Author Topic: "Neo-cons are like fascists and nαzιs!" (Read 3296 times)

Traditional Guy 20 · « **on:** March 31, 2013, 08:19:27 AM »

You know I've seen so much of this stupidity put out there by liberaltarians and liberals I have to address this topic when it comes to the use of these stupid labels. As everyone knows after 9/11 the neoconservatives in the Bush cabinet pursued a policy of mass interventionism in the Middle East, and Bush, having converted to the neoconservative ideology of course supported this. In the aftermath of this liberals shouted all on the television that Bush was "like Hitler and Mussolini" and liberaltarians shouted that the GOP is a party of "red-state fascists" and supported "nαzι-style nationalism."

Of course both ideologies being from the Left, liberals and liberaltarians are just as dogmatic as neoconservatives when it comes to their belief systems. I'd like to point out a few (obvious) problems when it comes to labelling neo-cons as "fascist" and "nαzιs" as well as show my disgust and hatred of libertarianism and liberalism.

1. Perhaps the most obvious problem with this theory is that most neo-cons are Jєωιѕн. Obviously that would make the whole case in point of them being "nαzιs" stupid anyway. :wink:

2. Neoconservatism comes out of the Left. It comes from Trotskyism, Social Democracy, liberalism, socialism, etc. Liberalism also comes out of the Left, out of the Herbert Marcuse New Left, neoconservatism comes out of the Wilson and FDR old-Left, and libertarianism comes out of the liberal Austrian School of Economics. They're all liberal. :wink: They are not right-wing, which explains liberalism's and libertarianism's hatred of nationalism.

3. They all support ideologies and are removed from common sense. Liberalism supports its ideology of no nation, race, gender, etc. and supports a massive welfare state ideology; neoconservatism supports its ideology of spreading Americanism, and its beliefs of democracy, feminism, and free-market capitalism; libertarainsim supports the individual put above the community, and complete economic freedom, something that is suicidal for a nation, and is destructive for workers.

Basically one cannot be a Catholic and support any of the three ideologies. :wink:

Croix de Fer · « **Reply #1 on:** March 31, 2013, 09:44:18 AM »

Quote

Perhaps the most obvious problem with this theory is that most neo-cons are Jєωιѕн. Obviously that would make the whole case in point of them being "nαzιs" stupid anyway.

It would still make them fascists, hence Zio-Fascists, which is the case because of their overwhelming support for the apartheid state of Israel and her largest cσncєnтrαтισn cαмρ in the world - Gaza, and the culling of black Ethiopian Jews by sterilization; and for their (dual Israeli/U.S. citizens in government) overwhelming support of anti-Constituional legislation, agencies and policies: NDAA-indefinite detention; TSA; DHS; NSA's new monolithic data mining center in Utah; the "Patriot" Act (and its repeated extensions); warrantless wiretapping; etc... all of these laws, policies and agencies have huge support for Jєωιѕн Congressmen, Cabinet members and "think" tanks.

Quote

Of course both ideologies being from the Left, liberals and liberaltarians are just as dogmatic......
They are not right-wing, which explains liberalism's and libertarianism's hatred of nationalism

Libertarianism is NOT exclusively left wing; and since when is libertarianism exclusively anti-nationalism? You are mistakenly conflating liberalism with libertarianism. There are many nationalist libertarians; just as there are "left-wing" libertarians.

Furthermore, you are also using the flawed political spectrum to determine positions which lead to misnomers of labels. The political compass is a much more accurate way to gauge positions for further analysis.

Traditional Guy 20 · « **Reply #2 on:** March 31, 2013, 11:03:03 AM »

Quote from: ascent

It would still make them fascists, hence Zio-Fascists, which is the case because of their overwhelming support for the apartheid state of Israel and her largest cσncєnтrαтισn cαмρ in the world - Gaza, and the culling of black Ethiopian Jews by sterilization; and for their (dual Israeli/U.S. citizens in government) overwhelming support of anti-Constituional legislation, agencies and policies: NDAA-indefinite detention; TSA; DHS; NSA's new monolithic data mining center in Utah; the "Patriot" Act (and its repeated extensions); warrantless wiretapping; etc... all of these laws, policies and agencies have huge support for Jєωιѕн Congressmen, Cabinet members and "think" tanks.

Calling someone a fascist has been a leftist tactic that has been used since the 1930's. Hell even Harry Truman called Dewey a fascist. And the unlimited freedom you seem to be advocating comes directly from the left-wing thought of liberaltarianism. Obviously the situation in Gaza is not ideal, as many Israelis even admit now, and how the Israelis treat the Palestinians is horrible, but yet again neoconservatism comes from Trotskyism and Social Democracy.

Quote

Libertarianism is NOT exclusively left wing; and since when is libertarianism exclusively anti-nationalism? You are mistakenly conflating liberalism with libertarianism. There are many nationalist libertarians; just as there are "left-wing" libertarians.

Furthermore, you are also using the flawed political spectrum to determine positions which lead to misnomers of labels. The political compass is a much more accurate way to gauge positions for further analysis.

Uh yes libertarianism is left-wing. It comes from the Austrian School of Economics and supports free trade and open borders. I guess by today's "conservative" standards since liberaltarianism supports corporate interests and global capitalism it is very "conservative."

PereJoseph · « **Reply #3 on:** March 31, 2013, 11:37:59 AM »

Quote from: Traditional Guy 20

They are not right-wing, which explains liberalism's and libertarianism's hatred of nationalism.

Listen, you are doing a good job educating yourself about the XXth century, though still from a United-Statesian perspective (which is a constraint). You really need to round out your vision, though, by looking at early liberalism in Western, Central, and Eastern Europe in the XVIIIth and XIXth centuries. Lajos Kossuth was a nationalist. Maximilien Robespierre was a nationalist. The Decembrists were nationalists. Giuseppe Garibaldi and Camilo Cavour were nationalists. There is nothing right-wing about nationalism. It is simply the less radical predecessor of today's liberalism, but it is a predecessor indeed. I don't believe it is possible to really understand political developments and ideologies unless one has an understanding of how they can and actually have manifested themselves in different times and places. In any case, one cannot understand "nationalism" without reference to its actual history and the actions it has inspired -- that is to say, those who don't know XIXth-century European history know very little about nationalism.

Traditional Guy 20 · « **Reply #4 on:** March 31, 2013, 11:55:12 AM »

Quote from: PereJoseph

There is nothing right-wing about nationalism.

How do you explain General Franco then?