Religious Fanatics and Leftists Are the Greatest Threat to freedom

On 8/3/2010 5:55 PM, Killing, Inc. wrote:
> On Aug 3, 10:15 am, Beam Me Up Scotty > Everyth…@Blackhole.NebulaX.com> wrote:
>> On 8/3/2010 2:49 AM,Killing, Inc. wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Aug 2, 10:10 pm, Jeff M wrote:
>>>> On 8/2/2010 8:55 PM,Killing, Inc. wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Aug 2, 8:01 pm, Jeff M wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/2/2010 6:50 PM,Killing, Inc. wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> On Aug 2, 11:21 am, Travis wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>> Even though Muslims are also right wing, it’s the Bush loving tea partiers
>>>>>>>> and Republicans who represent the biggest threat to our security.
>>
>>>>>>> First, are you saying all Muslims are a threat to our security, bigot?
>>>>>>> Second, Islamicism is akin to fascism, which is socialist and not
>>>>>>> right wing.
>>
>>>>>> Fascism is decidedly right wing,
>>
>>>>> Conservatism, libertarianism, and anarchy are well to the right of
>>>>> fascism, which puts fascism on the left. It is the socialist “third
>>>>> way” akin to Clinton’s triangulation on socio-economic issues and Bush
>>>>> Jr.’s neoconservatism, but fascism has nothing in common with the
>>>>> primary right-wing ideals of freedom and liberty and the secondary
>>>>> beliefs in capitalism, small centralized government, individual civil
>>>>> rights, and property rights.
>>
>>>> Most of modern American conservatism has abandoned those goals.
>>
>>> As I said in my previous post, “The ‘modern American conservatives’ in
>>> which you are referring are actually neo-cons, who are left-wingers in
>>> disguise.”
>>> Granted, there are fewer true conservatives (aka liberals, before the
>>> term was hijacked and distorted by the left) since 1960s academics
>>> tried to kill off true liberalism and began teaching a political model
>>> that only included socialist beliefs, where fascism and communism are
>>> the extremes and everything else falls in between. The model is simply
>>> a lie, and the Tea Party is an an example of how true liberalism is
>>> not yet dead.
>>
>>>>> Just because some left-wing academics “decidedly” want to revise
>>>>> history into an exclusively left-right/fascism-communism spectrum, and
>>>>> 10 million ignorant net geeks load Google with the same claptrap,
>>>>> doesn’t make it accurate. In fact, the necessity to repeat the same
>>>>> thing millions of times, in order to twist basic common knowledge and
>>>>> minimize your opponent, is proof-positive it is a lie.
>>
>>>> I agree that there no simple linear arrangement of ideologies, but there
>>>> are, in general terms, a left side and a right side.
>>
>>> I never said there was “no simple linear arrangement.” I believe the
>>> basics of the socio-economic spectrum are linear in the way they are
>>> practiced. Political “theory” on the other hand (like the benevolent
>>> theory of communism, versus it’s tyrannical practice) is another thing
>>> entirely.
>>> Maybe this will format with your newsgroup viewer, but this is the
>>> ACTUAL left-right spectrum:
>>
>>> Com = Communist
>>> P = “Progressive”/Modern “Liberal”
>>> F= Fascist
>>> M = Moderate
>>> Con = Conservative
>>> L = Libertarian/Classic Liberal
>>> A = Anarchist
>>
>>> Com P F M Con L A
>>> Far Left———————|———————Far Right
>>
>>> |———Socialism——–||———-Liberty————-|
>>
>> Simplified… what you are saying is “Total” government to “Zero”
>> government and it’s the Leftists that have been pushing this idea of a
>> single line structure.
>
> Yes, that’s a good way to break it down. However, there isn’t anything
> wrong with the linear structure at the most basic study of political
> thought, as long as the line is correct. The way we learn starts at
> with the single-dimension (the line). Left-wingers have been selling a
> distorted line for decades, and every multi-dimensional model that
> comes from it has also been distorted.
>
>> On that scale it looks OK and makes some sense
>>
>> you could also say *tyranny|—–|to|——|Freedom* and on this scale
>> you get the Leftist and Dictator types, mostly on the tyranny side. One
>> side you have *government control of the people* the other side you get
>> *people who control* the government….. WE are now sliding past the
>> center-line and moving from people that control government into a system
>> where government controls the people.
>>
>> *TYRANNY*
>> Dictatorship
>> Monarch
>> communism
>> fascism
>> Theocracy
>> Oligarchy
>> Socialism
>> Feudalism
>>
>> |——–|
>>
>> Federation
>> Federalism
>> Parliamentary
>> Constitutional Republic
>> Libertarian
>> Anarchy
>> *FREEDOM*
>>
>> We don’t necessarily move from one to the next in one step, we are
>> skipping through them from FREEDOM towards TYRANNY, we’re in Federalism
>> and moving into Socialism and we have dipped our toe in Oligarchy and
>> Feudalism with the Bush’s Kennedy’s and Clinton’s….. And using the tax
>> code to keep the poor in their place.
>>
>> The movement is consistently towards Tyranny but seems to be bits and
>> pieces of two or three types of government at any given time.
>
> That’s a pretty good elaboration on the basic model. For Usenet, I
> couldn’t fit all of those practices on my line, and some of them
> aren’t totally separate from one another (theocracy is a form of
> oligarchy, for instance), but they are mostly in the right places on
> the line.
> Nice work!

The problem I see is once we hit Socialism and are still going towards
tyranny we’ll have >fascism > communism >Monarch >Dictatorship coming up
and once you hit Socialism, the Government will have been able to steal
enough individual right that it will be a small step for some
charismatic leader to steal a few more rights and we’ll end up with a
Totalitarian Communist, Fascist or Dictator.

It is our *INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS* that keeps the wolf from scratching at our
door.