- Apr 1, 2008
- 3,525
- 638
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- Monbulk, Upwey, Strathmore, St Alba
Society/Culture Do conservatives reject reality?
- Thread starter Old Skool
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Yes you can. Easily. And it has only just begun. See the OECD and BIS papers on a) the amount of liabilities those Euro countries have and b) the fiscal consolidation needed.
Nearly all of EURO areas countries are broke if you add in all liabilities on top of debt ie 300% plus of gdp. It was always inevitable. Just as the EURO blowing up was.
What we have now is hardly the same as it was under Lloyd George and Bismarck. Having some welfare is hardly the same as embracing social democracy.
Health is what? Circa 7% gdp. The UK spends circa 50% gdp on government and most Euro countries are similar or even more. Health ex US isnt the major problem even if it is an area of major waste. It is the welfare system and the number of public ""servants".
- Moderator
- #104
Havent you read what Meds (an avowed far right conservative) is saying?
Apparently Social Democracy/ Left wing politics is akin to Fascism, and its the lefties that are 'racist' and not the conservatives.
A conservative 'rejecting reality' right there.
It is beyond contention that fascism has its roots in socialism.
Conservatives do not reject reality, they above all others are the practical ones. Why do they support monarchy? Because it works. Why support the church involvement in education? Because it is far better than the government. Why reject a carbon tax? Because it wont do ANYTHING for global warming regardless of whether you believe it or not. This being concerned at what works in reality separates them from libertarians who are more interested in ideology and the utopian left who have no understanding whatsoever of human behaviour.
If you want rejecting reality look at the left. I give you three common examples
1) Raising income tax on above 50% will provide more revenue
2) If Australia has a carbon tax others will follow
3) Scrapping the offshore processing of asylum seekers wont lead to more boats coming.
Someone actually tried on here to argue no 3) and they were actually serious.
Staggering.
NB positive discrimination in favour of one ethnic group by its very definition is racist.
[malifice=quote] Apparently Social Democracy/ Left wing politics is akin to Fascism, and its the lefties that are 'racist' and not the conservatives.
A conservative 'rejecting reality' right there[/quote]
What I'm about to say is a daisy cutter bomb devastating and unanswerable because it's true. Hitler was a National Socialist. This means little "l" liberals, who are socialists in all but name, are Nazis.
If you question this (as no doubt you will) then go and look at Jonah Goldberg's indispensible liberal Fascism, in which all is explained: the red in the Nazi flag represents communism. The person largely responsible for the common misconception that Nazism was a movement of the political right was Stalin who wanted to hide the embarrassing truth of just how close it was to Soviet communism; the Nazis were no bigger on free enterprise and liberty than the Obama administration is.
A conservative 'rejecting reality' right there[/quote]
What I'm about to say is a daisy cutter bomb devastating and unanswerable because it's true. Hitler was a National Socialist. This means little "l" liberals, who are socialists in all but name, are Nazis.
If you question this (as no doubt you will) then go and look at Jonah Goldberg's indispensible liberal Fascism, in which all is explained: the red in the Nazi flag represents communism. The person largely responsible for the common misconception that Nazism was a movement of the political right was Stalin who wanted to hide the embarrassing truth of just how close it was to Soviet communism; the Nazis were no bigger on free enterprise and liberty than the Obama administration is.And that quickly disappeared. When Hitler realised that the likes of the mensheviks were interested in global worker revolution, he realised that this contradicted his viewpoint in attempting to cleanse the world of the Jews. Hitler lacked the revolutionary and proletarian focus, and was concerned with things that the socialist movement were not concerned with.
Hitler certainly muddied the waters when it comes to economics, and was essentially a populist, and this continues in modern Nazi/Fascist movements today. He did deals with big business. He did deals with unions. He did whatever he could to win power. He appropriated money from business to the state, but that was only due to the fact that he believed that everyone is at the service to the state, but not to serve the interests of the populace equally which is the essential aim of socialism. Socialism isn't purely an increased state presence in personal affairs, if it was then Pinocet would be a socialist not a Fascist.
Now what drove Hitler to be an authoritarian is not socialism, which is related to socialism. What drove him to be an authoritarian was his psychopathy/sociopathy.
See Hitch's anecdote that Hitler wouldn't dare go to Hamburg because the mainly industrial leftist city would have chased him out of town.
This can all be illustrated by Hitler's attempt to work Nietzsche within his ideology, and the fact that he never cited a socialist philosopher once. Not Bakunin, not Marx, not Lenin, not anyone. Apparently Nietzsche fitted into his ideology of racial purity, the ubermensch, and hierarchy much better than the others.
Furthermore, Mussolini was a great admirer of Nietzsche, and agreed that socialism is a slave ideology, illustrating Fascism's connection with conservative far-right philosophy.
Now, Nietzsche is not a Fascist, far from it. But his attachments to far-right conservatism lead him to be accused of one.
Hitler was a propagandist. He would use slogans and terms interchangibly in order to achieve political success.
If Hitler was a Fascist, why did he turn to Nietzsche? Why did he denounce socialism as a slave ideology? Why did he declare the bolsheviks his enemy?
Little l liberals are liberals in name because they are. Turnbull is a classic small l liberal, is he a socialist or a nazi?
That's a ridiculous book. He fails to realise that Fascism was always a regressive movement aiming to point to the past. This is evident by the fact that all the Fascist intellectuals were traditionalists who wanted to return Germany back to a past.
He also argues that progressiveness is Fascist because it aims to expand the state and achieve a social agenda. He fails to realise that many conservatives do the EXACT SAME THING, which would make them Fascists as well?
Actually, it was Hitler. It was Hitler who appropriated himself with a bunch of statist thugs who wanted to clamp down on freedoms in order to achieve maximum order and control over society. It was Hitler who tried to attach Nietzscheanism to himself.
Any comparison of Obama to Hitler is absurd. Obama can't even get through a law to give the US universal healthcare. He's so restricted in what he can do, that if he's Fascist, he's a bloated restricted Fascist with little room to move.
Not to mention he's driven by pragmatism, while Hitler was a rabid nutbag.
Fascism properly understood, doesn't exist these days.
Mensheviks vs bolsheviks.
Faux conservatives like the Neo Cons who as Guru Jane will happily tell you are all ex lefties (and hence Tea Party getting upset and also see the rise of UKIP in the UK due to Cameron being a goat in sheeps clothing).
The mensheviks were even worse med. They wanted things like equality and democracy. Pansies! No, the German state would be pulled up by supermen, who via their pure Aryan blood would lead them to a nation of church and country.
Lenin constantly banged on about equality also. In fact you will find quotes of his that are eerily reminiscent of a certain person on here.
As a much, much wiser man said:
"The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false-face for the urge to rule it."
- Moderator
- #112
Shock horror.
Im not sure you understand liberalism.
In fact, Im sure you dont.
Nazism does not = liberalism.
Nazism was a Far Right wing ideology.
No delusional diatribe is going to change that.
It renounced liberalism in favor of nationalism, and it utterly favored the status quo over minority groups (Jews, Gypsies, Gays etc).
To the nth degree (i.e. genocide and war).
Im sure Meds would support a watered down version of Nazism. Just without the State ownership of property attached. All the pro nationalist anti migrants/ religious minority/ nativism/ xenophobia/ racism s**t is right up his alley.
Like if they were National Capitalists instead, he's be on board faster than you can say boo.
As a final point:
Socialism is not a function of the Right or the Left.
Its a system of economics that has been co-opted at varying times by both 'wings'.
I'm not sure what the point is. I'm aware that the republican right and former leftists like Hitch are both ideologues for a global liberal agenda.
It doesn't disprove my point though that the claims that one can link progressivism to Fascism, because Fascism was progressive (gimme a break) or that both believe in social engineering, well what do you think Santorum believes in?
I repeat, contemporary Fascism doesn't exist. Books which suggest any modern movement, US or otherwise can be painted as one is ridiculous. The liberals/democrats are so moribund. They try and raise the debt ceiling and the republicans oppose it. They try and mandate universal healthcare and the republicans oppose it. They can't even institute gun restrictions because the constitution says so. If they're Fascists, they're lousy at it. I mean sure, dems like to tell you how to live. So does pretty much everyone within politics these days. They generally don't achieve it though.
Not really. Lenin was a believer in a tight formation of elites who would then dispense "equality" with a gun. The mensheviks were a good sort, at least they believed that there should be some semblance of democracy in leftism.
And lets not completely abandon ideals shall we? I mean you speak about well minded folk who end up being tyrants, well your Burkean friends want to save humanity via the rule of kings and queens, it's just another form of hierarchy.
- Banned
- #114
Countries in Europe have been broke before - this isn't an atypical state for that continent. Previous times that resulted in war or revolution. This time it isn't. Social democracy seems a better result.
maelcoluim
All Australian
Liberalism (or small "l" liberalism) as an ideology stands for a society free of significant government intervention both economically (unlike socialists), socially, and politically. The Nazis were happy to intervene in all these areas to eliminate any opposition in achieving their aims, which is in direct conflict with the ideals of classical liberalism.
To come to the conclusion that small "l" liberals are socialist and therefore national socialist is beyond ridiculous.
To come to the conclusion that small "l" liberals are socialist and therefore national socialist is beyond ridiculous.
Well democracy has already ended in Italy. The pain has only just started.
Southern and Eastern Europe will blow up and things will get nasty.
Social democracy has ever so much to answer for yet just as the apologists held their tongue over the Soviet Union I dont expect the usual suspects to hold they hands up and say that Hayek was right after all.
Social Democracy is far right?
- Moderator
- #119
No, I was referring to past Far Right/ ultra Nationalist European governments that arose after the last great depression.
The Nazis, Fascists, Fracoists etc.
Remind me how that all ended again?
- Moderator
- #121
Communists are not 'left wing'.
Stalin certainly wasnt.
Some left wingers are socialist. So are some ultra conservatives.
A concern for social justice and the rights of minorities and a demand for a fair and accountable government is not 'communism'.
Im pretty far left, but I certainly dont support Marxist communist economics.
Here is an interesting article to get the conversation back on track:
http://www.alternet.org/media/15521...ht-wingers_inhabit_is_terrifying/?page=entire
Apparently conservatives are full of fear and not well equipped to deal with complexity. Who'd have thunk it?
http://www.alternet.org/media/15521...ht-wingers_inhabit_is_terrifying/?page=entire
Apparently conservatives are full of fear and not well equipped to deal with complexity. Who'd have thunk it?
- Nov 20, 2011
- 10,164
- 1,259
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #123
I have read about the effects of fear and sensationalist propaganda acting on the brain of persons of a certain psychological make up in a manner that engages the fight /flight response mechanisms in the limbic area of the brain which lead to a bypassing of the rational circuitry of the brain.
I have no doubts at all that persons of a certain psychological pre disposition are targeted with propaganda and that it is sophisticated psychological weaponry.
There is plenty of data out there to support this premise.
Conservatives are just a more sophisticatedly managed version of the heavens gate cult, branch davidions, catholics, muslims etc.
In effect, we are talking abou hypnosis subjects.
These are all highly suggestible, gullible people.
Agree. It ties this thread with the indoctrination thread. The private media is a tool for the vested interests that own them and the friends of the owners. Most if not all are conservative.
[YOUTUBE]xGo1DqmfHjY[/YOUTUBE]
- Nov 20, 2011
- 10,164
- 1,259
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #125
