Posted on 05/14/2007 7:43:14 AM PDT by ParsifalCA
Many years ago, I read Eric Hoffers’s book, “The True Believer.” In the course of which, Mr. Hoffer suggested that although you might think that Communists and Fascists were polar opposites, their similarities were far greater than their differences. He was referring to the psychological makeup of their respective followers. At the time, being a very young man, I’m not sure I grasped how wise he was.
It was a truth that I discovered for myself between the years of 1987 and 1991, when I served two terms on the board of directors of the Writer’s Guild of America. All told, there were 19 of us -- three officers and 16 directors -- of whom at least five had been blacklisted back in the 1950s. These were writers who’d been Communists during the 30s and 40s. That meant that they had opposed America’s intervention in World War II during the two years of the Stalin-Hitler non-aggression pact -- years during which Germany had ridden roughshod over the rest of Europe. But once the Nazis invaded the Soviet Union, these American Reds became downright bellicose.
The reason I bring up this bit of ancient history is because, psychologically, these ex-Communists hadn’t really changed in half a century. Only instead of taking their marching orders from Joseph Stalin, they were now taking them from the tyrannical executive director of the Guild. Unable to think for themselves, they required a strong man to follow.
(Excerpt) Read more at californiarepublic.org ...
The Nazis were left-wing socialists. Yes, the National Socialist Workers Party of Germany, otherwise known as the Nazi Party, was indeed socialist, and it had a lot in common with the modern left. Hitler preached class warfare, agitating the working class to resist “exploitation” by capitalists — particularly Jewish capitalists, of course. Their program called for the nationalization of education, health care, transportation, and other major industries. They instituted and vigorously enforced a strict gun control regimen. They encouraged pornography, illegitimacy, and abortion, and they denounced Christians as right-wing fanatics. Yet a popular myth persists that the Nazis themselves were right-wing extremists. This insidious lie biases the entire political landscape, and the time has come to expose it.
Mr Hoffer does the truth a disservice by suggesting that Fascists and Communists were ONLY pyschologically similar.
The Communists wanted state ownership of the means of production. The Fascists wanted state control of the means of production. The Fascists were only right-wing from the POV of the Communists. But they are both far-left radicals.
Bump.
I think they believe in nothing but their feelings.
bump
Both are collectivists. Fascists are just more efficient.
I’ve come to believe that liberals are so afraid of the world around them that they seek a return to the days of Bill Clinton style reality management.
Terrorism existed but they went along with pretending that it didn’t because it was easier that way.
I was watching the show, “The Presidents” the other day. One of the historians being interviewed rather matter-of-factly referred to the Ku Klux Klan as the terrorist wing of the Democrat Party. Never heard that before.
Excellent read. Thanks for posting.
That Hitler and the Nazis were socialists (fascist socialists if you like) is inarguable. First, the name of the party itself gives one a strong hint: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (NSDAP).
Second, Hitler's speech to the party congress of 1 May 1927 leaves utterly no doubt of the completely socialist orientation of the Nazis. The principal significant political difference between the Nazis and the Communists was the bombastic nationalism of the Nazis.
My theory of liberals is that a liberal is a person who lacks the gene required for humans to be able to mentally process reality.
The theory will remain a theory pending the identification of the gene. However, much evidence of the theory's premise exists by examining the conclusions reached by liberal logic.
Let me share some observations I’ve gathered from Free Republic post.
Is it the liberal or the conservative who believes you can bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift?
Is it the liberal or the conservative who believes you can help small men by tearing down big men?
Is it the liberal or the conservative who believes you can strengthen the weak by weakening the strong?
Is it the liberal or the conservative who believes you can lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer?
Is it the liberal or the conservative who believes you can help the poor man by destroying the rich?
Is it the liberal or the conservative who believes you can further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred?
Is it the liberal or the conservative who believes you can build character and courage by taking away men's initiative and independence?
Is it the liberal or the conservative who believes you can help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves?
Today's liberals have so sullied the term that even they shy away from it, preferring euphemisms like "progressive." (By that, they mean "progress" on the road to socialism.) If this is too abstract, here are a few practical distinctions:
Conservatives believe in individual freedom and responsibility.
Liberals believe in sacrificing individual freedom for socially desirable outcomes.
Conservatives believe in limited government.
Liberals believe that one of government's primary roles is social engineering.
Conservatives believe in free markets.
Liberals believe in government controls and central planning.
Conservatives believe that some problems have no solution and can only be mitigated at best.
Liberals believe that most every problem has a government solution.
Conservatives are concerned about the production of wealth.
Liberals are concerned about the redistribution of wealth.
Conservatives believe in the equality of opportunities.
Liberals believe in the equality of outcomes.
Conservatives believe that human nature is what makes us imperfect.
Liberals believe that human nature can be changed and perfected.
Conservatives believe in peace through strength.
Liberals believe in peace through cooperation and good will.
There are many other examples. Some are listed below whose liberal solutions defy logic in light of reality.
Why does a liberal feel that other citizens are not paying “their fair share” of taxes when taxpayers with 17% of the income pays 30% of the taxes?
Why does a liberal believe that throwing yet more money at education will improve its quality but adding educational choice will not?
Why does a liberal agree with the government when it subsidizes, taxes, regulates, and then sues a product manufacturer?
Why does a liberal oppose capital punishment of the guilty after receiving due process in law while supporting the capital punishment of an innocent fetus?
Why does a liberal support using welfare money to sue gun manufacturers instead of using the money to arrest the offenders?
Why does a liberal agree with the conservative that black citizens are equal and then support affirmative action and quotas indicating the liberal believes that blacks are not equal?
The empirical evidence that liberals cannot process reality is virtually unlimited but I won’t include the two hundred or so additional observations I have collected from Free Republic. Feel free to add comments or additional observations.
.
I believe gun control was actually instituted by the Weimar Republic, ironically to keep guns out of the hands of people such as the Nazi’s. Hitler’s regime expanded and vigorously enforced gun control of the previous government.
“It’s so simple even a liberal MIGHT be able to understand it...”
Whether he would have the capacity or not is neither here nor there, because a huge part of the indoctrination of a liberal consists of the instilling of what might be termed a “reality early warning system,” together with a set of procedures to execute when incoming reality is detected.
At the first hint of dissent, the liberal
1. reflexively designates the source a hostile contact,
2. generates genuine hatred for the hostile in his heart, together with fury in the dormant organ that was potentially his mind,
3.closes his alleged mind and even his ears to whatever the hostile is uttering, and
4. tries to shout the hostile down with whatever Orwellian slogans have been designated for the particular issue.
Of course, there are other strategies...well, there is one other...and that is to adopt a deliberately provoking and insulting air of smug, amused superiority, in an attempt to make the hostile lose his temper. It matters not to the liberal that the hostile is entirely justified in losing his temper; no matter how offensive and wrongful his own conduct, he always declares victory when he succeeds in angering a hostile.
One of the historians being interviewed rather matter-of-factly referred to the Ku Klux Klan as the terrorist wing of the Democrat Party. Never heard that before.
...the KKK evolved from the Democrat Party, which was a solid voting block in the South for generations...if the Party had not been so stupid as to run two candidates in 1860 (Douglas and Breckinridge)Lincoln and the fledling Republicans would never have taken the Presidency and possibly there never would have been a Civil War or a KKK...the Klan arose as a response to alleged atrocities committed by the so called carpetbagging Republicans who were swept into power after the War...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.