a quasi-terrorist neocon?
They're the people that anti-Semitic whack jobs call "quasi-terrorist neocons." That's as deep as it goes.
fool. just own up to being a Jew-hater, it'll get you lots of friends in great towns
like Damascus and Jeddah.
you are utterly clueless.
you have not offered any recognizable definition of "neo-con."
you have portrayed yourself as a salivating, Jew-hating, cretin. Well done, lad
Let’s debunk a few myths that drive the comparison between fascism and American conservatism.
1. American conservatives are for individual rights, not statism.
2. They believe individuals are ends in themselves, and not a means to an end.
3. They are for liberty, not totalitarianism.
4. They are for free markets, not corporatism or state capitalism.
5. They are for private property, not state property.
6. They are for a color-blind, legally equal society based on individual rights, not group rights.
7. They are for freedom of religion, not theocracy.
8. They are suspicious of government authority, not obeisant.
9. They tend not to deify political leaders, though they revere leaders like Ronald Reagan.
10. They are for less government intervention, not control over every aspect of life.
11. They are patriotic, not nationalist.
12. They are for federalism, not centralized government.
13. They are for checks and balances, not unification.
14. They support gun rights not because the seek to harm others, but to protect and defend themselves.
15. They display judgment in the context of moral and cultural relativism.
Not much “fascistic” about that, is there?
Now, let us apply the same criteria to the American left…
Mmm hmm…yes…oh dear…hmmm…
Now I know why the book Liberal Fascism is titled thus.
Stevie you DO rule!
Get it on bigots!
why pick this fight dana? this guy was a right wing traditional, conservative evangelical. he also happened to by an aryan nation nutjob – but why try to make black, white? why do you piss on your readers and tell them it's raining?
The police identified him as a right-wing fundamentalist Christian, while acquaintances described him as a gun-loving Norwegian obsessed with what he saw as the threats of multiculturalism and Muslim immigration.
Facts are a bytch. ain't they?
"Her" name is DANA
Wilson was 1913
A Neocon supports moderm American Liberalism and war. None of those folks mentioned support modern Liberalism
And you are a traitorous supporter of that foreign nation that has repeatedly attacked and betrayed us. Probably another paid Israeli poster – they have to pay people to post pro-Israel malarkey, you know….
It might have something to do with how American lefties try to conflate conservatives with fascism, when it was in fact European fascists who drew much inspiration from American progressives.
Let's not forget he's also pro-homosexual. What causal conclusions shall we draw from that?
They most certainly do!
The Democrats need to relearn circumspection and examine how much their proposals smack of fascism. There are more than a few coincidental overlaps. That is because there is an underlying driver in American progressivism that sees unification as a solution to political problems.
One cannot support political centralization and unification and currency devaluation and multi-culturalism without seeking disaster. In the case of the latter policy, there is a mistaken opinion held by many that the progressive view of diversity is the opposite of racism; unfortunately, the progressives’ program of multi-culturalism and diversity includes affirmative action and hate crimes policies that have been turned, de facto, into attacks on white men. There is an undercurrent of racism not only against white men in American progressivism, but also against Jews.
The key to understanding the current fascistic drive among progressives is to realize that it is has been a consistent, intentional policy of radicals and Democrats to divide the country by sub-groups; to deflate the value of loyal, benign patriotism, or love of the country of our founding; and to target all institutions that keep the country stable, such as the family and the church. After decades of shredding the fabric of this nation, the Democrats are asking for the American people to mobilize behind them to "put it back together again."
Even more insidious, the Democrats continually support policies that are an affront to the humanistic value of life, such as abortion and euthanasia. It is instructive to witness progressives’ support of abortion, claiming a woman’s right over her own body; at the same time they support a nationalized healthcare system that would retract an individual’s right to the possession of his own person. What is consistent with the progressives’ agenda to uphold abortion is that versions of the proposed healthcare “reform” legislation contain only thinly-veiled provisions to euthanize the elderly in order to “cut costs.”
Fiscal arguments coming from a Democrat party that has given the country financial obligations for social welfare programs of over $50 trillion fail to convince that “cutting costs” is their modus operandi. The reasonable conclusion is that radical progressive support for abortion and euthanasia (by White House healthcare adviser Ezekiel Emanuel, e.g.), as proposed in variants of the national healthcare bill, is that it is a cultural position that seeks to undermine Christianity and the ethic of human life. This is extremely dangerous.
When the degradation of the ethic of life is combined with increasing political centralization (with the latter’s tendency to perpetually unleash unintended consequences, which often cause a demand for strong, “active” political solutions; which in turn create more political problems, and so on) there is significant inertia towards fascism or other collectivist ideologies.
The expansion of the bureaucracy is also key for fascism, since it promotes a utilitarian, instrumental view of humanity. Finally, control over the economy is crucial for fascism, so people have no other alternative than to cooperate with the state in order to feed their families.
The ultimate barricades to a hard tyranny, as opposed to a soft tyranny, are the loyalty by the military to a Constitution that mandates respect for individual rights; and the possession of firearms by the populous.
The best reference for appreciating this argument indeed is Jonah Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism," which reads like a play by play of the fascists or "progressives" in our current government. Progressives are collectivists and share many ideological affinities with fascists, socialists and communists. Fascism tends to be nationalistic in ideological form, but what is most important is that its program indicates state control over the political economy.
The end result of fascism may even be a form of internationalism. That is what is confusing many on what is misleadingly referred to as the political "right" on what to call the collectivist-statist scumbags in the current government. But I think the golden thread is the Cloward-Piven strategy. The Cloward-Piven strategy advocates overwhelming the capitalist system and ushering in a "crisis" and a collapse of the economic system. The means of accomplishing this are both fascistic (nationalization of industries, banks, accumulation of state property, including housing) and socialist (redistribution of wealth, including subsidies and entitlement programs, advancement of unions, state-funded jobs). As can be seen, some of the programs of socialists and fascists indeed overlap and are hard to distinguish from one another. One way of viewing this is that fascism is considered by socialists on the far left to be a transition to socialism and thence to communism:
To quote Goldberg's book:
"As Michael Gold of the "New Masses" put it in response to the poet Ezra Pound's support for fascism: 'When a cheese goes putrid, it becomes limburger, and some people like it, smell and all. When the capitalist state starts to decay, it goes fascist." (76)
Yet one familiar with fascism and socialism cannot fail to note that socialism is a package of false promises used to sell fascism, or state control of the political, economic and private life of a polity, usually by means of "unification" under a charismatic leader. Fascism is characteristically accomplished by relentless and uniform propaganda, in all cultural and information spheres; and the implementation of a police state to crush all dissent. It is my argument that there has never been a truly socialist state in world history, only fascist states.
The Soviet Union, Maoist China, and Castro's Cuba all contain aspects of state capitalism, a feature of fascism. The "communist" states of China, the Soviet Union, and Cuba, as well as North Korea, and even Venezuela, have or had currency, nationalized state-controlled industry (and not worker-controlled industries) and none of these regimes came about spontaneously (Marx argued communism would come about in a spontaneous proletarian revolt). It is also important to note that scale cannot change the nature of fascism; even if all the countries in the world became fascist and their market-based economies usurped and eventually destroyed by the state, this would not bring about international peace under socialism; but rather a reversion to a barbaric war of all against all and resultant tyranny.
It is my view, and Goldberg's book supports it, that an incremental fascist coup of the Republic began under Woodrow Wilson. A sign of this is the shift in political rhetoric from America being a Constitutional republic to it being a "democracy." America was not intended to be a democracy, and the founders made that clear. Democracies are highly unstable and usually collapse into tyrannies. As Goldberg puts it, "Historically, fascism is the product of democracy gone mad" (81).
A key to connecting socialism and fascism is to realize that fascism was seen by those on the left, specifically Trotsky, as the "crisis" or transition stage to socialism and thence to communism. It is easily verifiable that the U.S. under Wilson adopted two planks out of the Communist Manifesto right off the bat: The founding of a central bank (carefully framed as a "federal reserve system"), and a graduated income tax. The implementation of the rest of the Communist Manifesto has been more incremental, including: encouragement of welfare entitlement programs, economic zoning, high taxation (among the highest corporate taxes in the world, e.g., which is a form of double taxation), federal property accumulation, environmental regulation, excessive litigation, federal intrastate commerce regulation, subsidies (a form of wealth redistribution), and even eminent domain claims.
Socialism is the cloak that fascism wears to infiltrate the moral system of a Constitutional republic and to corrupt it. Socialism indeed bears enough superficial similarities to Christianity to make it a threat to America, especially through the promotion of altruism in the mass culture (see Ayn Rand). A closer, more historically based and open-minded investigation of socialism shows it to be self-serving hyperbole utilized by statists to justify expansion of their power to determine the lives of others.
Nazi propaganda illustrates how socialist ideas were used to corrupt the morals and then the economic system of Germany. For example:
"The Nazi ideologist – and Hitler rival – Gregor Strasser put it quite succinctly: 'We are socialists. We are enemies, deadly enemies, of today's capitalist economic system with its exploitation of the economically weak, its unfair wage system, its immoral way of judging the worth of human beings in terms of wealth and their money, instead of their responsibility and their performance, and we are determined to destroy this system whatever happens!" (Goldberg 71)
If one excises the anti-Semitism, which is not a defining but incidental feature of the political system of fascism, there than a few chance similarities between Nazism, socialism, and the Democrat party platform. You will find nothing in any of these collectivist platforms about Constitutionally guaranteed individual rights, the right to private property, or even an utterance about liberty.
Very well said. Thank you.
Something in the news updates about this disaster is driving the trolls nutzo! This is funny! We got one using what are Marxist terms to convince everyone he's got it all figured out! hahahah! Another trying to pass himself of as gun smart. Ok! So when do they start hooting about the UFOs, the "polar shift" and global warming?
Do we need to give them a nickle?
Thank you. No offense intended.
Well…if 'Right' means supporters of "the monarchy, the aristocracy and the established church" then Loesch is strictly correct; by definition there can be no 'Rightists' in the USA because our constitution forbids us having a monarchy, an aristocracy, or an established church. So, Democrats and Republicans are both Left wing. On the other hand, if you apply the exact same rules to the UK (Rightists support "the monarchy, the aristocracy and the established church"), then the Labour party and the Conservatives are both Right wing. Now, that can't be correct because, obviously, we all know that Democrats and Labourites are to the left of Republicans and Conservatives. Bottom line? It's probably better just to call a terrorist a terrorist and not waste time arguing semantics about which side the terrorist or the LSM thinks he's on.
I noticed you've been chasing progtrolls and I'd like to commend you for your efforts. I've been thumbing up as many of your posts as I can.
Unfortunately he is completely wrong. Hitler and his Nazis, as example, is described continuously and incorrectly, possibly intentionally, and most likely, as a Right Winger, against his strongest protagonists the Commies. The reason however that he is described this way, is because he adopted some but, not purely, Marx/Lenin and so was attacked for his impurity. The left has since the early or mid 30s stridently tried to assert that Hitler was a right winger. They did this because they wanted to distance themselves from Hitler but, how could they when they used the same tactics to murder, slaughter and butcher 200 million plus?
"Beware the Marxist/Fascist Axis as their excrement smells the same."
stevie rules only attempts what leftists have done since the 30s and especially successfully in post WW2 Hollywood. He is unfortunately not intellectually up to the challenge.
Sic Semper Tyrannis!
Unfortunately stevierules is completely wrong. Hitler and his Nazis, as example, is described continuously and incorrectly, possibly intentionally, and most likely, as a Right Winger, against his strongest protagonists the Commies. The reason however that he is described this way, is because he adopted some but, not purely, Marx/Lenin and so was attacked for his impurity. The left has since the early or mid 30s stridently tried to assert that Hitler was a right winger. They did this because they wanted to distance themselves from Hitler but, how could they when they used the same tactics to murder, slaughter and butcher 200 million plus?
"Beware the Marxist/Fascist Axis as their excrement smells the same."
stevie rules only attempts what leftists have done since the 30s and especially successfully in post WW2 Hollywood. He is unfortunately not intellectually up to the challenge.
Just wait… They're going to discover two of his favorite books are written by Karl Marx and Adolf Hitler… Left wingnuts are more than not completely off base.
The progressives lie (surprise surprise) about political leanings to push their totalitarian agenda, and destroy those that attempt to let the truth get in their way. The will never use true definitions. BTW, notice how their untrue definitions are from moments in time from past centuries? Even their lies are regressive in time, how progressive are you when progress back 2 centuries even in your political manipulation.
As best I can define, there are 3 core principles present in all forms of Progressivism, bigotry, genocide and slavery. The phrase in the Declaration that must drive them nuts, and is probably a good part of why they want to make it irrelevant goes against all 3 of the core principles, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal [anti-bigotry], that they are endowed by their Creator [uh oh, human tyrants are not the highest power, could cause problems] with certain inalienable rights, that among these are Life [anti-genocide], Liberty [anti-slavery] and Pursuit of Happiness [anti-control by the Oligarchy]
This is why i use the line from Apocalypse Now to define the Progressive motto, they love the smell of genocide in the morning, to them it is the smell of victory.
Uh No they Dont
i agree very well said.
I will add though, that the under-current of racism against whites and jews is part of the anti-capitalist agenda. The oligarchy machine (mostly of whites by the way) promote the idea that capitalism was "created by the white people, or white men, or the jews", whichever they choose to use for the audience they are trying to reach. They use this to indoctrinate the uneducated and weak-minded useful idiots which will help create the chaos they need to destroy capitalism, at which point they can replace the "free market" with their version of a "slave market". Any murders committed because of the racism they promote doesn't bother them because genocide will preempt their slave market anyway, and will make the Gaia worshipping human over-population crowd happy.
Ever notice the same people that are pushing that under current of white racism are the ones promoting planned parenthood and their anti black and brown baby agenda? The two should not go together, but the confusion allows the eugenics agenda to continue while their useful idiots help them achieve their anti-capitalist agenda.
Isreal has not attacked us.
Period.
You'renothing but a racist, bigoted, neo-Nazi propaganda peddling liar – because I have demonstrated to you again and again that what you peddle here is simply not true, yet in the face of raw facts, you still insist on pushing the false narrative.
Remember, he lives in ProgSoc land, not in the really real world with the rest of humanity
The camp he attacked was in actuality a pro Palestinian youth group, which even recreated a 'Gaza flotilla' at the lake where the camp was located.
Seems more in keeping with the shooter'smembership in a neo-nazi white supremacist group, as has been reported…..
AGREED!! This was an excellent post. The video identifying the forms of government was spot on and to the point. Kudos Dana!!! As for the German history I wasn't aware of the article by Goebbels comparing Lenin to Hitler. It is just amazing that we seem to have a large portion of the democrats today championing the old socialist positions.
As Al Gore has demonstrated with his abuse of hotel massage therapists (crazed sex poodle that he is).
I myself have never referred to myself as "right wing" but I have used the term hard core conservative. However, I have never embraced the strict adherence to religion as most republicans do. Mind you I have nothing against the religious as Bill Maher does, I just don't believe in church, any church. That isn't the same as not believing in god.
If you look at most conservatives today they lean from the middle towards the anarchic side of issues as they view themselves as independent individuals that need only rely on their own devices. To be ruled by opinions of others is hard for them to accept. Its just that old freedom concept driving their views.
Yes…scholarly work by universities run by socialists. You have been brainwashed by these socialist professors and until you learn for yourself through experience you will continue to post nonsense here.
I have a sister that is schizophrenic just like you and you should hear her when she doesn't take her meds.
Why do you and those like you try to attribute the actions of an individual to a larger group? By your logic all citizens of a country should be executed if one in their ranks commits a murder.
So…. these police are experts on political ideology? Get a clue guy. You could tell me you are the smartest man in the world but do you think I'd believe it?
No, it would further lead me to believe he was an individual who hated muslims and their supporters. Why is it that every time someone commits a crime with political motivations they have to be associated with a larger group?
We will protest big government until our lungs give out, but people will still say we are in the same camp as totalitarians.
"I am a Socialist, and a very different kind of Socialist from your rich friend, Count Reventlow. … What you understand by Socialism is nothing more than Marxism."
Adolf Hitler, spoken to Otto Strasser, Berlin, May 21, 1930.
"We National Socialists are enemies, deadly enemies, of the present capitalist system with its exploitation of the economically weak … and we are resolved under all circumstances to destroy this system."
Gregor Strasser, National Socialist theologian…
As late as 1932, Mussolini acknowledged Fascism's affinities with Communism:
"In the whole negative part, we are alike. We and the Russians are against the liberals, against democrats, against parliament."
Richard Pipes, Russia Under the Bolshevik Regime, 1993
You sexy redwood of a woman, Dana, there is hope for you, yet.
You only believe that because you're an insane bigot. Or a plant trying to smear the site via association with your poison.
Begone.
His role models perfected the technique. Too bad he can't follow their example:
Hide in a bunker and commit suicide.
That's because they are nobodies.
)
Officials in Norway, the global hub of socialism and liberalism, are referring to neo-nazi (national socialist party) psycho guy as 'extreme right wing'. That's the best that those who oppose freedom can come up with in an attempt to demonize sound minded U.S. citizens? Such profound logic (sarcasm) coming from those who just ignore the extreme violence against any society or people that don't tow the socialist line.
Excellent article, the work to be done is culling the Progressives Out of the Republican Party or if that is not possible as a last ditch effort initiating a viable "Constitutional Party" repealing the other odious "Progressive" amendments as Prohibition (18th) was finally repealed by the (21st).
The other Progressive Amendments are: (16th)Income Tax, (17th)the Direct Election of Senators (killed the Republic). Eliminating the "Federal Reserve" and Fiat "money" by returning to a recognized fixed money are required as planks in a new political party.
I find it interesting that everyone here is indignant about being connected to this guys political views, when Brietbarters paint with some of the broadest brushes I’ve ever seen. You read a thread on these boards and everyone is a Marxist. Socialists… Liberals, progressives…. All Marxists. Moderates ,“RINOs” anyone to the left of Michele Bachmanan Marxists! Anytime the Government tries to do anything other than ban abortion or repeal a gun law, its Marxism! Marxism Marxism! Healthy school lunches? Marxism! Impose capital restrictions on banks Marxism! Declare that the sky is blue? Marxism!
Can I expect that this turn of events will inspire people in these forums to start being more exact in their definitions, now that they’ve been painted with the “right wing nut job brush” somehow I doubt it.
Great article. One little nit, though, is the grouping of anarchy with republic, on the freedom side of the scale. Yes, by definition that is indeed the case. In practice, however, I have never seen or even heard of an anarchist who was not a communist in disguise. In truth, anarchy is only theoretical. In practice, it exists only as a disguise when communists don't want to be identified as communists.
100% FALSE.
I think of it more as a symbiotic relationship. A true anarchy can only exist for a short time, the communists support the anarchists until the people cry out for someone to provide the return of normalcy. That's when the communists step in and take over the governing of the people.
"scholarly work" has been disproved through the annals of history, JFK in today's 'Scholars" would be considered right of center. http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39...
Just in case this flew under your radar.
From CNN: "Thirty-eight percent say they disapprove because President Obama has been too liberal, but 13 percent say they disapprove of Obama because he has not been liberal enough – nearly double what it was in May, when the question was last asked, and the first time that number has hit double digits in Obama's presidency."
Looking at that figure another way, roughly one in four Americans who disapprove of the president say they feel that way because he's not been liberal enough."
Um. My Western PA elementary math teacher would have thumped my forehead drawing such conclusions. I see closer to 1 in 10. When did 13% become "roughly one in four"? For the sake of division we'll stretch our little minds to conclude the "facts" according to The Sliver Fox Network are 1 in 7.69230769.
Of course that would mean we actually believe 13% of this nation thinks ObamaFraud is not liberal enough. I believe that number. Closer to 75% where I live.
Your whole post makes a completely false conclusion.
"I expect that this turn of events will inspire people in these forums to start being more exact in their definitions, now that they’ve been painted with the “right wing nut job brush”
Since the day that the TEA party came into existence, the Left (YOU) has tried to paint us as right wing nut jobs. It hasn't worked, and even now as more information about this atrocity comes out it will separate the Conservatives from this action. Tell me painless are you painless because of the lobotomy you received or were you painless before the lobotomy and that is why you acquiesced to the procedure?
The term National SOCIALISM should be the biggest clues. I think where the confusion is is the assumption that socialist didn't disagree with one another about what socialism is. COmmunist had one idea while fascist had another but they are all tied together by the common idea that the individual exist to serve society's needs only. The individual is always second to society. That is my opinion on the subject and what I have been able to gather.
Wilson was president from 1913 to 1921. The American people no longer wanted a progressive after Wilson and so the progressives had to reinvent themselves. That is why I say they hijacked the meaning of liberal and used that term in the 1930s instead of calling themselves progressives. FDR was labeled a liberal rather than a progressive, but they still had the same agenda just under a different name, liberal, which people associated with smaller government and individual freedoms.
CNN reported it.
Link with Audio in case WND would be an argument. http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/jfkecono...
JFK right wing nutjob? http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/jfkecono...
Well, call me confused! The first video posted above contradicts Dana Loesch's article! About 59 seconds into the video it is describing right-wing as limited government and left-wing as total or too much government. Isn't the article saying the opposite?
Past usage and roots of word usage are fixed and unchangeable but words and phrases continue to be defined by their usage in the present. Neither version must validate the other in any way.
-Jahfre Fire Eater
OH CNN REPORTED IT….it must be tue then… :-/
That is what could happen IF there were any real anarchists. There aren't. Just the communists that don't want to be known by the "C" word.
All this is academically interesting, but not what bears on the real world. Years ago I read Solzhenytsen's "Lenin In Zurich". If anything is clear about communism and socalism, it's that they are mere nonsense, just a means of fooling people into supporting them. Lenin was not a communist. He used communism to attract a following. He successfully made millions join his cause and fight and kill. Communism and National Socialism are just a means to power. They sucker those who can be called true believers. In reality, a means to power is all they are.
Nice elaboration on your original assertion. I hope some people take a bit more time studying American History around this time period This has been a common behavior of the Progressives. Re-labeling/ Newspeak/Orwellian BS. Yes, us Limited Goverment Advocates are just not as caring and thoughtful (FAIR) of the common man as the Progressive Authoritarians. lol Now if we can keep getting through to the unsophisticated voter.
You must be logged in to post a comment.