| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"words of truth" |
| Date: |
14 Sep 2005 09:33:55 AM |
| Object: |
Let's Get Rid Of Women-Degrading Practice Of Cheerleading |
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42470
Let's get rid of cheerleading
Shmuley Boteach
Rabbi Shmuley Boteach is a nationally syndicated radio host daily from
2-5 p.m. EST on the Liberty Broadcasting Network, and was named by
Talkers magazine as one of America's 100 most important talk-radio
hosts. A best-selling author of 15 books, his latest work is "Hating
Women: America's Hostile Campaign Against the Fairer Sex"
(ReganBooks-HarperCollins). To learn more about Rabbi Boteach, please
visit his website. www.shmuley.com
As the NFL season moves inexorably toward its climax with the Super
Bowl, it is time that we revisit the strange phenomenon of the
scantily-clad, female cheerleader. For who would have thought that 50
years after feminism, women would feel no offense when they are reduced
to go-go dancers in underwear cheering a quarterback's touchdown pass?
When I get into one of my rants about the place of women in society,
where they have been relegated to in the past and where they are now
vs. where they should be, I find myself mourning the lost
opportunities. I become frustrated by the corruption of femininity in
our society. Look at the ultimate arena of male prominence - the
sports world.
From the early days of the Greek Olympics, men have dominated athletic
pursuits while women, until recently, have been relegated to the
viewing stands. With great pains, women have fought to open the field
of sports to women and to gain the respect they deserve as proficient
and talented athletes. This is, undoubtedly, a real accomplishment.
If the goal all along had been to assert the power of women so as to
disseminate the idea that women have an elevating influence to impart
to the world, we would find that even the heavily male world of sports
would have been impacted. In an overwhelming testosterone-laden field,
however, where do we see women? Take football, for example: No one is
asking women to slap on some shoulder pads and get out there on the
field with the likes of Tom Brady, but we are certainly aware that they
are there.
But in what capacity are they present, and how does the NFL's treat
women? Where do ladies come into play in this mainstay of American
culture? Why do they get to be seen on the sidelines as a bunch of
dimwitted go-go dancers, reduced, basically, to a pair of bouncing
breasts who egg on the muscle-laden athletes?
CBS, one of the main networks that airs football games, has a network
rejoin they often use as they come back to a game after a commercial
break. Amazingly, it does not show a football player. Instead, it shows
cutaway shots of cheerleaders, with a few pictures of these overly
made-up dolls jumping up and down, and then one shot - I kid you not
- of a woman's behind. A five-second close up of a woman's rear end
- that is a commercial for football? The connection? Must be esoteric
because I am not sure how the one illustrates the other.
This is truly a shame because sports arenas are an ideal case to note
how the very presence of women can impact the surrounding environment.
After all, look at the behavior of men who attend English football
(that's soccer to us Yanks) matches. They are notoriously violent.
There have been tragic stories about the crowds getting out of hand and
about rival fans brutally assaulting one another.
Additionally, if you have not been to a match yourself, let me tell you
that you had better not be prudish or refined because you are going to
hear an earful of outrageous screaming that even the crassest NFL fan
might find blush-worthy! When you go to a British soccer game, you run
the risk of being trampled to death by the usual army of drunken
animals.
And why are they such embarrassing brutes? Search the stands the next
time you watch British football on television and you will scarcely
ever find a single woman (assuming you can stay awake for the
predictable nil-nil final score, international soccer being the one
exception to the rule that men are goal-oriented).
Some might propose that this riotous behavior is a product of
socio-economic factors in that English football tickets are cheap -
which means that the men in attendance are often working class or out
of work altogether. I do not doubt that these sorts of contributors
impact the behavior one sees at an English football match, but how does
that explain the crowds at American football matches?
Tickets to an NFL game are not cheap, which means that we are not
dealing with a crowd of aggressive and frustrated out-of-work men who
need to let off a bit of steam. Yet at Oakland Raiders' games alone
there have been incidents that have escalated as far as stabbings. It
is not even a matter of rival fans getting out of control since,
according to Gary Schellenberg of the Alameda County Sheriff's
Department, 95 percent of the violence at Raider games involve Raider
fan on Raider fan.
Apart from crazed Raider fans, however, most American football fans
really only run the risk of having their eardrums burst by
earthquake-like burps from bare-chested brutes on a Heineken drip.
Still, where are male fans the best behaved? Even amid the disgusting
brawl that broke out between the Indian Pacers and the Detroit Pistons,
by and large, it is at basketball games, because they attract the
largest percentage of female fans.
Men are simply more civilized around women. Flatulence jokes are common
among men who can think of nothing funnier than passing gas around each
other and guessing "whoever smelt it dealt it." But when's the last
time a man walked over to an attractive woman at a bar and asked her to
"pull my finger"?
Just think about it: Even in this very masculine world of sports, even
when there are scantily clad women to cater to the lascivious nature of
men, the very presence of women in the stands can at least curb the
more animalistic nature of man - the violent, aggressive traits that
helped men survive before civilization developed. If, under even these
adverse circumstances, women can have a positive influence, think of
what they might be able to accomplish if they band together to assert
their value and insist upon the respect they deserve, rather than
pandering to the baser expectations that have become popular.
And speaking of catering to the basest of instincts, I found it
pathetic to see the replays of Brandi Chastain who celebrated her
teams' victory in the 1999 FIFA Women's World Cup Championship by
taking off her shirt. It was every couch potato's dream: dirt, sports,
women and breasts. I can not tell you how many men I met who said that
this sort of fantasy is what inspires them to watch women's sports in
the first place, the thought that at any moment, the female players may
rip off their clothing and jump all over each other.
So much for an appreciation of athleticism. But what do we expect when
the women who work their way into the spotlight at major sporting
events are doing so in their underwear when they parade around as
cheerleaders? How could this possibly be an ennobling role? Only a
society that harbors an utter lack of modesty and a constant debasing
of the commodity and dignity of the female form could ever produce a
women who would think nothing of whipping off her shirt on national
television as Chastain did.
Yes, friends, it is time, finally, to get rid of the cheerleaders and
condition men to respect women rather than merely be titillated by
them.
.
|
|
| User: "Paul Hovnanian P.E." |
|
| Title: Re: Let's Get Rid Of Women-Degrading Practice Of Cheerleading |
15 Sep 2005 10:45:20 PM |
|
|
"ריעין ברתון/Riain Barton" wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: ריעין ברתון/Riain Barton
To: Men_Caught_Naked
Cc: Men_Male ; Men_Men ; Men_California ;
Men_San-Francisco@yahoogroups.com
Sent: יום חמישי 15 ספטמבר 2005 00:49
Subject: [Men_San-Francisco] Fw: Naked Sports Day - San Francisco - 24
Sept 2005
CELEBRATE NAKED SPORTS DAY
I thought about joining the naked cyclists in the Freemont parade, but
getting caught in that sprocket looks like it might be painful.
--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
If life was fair, Elvis would be alive and all the impersonators
would be dead. -- Johnny Carson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jenny6833A" |
|
| Title: Re: Let's Get Rid Of Women-Degrading Practice Of Cheerleading |
16 Sep 2005 06:41:20 PM |
|
|
Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote:
I thought about joining the naked cyclists in the Freemont parade, but
getting caught in that sprocket looks like it might be painful.
You're bragging.
Why not just coil it, and put it in the basket.
:-)
Jenny
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Hovnanian P.E." |
|
| Title: Re: Let's Get Rid Of Women-Degrading Practice Of Cheerleading |
16 Sep 2005 10:14:58 PM |
|
|
Jenny6833A wrote:
Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote:
I thought about joining the naked cyclists in the Freemont parade, but
getting caught in that sprocket looks like it might be painful.
You're bragging.
Why not just coil it, and put it in the basket.
I think you misunderstand my problem. I have very short legs.
;-)
--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
Live Faust, die Jung.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Hovnanian P.E." |
|
| Title: Re: Let's Get Rid Of Women-Degrading Practice Of Cheerleading |
15 Sep 2005 10:52:05 PM |
|
|
wrote:
On 15-Sep-2005, "Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote:
Why not just put all women in burkas?
Why does it have to one extreme or the other?
Why not teach our children that people aren't sex objects?
Too much trouble, hmmm?
Yes. We don't need our own version of Islam's morality police, no matter
where the line is drawn.
Its also interesting to note that parents who were horrified at the
thought of their children catching a glimpse of Janet Jackson's breast
were allowed to watch such a violent sport in the first place.
--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
When cryptography is outlawed, bayl bhgynjf jvyy unir cevinpl.
-- Etaoin Shrdlu
.
|
|
|
| User: "BruceS" |
|
| Title: Re: Let's Get Rid Of Women-Degrading Practice Of Cheerleading |
19 Sep 2005 02:57:28 PM |
|
|
Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote:
flaviaR@verizon.net wrote:
On 15-Sep-2005, "Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote:
Why not just put all women in burkas?
Why does it have to one extreme or the other?
Why not teach our children that people aren't sex objects?
Too much trouble, hmmm?
Yes. We don't need our own version of Islam's morality police, no matter
where the line is drawn.
Its also interesting to note that parents who were horrified at the
thought of their children catching a glimpse of Janet Jackson's breast
were allowed to watch such a violent sport in the first place.
Meanwhile, some of us who were not at all offended by her exposure had
too little interest in the game to have seen it, with or without our
young charges.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "ריעין ברתון/Riain Barton" |
|
| Title: Re: Let's Get Rid Of Women-Degrading Practice Of Cheerleading |
15 Sep 2005 11:12:34 PM |
|
|
Yes, the right wing fascists still haven't explained to anyone at what
point a woman's breast became obscene and dirty.
"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote in message
news:432A4165.4183DE67@Hovnanian.com...
: wrote:
: >
: > On 15-Sep-2005, "Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote:
: >
: > > Why not just put all women in burkas?
: >
: > Why does it have to one extreme or the other?
: > Why not teach our children that people aren't sex objects?
: > Too much trouble, hmmm?
:
: Yes. We don't need our own version of Islam's morality police, no
matter
: where the line is drawn.
:
: Its also interesting to note that parents who were horrified at the
: thought of their children catching a glimpse of Janet Jackson's breast
: were allowed to watch such a violent sport in the first place.
:
: --
: Paul Hovnanian mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com
: ------------------------------------------------------------------
: When cryptography is outlawed, bayl bhgynjf jvyy unir cevinpl.
: -- Etaoin Shrdlu
.
|
|
|
| User: "Philip Lewis" |
|
| Title: Re: Let's Get Rid Of Women-Degrading Practice Of Cheerleading |
16 Sep 2005 02:00:47 AM |
|
|
"ריעין ברתון/Riain Barton" <riain@zion.org.il> wrote in message
news:3zrWe.895$mw5.525@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
Yes, the right wing fascists still haven't explained to anyone at what
point a woman's breast became obscene and dirty.
I wonder what left wing fascists like Pol Pot, Stalin,Hitler and Mao Tse
Tung thought on this topic also?
Phil
--
If we (men) indulged in petty vindictiveness as much as women there would be
no such thing as male chivalry. (Somebody on Usenet 2004)
JohnPaul Sahtah whaddafackin KANT! (Alexis Sayle)
"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote in message
news:432A4165.4183DE67@Hovnanian.com...
: wrote:
: >
: > On 15-Sep-2005, "Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote:
: >
: > > Why not just put all women in burkas?
: >
: > Why does it have to one extreme or the other?
: > Why not teach our children that people aren't sex objects?
: > Too much trouble, hmmm?
:
: Yes. We don't need our own version of Islam's morality police, no
matter
: where the line is drawn.
:
: Its also interesting to note that parents who were horrified at the
: thought of their children catching a glimpse of Janet Jackson's breast
: were allowed to watch such a violent sport in the first place.
:
: --
: Paul Hovnanian mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com
: ------------------------------------------------------------------
: When cryptography is outlawed, bayl bhgynjf jvyy unir cevinpl.
: -- Etaoin Shrdlu
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Let's Get Rid Of Women-Degrading Practice Of Cheerleading |
16 Sep 2005 02:16:04 AM |
|
|
Philip Lewis wrote:
"=F8=E9=F2=E9=EF =E1=F8=FA=E5=EF=FD/Riain Barton" <riain@zion.org.il> w=
rote in message=20
news:3zrWe.895$mw5.525@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
=20
Yes, the right wing fascists still haven't explained to anyone at what
point a woman's breast became obscene and dirty.
=20
=20
I wonder what left wing fascists like Pol Pot, Stalin,Hitler and Mao Ts=
e=20
Tung thought on this topic also?
=20
Fascism is, by definition, right-wing. Try again. By the by, what does =
Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler, or Mao have to do with this subject?
--=20
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "If God had intended us to walk, he wouldn't *
* have invented roller skates." --Willy Wonka *
****************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Let's Get Rid Of Women-Degrading Practice Of Cheerleading |
16 Sep 2005 02:31:47 AM |
|
|
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote
I wonder what left wing fascists like Pol Pot, Stalin,Hitler
and Mao Tse Tung thought on this topic also?
Fascism is, by definition, right-wing. Try again. By the
by, what does Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler, or Mao have to do
with this subject?
About as much as Hitler had to do with left-wing politics.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Philip Lewis" |
|
| Title: Re: Let's Get Rid Of Women-Degrading Practice Of Cheerleading |
17 Sep 2005 02:37:10 AM |
|
|
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:PLmdnUWDX93l77feRVn-uw@comcast.com...
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote
I wonder what left wing fascists like Pol Pot, Stalin,Hitler
and Mao Tse Tung thought on this topic also?
Fascism is, by definition, right-wing. Try again. By the
by, what does Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler, or Mao have to do
with this subject?
About as much as Hitler had to do with left-wing politics.
Well that is quite a lot then considering that ALL on my list were left wing
extremists!
Phil
--
If we (men) indulged in petty vindictiveness as much as women there would be
no such thing as male chivalry. (Somebody on Usenet 2004)
JohnPaul Sahtah whaddafackin KANT! (Alexis Sayle)
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Let's Get Rid Of Women-Degrading Practice Of Cheerleading |
17 Sep 2005 04:01:19 AM |
|
|
"Philip Lewis" <nottelling@hotmail.com> wrote
Well that is quite a lot then considering that ALL on my
list were left wing extremists!
If you're trying to tell us that you're an idiot who goes by
the labels his a.m. talk radio hosts spoon feed him, we
know.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Philip Lewis" |
|
| Title: Re: Let's Get Rid Of Women-Degrading Practice Of Cheerleading |
18 Sep 2005 07:47:43 AM |
|
|
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:AZedncd9n7lpRbbeRVn-qQ@comcast.com...
"Philip Lewis" <nottelling@hotmail.com> wrote
Well that is quite a lot then considering that ALL on my
list were left wing extremists!
If you're trying to tell us that you're an idiot who goes by
the labels his a.m. talk radio hosts spoon feed him, we
know.
I'm not impressed by your misuse of boolean logic - nor your crude attempt
to sidestep my point that all those on my list were left wing extremists.
Phil
--
If we (men) indulged in petty vindictiveness as much as women there would be
no such thing as male chivalry. (Somebody on Usenet 2004)
JohnPaul Sahtah whaddafackin KANT! (Alexis Sayle)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Del" |
|
| Title: Re: Let's Get Rid Of Women-Degrading Practice Of Cheerleading |
18 Sep 2005 01:14:19 AM |
|
|
Philip Lewis wrote:
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:PLmdnUWDX93l77feRVn-uw@comcast.com...
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote
I wonder what left wing fascists like Pol Pot, Stalin,Hitler
and Mao Tse Tung thought on this topic also?
Fascism is, by definition, right-wing. Try again. By the
by, what does Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler, or Mao have to do
with this subject?
About as much as Hitler had to do with left-wing politi cs.
Well that is quite a lot then considering that ALL on my list were left wing
extremists!
How come nobody thought so at the time? How come the German
government, the Italian government, news services like Associated
Press, Time Magazine, conservatives like Barry Goldwater, and
many others ALL refer to nazis as right wing? Do you know
something they don't?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Philip Lewis" |
|
| Title: Re: Let's Get Rid Of Women-Degrading Practice Of Cheerleading |
18 Sep 2005 07:57:05 AM |
|
|
"Del" <jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1127024059.694142.142860@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Philip Lewis wrote:
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:PLmdnUWDX93l77feRVn-uw@comcast.com...
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote
I wonder what left wing fascists like Pol Pot, Stalin,Hitler
and Mao Tse Tung thought on this topic also?
Fascism is, by definition, right-wing. Try again. By the
by, what does Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler, or Mao have to do
with this subject?
About as much as Hitler had to do with left-wing politi cs.
Well that is quite a lot then considering that ALL on my list were left
wing
extremists!
How come nobody thought so at the time? How come the German
government, the Italian government, news services like Associated
Press, Time Magazine, conservatives like Barry Goldwater, and
many others ALL refer to nazis as right wing? Do you know
something they don't?
Does having a 'high profile' gaurantee lack of errors - I think NOT. The
FACT is that the nazi's were national SOCIALISTS and thus qualify for the
label LEFT WING extremists.
Phil
.
|
|
|
| User: "Del" |
|
| Title: Re: Let's Get Rid Of Women-Degrading Practice Of Cheerleading |
18 Sep 2005 03:43:39 PM |
|
|
Philip Lewis wrote:
"Del" <jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1127024059.694142.142860@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Philip Lewis wrote:
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:PLmdnUWDX93l77feRVn-uw@comcast.com...
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote
I wonder what left wing fascists like Pol Pot, Stalin,Hitler
and Mao Tse Tung thought on this topic also?
Fascism is, by definition, right-wing. Try again. By the
by, what does Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler, or Mao have to do
with this subject?
About as much as Hitler had to do with left-wing politi cs.
Well that is quite a lot then considering that ALL on my list were left
wing
extremists!
How come nobody thought so at the time? How come the German
government, the Italian government, news services like Associated
Press, Time Magazine, conservatives like Barry Goldwater, and
m any others ALL refer to nazis as right wing? Do you know
something they don't?
Does having a 'high profile' gaurantee lack of errors -
Can't answer my question? No surprise there. It is a bit inconvenient
for you, isn't it?
I think NOT.
Well you said it, not me.
The
FACT is that the nazi's were national SOCIALISTS and thus qualify for the
label LE FT WING extremists.
Apparently you don't know what socialism means or
don't care or both. Now why don't you answer the
question you avoided at the top? Explain how everybody
got it wrong. You think that mayube Henry Luce,
ultra conservative founder and owner of Time Magazine,
Fortune Magazine, Life Magazine and Sports Illustrated
didn't know what socialism was? Do you really think the
German government is clueless about nazis? Do you think
that Mussolini's top man in nazi Germany was mistaken?
You see, I see you revisionists from time to time and you
always assume that you don't have the burden of proving
your assertions about Nazism being on the left. You think
it is up to rational folk to refute your BS. However The
facts in action are that no one at the time--or even afterward-
-ever thought nazis were left wing socialists. This means
that it is YOU who carries the burden of proof.
Now why don't you claim that nazis were considered to be
on the left when they were a power to be contended with
and not a just distant memory as they are now to most
people? Or maybe you better just avoid this because you
know you can't begin to uphold your burden of proof.
Have you read any books on the subject? If so what are their
names? You can indicate that you've read none by ignoring
the question or refusing to answer it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Philip Lewis" |
|
| Title: Re: Let's Get Rid Of Women-Degrading Practice Of Cheerleading |
19 Sep 2005 04:59:06 AM |
|
|
"Del" <jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1127076219.545987.88010@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Philip Lewis wrote:
"Del" <jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1127024059.694142.142860@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Philip Lewis wrote:
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:PLmdnUWDX93l77feRVn-uw@comcast.com...
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote
I wonder what left wing fascists like Pol Pot, Stalin,Hitler
and Mao Tse Tung thought on this topic also?
Fascism is, by definition, right-wing. Try again. By the
by, what does Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler, or Mao have to do
with this subject?
About as much as Hitler had to do with left-wing politi cs.
Well that is quite a lot then considering that ALL on my list were
left
wing
extremists!
How come nobody thought so at the time? How come the German
government, the Italian government, news services like Associated
Press, Time Magazine, conservatives like Barry Goldwater, and
m any others ALL refer to nazis as right wing? Do you know
something they don't?
Does having a 'high profile' gaurantee lack of errors -
Can't answer my question?
No surprise there. It is a bit inconvenient
for you, isn't it?
I think NOT.
Well you said it, not me.
The
FACT is that the nazi's were national SOCIALISTS and thus qualify for the
label LE FT WING extremists.
Apparently you don't know what socialism means or
don't care or both. Now why don't you answer the
question you avoided at the top? Explain how everybody
got it wrong. You think that mayube Henry Luce,
ultra conservative founder and owner of Time Magazine,
Fortune Magazine, Life Magazine and Sports Illustrated
didn't know what socialism was? Do you really think the
German government is clueless about nazis? Do you think
that Mussolini's top man in nazi Germany was mistaken?
You see, I see you revisionists from time to time and you
always assume that you don't have the burden of proving
your assertions about Nazism being on the left. You think
it is up to rational folk to refute your BS. However The
facts in action are that no one at the time--or even afterward-
-ever thought nazis were left wing socialists. This means
that it is YOU who carries the burden of proof.
Now why don't you claim that nazis were considered to be
on the left when they were a power to be contended with
and not a just distant memory as they are now to most
people? Or maybe you better just avoid this because you
know you can't begin to uphold your burden of proof.
Have you read any books on the subject? If so what are their
names? You can indicate that you've read none by ignoring
the question or refusing to answer it.
What is 'BS' about clearly stating that national SOCIALISTS were an extreme
LEFT WING group?
You can bluster all you like and call me every name under the sun but you
can't change the FACT that national socialists (i.e. nazi's) were an extreme
LEFT WING group.
Phil
.
|
|
|
| User: "Del" |
|
| Title: Re: Let's Get Rid Of Women-Degrading Practice Of Cheerleading |
20 Sep 2005 10:05:22 AM |
|
|
Philip Lewis wrote:
"Del" <jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1127076219.545987.88010@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Philip Lewis wrote:
"Del" <jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1127024059.694142.142860@z14g2000 cwz.googlegroups.com...
Philip Lewis wrote:
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:PLmdnUWDX93l77feRVn-uw@comcast.com...
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote
I w onder what left wing fascists like Pol Pot, Stalin,Hitler
and Mao Tse Tung thought on this topic also?
Fascism is, by definition, right-wing. Try again. By the
by, what does Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler, or Mao ha ve to do
with this subject?
About as much as Hitler had to do with left-wing politi cs.
Well that is quite a lot then considering that ALL on my list were
left
wing
extremis ts!
How come nobody thought so at the time? How come the German
government, the Italian government, news services like Associated
Press, Time Magazine, conservatives like Barry Goldwater, and
m any others ALL refer to n azis as right wing? Do you know
something they don't?
Does having a 'high profile' gaurantee lack of errors -
Can't answer my question?
No surprise there. It is a bit inconvenient
for you, isn't it?
I thin k NOT.
Well you said it, not me.
The
FACT is that the nazi's were national SOCIALISTS and thus qualify for the
label LE FT WING extremists.
Apparently you don't know what socialism means or
don't care or both. Now why don't you answer the
question you avoided at the top? Explain how everybody
got it wrong. You think that mayube Henry Luce,
ultra conservative founder and owner of Time Magazine,
Fortune Magazine, Life Magazine and Sports Illustrated
didn't know what socialism was? Do you really think the
German government is clueless about nazis? Do you think
that Mussolini's top man in nazi Germany was mistaken?
You see, I see you revisionists from time to time and you
alway s assume that you don't have the burden of proving
your assertions about Nazism being on the left. You think
it is up to rational folk to refute your BS. However The
facts in action are that no one at the time--or even afterward-
-ever th ought nazis were left wing socialists. This means
that it is YOU who carries the burden of proof.
Now why don't you claim that nazis were considered to be
on the left when they were a power to be contended with
and not a just distant m emory as they are now to most
people? Or maybe you better just avoid this because you
know you can't begin to uphold your burden of proof.
Have you read any books on the subject? If so what are their
names? You can indicate that you'v e read none by ignoring
the question or refusing to answer it.
What is 'BS' about clearly stating that national SOCIALISTS were an extreme
LEFT WING group?
Duh. Keep running away, Phil baby. You ain't doing so good are ya?
The government of the Federal German Republic calls nazis
"right wing" (The Office for the Protection of the Constitution
is the official organization that is charged with monitoring nazis,
neo-nazis and other right-wing extremist groups).
Explain that, Phil, Baby. Don't run away from it.
You can bluster all you like and call me every name under the sun
Sez the name-caller. How amusing!
but you
can't ch ange the FACT that national socialists (i.e. nazi's) were an extreme
LEFT WING group.
Proof by cap lock. How impressive. And from someone
who has never read a book on the subject either. I guess you
figure your ignorance gives you an insight superior to that
of people who have actually studied the subject.
Anyway, you have the burden of proof and you can't support
your case. You just keep running away.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Let's Get Rid Of Women-Degrading Practice Of Cheerleading |
19 Sep 2005 10:00:43 PM |
|
|
Philip Lewis wrote:
"Del" <jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1127076219.545987.88010@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Philip Lewis wrote:
"Del" <jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1127024059.694142.142860@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Philip Lewis wrote:
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:PLmdnUWDX93l77feRVn-uw@comcast.com...
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote
I wonder what left wing fascists like Pol Pot, Stalin,Hitler
and Mao Tse Tung thought on this topic also?
Fascism is, by definition, right-wing. Try again. By the
by, what does Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler, or Mao have to do
with this subject?
About as much as Hitler had to do with left-wing politi cs.
Well that is quite a lot then considering that ALL on my list were
left
wing
extremists!
How come nobody thought so at the time? How come the German
government, the Italian government, news services like Associated
Press, Time Magazine, conservatives like Barry Goldwater, and
m any others ALL refer to nazis as right wing? Do you know
something they don't?
Does having a 'high profile' gaurantee lack of errors -
Can't answer my question?
No surprise there. It is a bit inconvenient
for you, isn't it?
I think NOT.
Well you said it, not me.
The
FACT is that the nazi's were national SOCIALISTS and thus qualify for the
label LE FT WING extremists.
Apparently you don't know what socialism means or
don't care or both. Now why don't you answer the
question you avoided at the top? Explain how everybody
got it wrong. You think that mayube Henry Luce,
ultra conservative founder and owner of Time Magazine,
Fortune Magazine, Life Magazine and Sports Illustrated
didn't know what socialism was? Do you really think the
German government is clueless about nazis? Do you think
that Mussolini's top man in nazi Germany was mistaken?
You see, I see you revisionists from time to time and you
always assume that you don't have the burden of proving
your assertions about Nazism being on the left. You think
it is up to rational folk to refute your BS. However The
facts in action are that no one at the time--or even afterward-
-ever thought nazis were left wing socialists. This means
that it is YOU who carries the burden of proof.
Now why don't you claim that nazis were considered to be
on the left when they were a power to be contended with
and not a just distant memory as they are now to most
people? Or maybe you better just avoid this because you
know you can't begin to uphold your burden of proof.
Have you read any books on the subject? If so what are their
names? You can indicate that you've read none by ignoring
the question or refusing to answer it.
What is 'BS' about clearly stating that national SOCIALISTS were an extreme
LEFT WING group?
You can bluster all you like and call me every name under the sun but you
can't change the FACT that national socialists (i.e. nazi's) were an extreme
LEFT WING group.
Calling it a fact doesn't make it a fact.
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth *
* and nothing but the truth; so help me me." *
* --George Burns as God *
****************************************************
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "ריעין ברתון/Riain Barton" |
|
| Title: Re: Let's Get Rid Of Women-Degrading Practice Of Cheerleading |
18 Sep 2005 03:24:15 PM |
|
|
The political spectrum is not a straight line, but a circle.
National Socialism is where left and right meet at the point that is the
complete opposite of the "middle".
"Philip Lewis" <nottelling@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dgjo70$ppk$1@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
:
: "Del" <jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote in message
: news:1127024059.694142.142860@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
: >
: > Philip Lewis wrote:
: >> "JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in message
: >> news:PLmdnUWDX93l77feRVn-uw@comcast.com...
: >> >
: >> > "DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote
: >> >
: >> >> > I wonder what left wing fascists like Pol Pot, Stalin,Hitler
: >> >> > and Mao Tse Tung thought on this topic also?
: >> >
: >> >> Fascism is, by definition, right-wing. Try again. By the
: >> >> by, what does Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler, or Mao have to do
: >> >> with this subject?
: >> >
: >> > About as much as Hitler had to do with left-wing politi cs.
: >> >
: >>
: >> Well that is quite a lot then considering that ALL on my list were
left
: >> wing
: >> extremists!
: >
: > How come nobody thought so at the time? How come the German
: > government, the Italian government, news services like Associated
: > Press, Time Magazine, conservatives like Barry Goldwater, and
: > many others ALL refer to nazis as right wing? Do you know
: > something they don't?
: >
:
: Does having a 'high profile' gaurantee lack of errors - I think NOT.
The
: FACT is that the nazi's were national SOCIALISTS and thus qualify for
the
: label LEFT WING extremists.
:
: Phil
:
:
:
.
|
|
|
| User: "Philip Lewis" |
|
| Title: Re: Let's Get Rid Of Women-Degrading Practice Of Cheerleading |
19 Sep 2005 04:47:29 AM |
|
|
"ריעין ברתון/Riain Barton" <riain@zion.org.il> wrote in message
news:b1kXe.1433$_55.469@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
The political spectrum is not a straight line, but a circle.
National Socialism is where left and right meet at the point that is the
complete opposite of the "middle".
Spoken like a true apologist for the extremes of the left!
Phil
"Philip Lewis" <nottelling@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dgjo70$ppk$1@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
:
: "Del" <jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote in message
: news:1127024059.694142.142860@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
: >
: > Philip Lewis wrote:
: >> "JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in message
: >> news:PLmdnUWDX93l77feRVn-uw@comcast.com...
: >> >
: >> > "DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote
: >> >
: >> >> > I wonder what left wing fascists like Pol Pot, Stalin,Hitler
: >> >> > and Mao Tse Tung thought on this topic also?
: >> >
: >> >> Fascism is, by definition, right-wing. Try again. By the
: >> >> by, what does Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler, or Mao have to do
: >> >> with this subject?
: >> >
: >> > About as much as Hitler had to do with left-wing politi cs.
: >> >
: >>
: >> Well that is quite a lot then considering that ALL on my list were
left
: >> wing
: >> extremists!
: >
: > How come nobody thought so at the time? How come the German
: > government, the Italian government, news services like Associated
: > Press, Time Magazine, conservatives like Barry Goldwater, and
: > many others ALL refer to nazis as right wing? Do you know
: > something they don't?
: >
:
: Does having a 'high profile' gaurantee lack of errors - I think NOT.
The
: FACT is that the nazi's were national SOCIALISTS and thus qualify for
the
: label LEFT WING extremists.
:
: Phil
:
:
:
.
|
|
|
| User: "ריעין ברתון/Riain Barton" |
|
| Title: Re: Let's Get Rid Of Women-Degrading Practice Of Cheerleading |
19 Sep 2005 05:15:04 AM |
|
|
And you speak like a bigoted closed-minded ignorant uneducated fool.
I suggest a class in Political Science 101.
What kind of fucking thick prat are you?
http://www.oicu2.com/afc/leftright.html
This page often offends two dimensional thinking anarchists because the
left has always been considered the anarchistic direction. These people
are confused first of all by not understanding that the political
spectrum is circular and not a straight line. They also confuse
conservatism with right-wingism.
Once you separate Liberalism and Conservatism from social control and
true anarchy it produces a different picture and easier to understand
the true political spectrum. Since many anarchists also believe in
socialism they automatically create a paradox. The one mind boggling
question socialist anarchists must ask themselves is "What do we do with
the people who refuse to be part of our socialist system?"
The simple answer to that very question is why the political spectrum is
not a straight line and in reality a circle.
"What do we do with the people who refuse to be part of our socialist
system?
We put on our jack boots and police them, force them, jail them,
confiscate from them and even kill them if they don't obey.
"Socialism like fire is force and force like fire can eventually burn
those that it is intended to serve and protect. Socialism like the hot
coals in a furnace must be tightly confided, highly supervised and
limited in size or it can easily burn out of control and consume all
freedom"
Ialm 1975
The famous AFC broken circle shows that the middle is the safest
political place to be.
This position is called "Freedomist."
The notion that left-wing and right-wing are at opposite sides of the
political spectrum is erroneous. The political spectrum is a broken
CIRCLE, not a straight line with opposite ends. History proves that any
extreme can easily jump to the other side by the will of the people
trying to escape the one extreme. The bottom of the broken circle is a
dangerous place to be, left or right. Localized social government
existing in a Republic of separate free states is NECESSARY to create
the balance that gets government to the center of the political
spectrum.
The Russia people were getting very tired of their PUBLIC exploiters so
they dried up the socialist money supply by going to an ALL CASH
un-taxable society. This forced the public con-men to go into the
private sector for their money. The KGB showed their true colors when
they turned directly from communist exploiter into the corporate
exploiter. An incredible transformation directly from Extreme Left into
Extreme Right occurred. In other words the KGB jumped the thin gap at
the bottom of the political spectrum and turned directly into private
Mafia exploiters.
The life style of the public and private exploiters is Lavish if you
care to check?
The working people are exploited on both extremes of the political
spectrum. If you love FREEDOM and PROSPERITY, stay in the middle!!!
Please review the party analyses below and learn that politics is not as
simple as left-wing or right-wing. Separate from left or right are
liberal and conservative philosophies. These four, but separate
political philosophies can be mixed and matched in any order to keep the
serfs and peasants off balance. LOOK and LEARN below, my friends. Never
be fooled again.
The closer the meters are to the center the better the party is for the
people and economy.
Politics is not as simple as left wing or right wing
Conservative anarchists
Liberal anarchists
Conservative socialists
Liberal socialists
National Socialism, the game of the Kings
In the movie "BRAVE HEART," taxes were so high in Scotland that "sword
control" had to be implemented to save the lives of the oppressive tax
collectors. The main reason King Long Shanks had to have Scotland under
his control was to make 'National Socialism' work.
Too many hard working surfs were immigrating to the Northern free land
of Scotland to avoid high taxes.
The peasants that cheered at William Wallace's dis-emboweling were under
the false belief that he was "mean spirited," and did not want to share
his wealth with them.
"Philip Lewis" <nottelling@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dgm1fg$m1i$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
:
: "ריעין ברתון/Riain Barton" <riain@zion.org.il> wrote in message
: news:b1kXe.1433$_55.469@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
: > The political spectrum is not a straight line, but a circle.
: >
: > National Socialism is where left and right meet at the point that is
the
: > complete opposite of the "middle".
:
: Spoken like a true apologist for the extremes of the left!
:
: Phil
:
:
:
:
:
: >
: >
: >
: > "Philip Lewis" <nottelling@hotmail.com> wrote in message
: > news:dgjo70$ppk$1@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
: > :
: > : "Del" <jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote in message
: > : news:1127024059.694142.142860@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
: > : >
: > : > Philip Lewis wrote:
: > : >> "JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in message
: > : >> news:PLmdnUWDX93l77feRVn-uw@comcast.com...
: > : >> >
: > : >> > "DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote
: > : >> >
: > : >> >> > I wonder what left wing fascists like Pol Pot,
Stalin,Hitler
: > : >> >> > and Mao Tse Tung thought on this topic also?
: > : >> >
: > : >> >> Fascism is, by definition, right-wing. Try again. By the
: > : >> >> by, what does Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler, or Mao have to do
: > : >> >> with this subject?
: > : >> >
: > : >> > About as much as Hitler had to do with left-wing politi cs.
: > : >> >
: > : >>
: > : >> Well that is quite a lot then considering that ALL on my list
were
: > left
: > : >> wing
: > : >> extremists!
: > : >
: > : > How come nobody thought so at the time? How come the German
: > : > government, the Italian government, news services like
Associated
: > : > Press, Time Magazine, conservatives like Barry Goldwater, and
: > : > many others ALL refer to nazis as right wing? Do you know
: > : > something they don't?
: > : >
: > :
: > : Does having a 'high profile' gaurantee lack of errors - I think
NOT.
: > The
: > : FACT is that the nazi's were national SOCIALISTS and thus qualify
for
: > the
: > : label LEFT WING extremists.
: > :
: > : Phil
: > :
: > :
: > :
: >
: >
:
:
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Del" |
|
| Title: Re: Let's Get Rid Of Women-Degrading Practice Of Cheerleading |
20 Sep 2005 09:50:13 AM |
|
|
Philip Lewis wrote:
"=F8=E9=F2=E9=EF =E1=F8=FA=E5=EF?/Riain Barton" <riain@zion.org.il> wrote=
in message
news:b1kXe.1433$_55.469@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
The political spectrum is not a straight line, but a circle.
National Socialism is where left and righ t meet at the point that is t=
he
complete opposite of the "middle".
Spoken like a true apologist for the extremes of the left!
This is the ad hominem logical fallacy, sport. Is logic
a commie plot too?=20
t
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "ריעין ברתון/Riain Barton" |
|
| Title: Re: Let's Get Rid Of Women-Degrading Practice Of Cheerleading |
19 Sep 2005 05:22:26 AM |
|
|
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/1068542/posts
The Two Boots of Authoritarianism
By Gary Lloyd
"When the government's boot is on your throat, whether it is a left boot
or a right boot is of no consequence."
Mainstream political pundits waste endless amounts of time and effort
condemning, criticizing, and categorizing one political movement or
another as right-wing or left-wing. The merits (or otherwise) of one
"wing" over another are a point of never-ending obsession with
reporters, academics, and similar self-proclaimed experts.
Supposedly, right-wingers are "for" the elitists and trend toward
fascism: top-down control over an oppressed and helpless common people
who are prevented from reaching their true potential.
Supposedly, left-wingers are "for" the common people and trend toward
socialism: top-down control to ensure equality amongst all people, even
the elite. Like most mainstream discussions these days, such
distinctions exist to provide only an illusion of true differentiation,
whilst the underlying similarities (and therefore the points of
legitimate concern) are ignored or dismissed. Thus the appearance of
constructive debate is maintained while more fundamental issues remain
almost completely unrecognized.
What the mainstream media conveniently forgets is that inevitably, both
right and left wing ideologies, taken to their logical conclusions,
converge toward the same objective of totalitarianism - regardless of
those ideological origins. This is because in order to enforce a stated
objective, both fascism and socialism must exert greater and greater
control over a nation's finances and social policies.
In the end, the only difference is the label used to justify the
force-backed oppression. Both socialism and fascism have the same
ultimate objective of controlling people at the expense of their
individual rights. Those who doubt this should be reminded that the
traditionally condemned archetype for a fascist state was none other
than Nazi Germany and paradoxically, the term "Nazi" comes from the name
of Hitler's political machine "The National Socialist Party". Whether a
dictator or a comrade, leaders of both wings aspire to the same Big
Brother ideal. Therefore theleft-wing/right- wing two dimensional
distinction is ultimately useless in attempting to define a political
ideology and the evolution of a party (or candidate).
A much better way to examine politics is to orient political ideologies
along a state control/individual control axis. In other words, which
entity (government or individual) has the most power under the
prevailing regime?
At one extreme of this new spectrum would be Big Brother's dream State
of perfect government control over every conceivable action committed by
the individuals under its power - in other words, unmitigated
totalitarianism.
At the other extreme would be a non-existent state where each individual
is left to fend for himself/herself and construct his/her own code of
conduct and law - in other words, complete anarchy.
Now we have a reference point by which we can measure the "protection"
offered by a political ideal vs. the "freedom" offered by the ideal.
Maximum protection results in minimal freedom (and privacy), since the
perfect high-security state is one in which Big Brother knows
everything. In a free society unencumbered by the state, an individual
has few if any state-backed emergency resources to utilize in an
emergency, therefore there is little protection available. All political
ideologies can be plotted somewhere along the state control/individual
control axis.
Libertarianism is without a doubt the one closest to complete
individual control, and totalitarian regimes such as the ones imposed by
Stalin or Mao would lie very close to the complete state control point.
However, a problem arises when trying to compare ideologies with
different types (but similar levels) of state intervention into personal
affairs. This is most apparent when trying to evaluate the relative
merits of conservatism vs. liberalism. In other words, the traditional
argument of right wing vs. left wing.
To accomodate such a distinction, we can add another dimension to our
existing "straight line" definition measuring protection against
freedom.
Imagine a two-by-two matrix turned on its corner. In other words, a box
divided internally into four smaller squares and turned 45 degrees so
that it resembles a diamond. In the top square, write "Totalitarianism:
High Degrees of State Control Over Both Financial and Social Policy."
Examples: Soviet Russia, Myanmar/Burma, Communist China, and Communist
Cuba.
In the left hand square, write "Liberalism: High Degree of State Control
Over Financial Policy, Low Degree of State Control Over Social Policy."
Examples: continental Europe.
In the right hand square, write "Conservatism: High Degree of State
Control Over Social Policy, Low Degree of State Control Over Financial
Policy." Examples: USA, Singapore.
In the bottom square, write: "Libertarianism: Low Degrees of State
Control Over Both Financial and Social Policy."
Examples:
No known libertarian countries at this time. Now we have a convenient
picture onto which all political ideologies can be mapped, including the
all-important "state control vs. individual control" variable.
Just because a particular country may fall into (for example) the
Conservative square does not mean it is identical to all other countries
in that square, i.e. Singapore does not equal the US. They could both be
plotted as different "points" within the Conservative square.
And needless to say, those "points" are not fixed in place, but change
position as a country's political ideology evolves. Most readers of
this newsletter would heartily agree that the US is steadily sliding up
and towards the left of the Conservative square, seemingly hell-bent on
making the crossover to the odious Totalitarian square unless halted by
more moderate forces.
In fact, the worldwide trend right now seems to be that nations are
steadily creeping upwards towards the "ideal" of total top- down control
by the State. This is most disturbing to those of us who prize
individual freedom and liberty, but there is one great hope.
In opposition to "Totalitarian Creep" is the Internet. Of course,
cyberspace is not true "nation", but it is nevertheless a large grouping
of individuals with some common roots (which is close enough to be
considered a "nation" for the purposes of this discussion). And of
course the Internet is about as Libertarian a nation as is likely to
exist anywhere, despite the efforts of certain control-minded
governments in France, China, the Middle East, and other areas to
restrict its content. So will the official dogma of "Big Brother is good
for you!" win the day, or will the freewheeling Internet's explosive
growth and dynamism (itself a testament to the power of individual
freedom) be too much for the Statists to handle? We suspect that matters
will get worse before they get better, largely because of the
misinformation campaign waged by the Establishment to further its goals.
Certainly one small weapon that could be used against this campaign is
the willingness of political commentators to use the 2 X 2 Political
Matrix in place of their idiotic and pointless Right vs. Left arguments.
If the matrix picture is deemed too difficult to explain to a dumbed
down population, using the simpler axis of State Control vs. Individual
Control would at least be a far superioralternative than a right-left
discussion that is ultimately meaningless.
Those following the US election should realise that neither of the two
major parties are oriented toward a lower level of State control.
They are merely using different labels as they proceed upon the path of
"Totalitarian Creep." Having said that, the Republicans are creeping
more slowly than the Democrats (perhaps buying the freedom and
liberty-minded a little more time), but ultimately it will all be the
same unless they are stopped by an enlightened and motivated population.
As goes the US, so goes the world, in our opinion.
"Philip Lewis" <nottelling@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dgm1fg$m1i$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
:
: "ריעין ברתון/Riain Barton" <riain@zion.org.il> wrote in message
: news:b1kXe.1433$_55.469@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
: > The political spectrum is not a straight line, but a circle.
: >
: > National Socialism is where left and right meet at the point that is
the
: > complete opposite of the "middle".
:
: Spoken like a true apologist for the extremes of the left!
:
: Phil
:
:
:
:
:
: >
: >
: >
: > "Philip Lewis" <nottelling@hotmail.com> wrote in message
: > news:dgjo70$ppk$1@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
: > :
: > : "Del" <jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote in message
: > : news:1127024059.694142.142860@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
: > : >
: > : > Philip Lewis wrote:
: > : >> "JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in message
: > : >> news:PLmdnUWDX93l77feRVn-uw@comcast.com...
: > : >> >
: > : >> > "DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote
: > : >> >
: > : >> >> > I wonder what left wing fascists like Pol Pot,
Stalin,Hitler
: > : >> >> > and Mao Tse Tung thought on this topic also?
: > : >> >
: > : >> >> Fascism is, by definition, right-wing. Try again. By the
: > : >> >> by, what does Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler, or Mao have to do
: > : >> >> with this subject?
: > : >> >
: > : >> > About as much as Hitler had to do with left-wing politi cs.
: > : >> >
: > : >>
: > : >> Well that is quite a lot then considering that ALL on my list
were
: > left
: > : >> wing
: > : >> extremists!
: > : >
: > : > How come nobody thought so at the time? How come the German
: > : > government, the Italian government, news services like
Associated
: > : > Press, Time Magazine, conservatives like Barry Goldwater, and
: > : > many others ALL refer to nazis as right wing? Do you know
: > : > something they don't?
: > : >
: > :
: > : Does having a 'high profile' gaurantee lack of errors - I think
NOT.
: > The
: > : FACT is that the nazi's were national SOCIALISTS and thus qualify
for
: > the
: > : label LEFT WING extremists.
: > :
: > : Phil
: > :
: > :
: > :
: >
: >
:
:
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "ריעין ברתון/Riain Barton" |
|
| Title: Re: Let's Get Rid Of Women-Degrading Practice Of Cheerleading |
19 Sep 2005 05:19:03 AM |
|
|
http://www.safehaven.com/article-3578.htm
August 07, 2005
The Political Spectrum Con
by Nelson Hultberg
What Is the Political Spectrum?
The idea of a political spectrum is one of the first concepts taught and
analyzed in poly-sci and economics courses in college. It is a listing
of the world's various political-economic systems on a chart, placing
each system on the chart toward the left, middle or right, according to
the basic type of government that system upholds. It is a natural way to
provide the overall perspective needed in judging the different
political and economic forms that exist, and thus a very important tool
in teaching what the political world is all about.
To understand why the political spectrum that is taught today is so
perniciously false, we must first delve into a bit of Aristotelian
philosophy. The notion of a political spectrum with three poles of left,
right and center has come to us as a legacy from Aristotle's idea that
virtue consists of the "rational course" that lies between two opposite
and natural extremes. This rational course he called the Golden Mean.
For example, as Aristotle tells us in his Ethics, if a man is confronted
with danger, he meets it in one of three ways. He succumbs to the
extreme of cowardice, or to the opposite extreme of rashness; or he
chooses the middle course of courage, which is contrary to both. In like
fashion, a man can choose liberality, which is midway between the
opposite extremes of stinginess and extravagance, self-control between
the extremes of abstemiousness and drunkenness, and ambition between
sloth and greed. [1]
Aristotle's theory was based upon the fact that in most human action,
there is a wide range of intensity, all the way from too little
(defect), to too much (excess). In between such defect and excess, there
lies an appropriate mean which would be virtue, with the two opposites
of defect and excess being vices. In other words, good is the wisdom of
balance, and evil is when you stray away from the Golden Mean toward one
of the two extremes.
There are, of course, many values of life (other than the ones Aristotle
put forth) that can also be placed upon a spectrum to determine a Golden
Mean. Human life entails a wide array of desires, actions, traits,
conditions and needs, numerous of which can be portrayed in terms of a
vice-virtue-vice relationship.
Thus, midway between the defect of apathy and the excess of zealotry,
there lies the rational balance of concern. Between vulgarity and
prudery, there is the mean of decency. Between chaos and regimentation,
there is order. And between the extremes of slavery and anarchy lies
freedom.
I am quite aware of the reservations held by some scholars as to the
usefulness of Aristotle's doctrine of the mean to meaningfully analyze
life's various phenomena. It is said that such a concept is "relative;"
it is a form of "circular reasoning;" and it avoids adherence to
principle in favor of the "middle-of-the-road." On the contrary, every
one of these claims is demonstrably false and I have written a book,
Reality's Golden Mean, that shows why. What I show in the book is that
the doctrine of the mean is fundamentally misunderstood by its
antagonists, which has led to its distortion in our colleges, which has
led to a warped and incongruous philosophy among those who are
attempting to defend the ramparts of freedom. But the scope of this
essay must be limited to a generic analysis of the Aristotelian mean.
Sometime next year, Reality's Golden Mean should be out; and it will
fully corroborate the efficacy of Aristotle's doctrine in determining
much of what is good and bad about human life.
It is the Aristotelian way of thinking then that has led to the concept
of a political spectrum. By listing the various ideological systems on a
left to right chart, one can find the two opposite extremes and then
determine a "mean" which would be the rational course that lies between
them. Here is where the danger arises, however. The political spectrum
chart has been distorted over the years by most intellectuals throughout
Europe and America in order to make their political bias toward a
massive centralized welfare state look proper and virtuous. Such a
distortion has taken several different forms, but is usually
accomplished by portraying fascism as a "dictatorship of the right" and
communism as a "dictatorship of the left," and then establishing a false
choice between them.
With this picture, students have gotten the idea that both ends of the
spectrum are dictatorships (communism on the left and fascism on the
right), and that the democratic welfare state of contemporary America is
the only possible good, for it is the Golden Mean between two opposite
vices. In order to point out the fallacies involved here, we must first
define the terms being used. Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary says
the following (to which I have added clarifying remarks in parentheses):
Communism -- a totalitarian system of government in which a single
authoritarian party controls state owned means of production with the
professed aim of establishing a stateless society; a theory advocating
the elimination of private property. (The state holds power not only
over property, but over every aspect of life. In practice, communism
eventually requires control over all human activities, for all of life
is interrelated. If the state is to control one aspect of life, then it
must control all aspects to be effective.)
Socialism -- a system or condition of society in which the means of
production are owned and controlled by the state; a system of society or
group living in which there is no private property. (There are no
differences between socialism and communism, other than superficial ones
that are concocted theoretically. In practice, socialism means state
ownership and operation of the factors of production, which means rigid
control of human beings and all their activities in order to be
effective. Socialism and communism are one and the same.)
Welfarism -- a social system based upon the assumption by a political
state of primary responsibility for the individual and social welfare of
its citizens. (Rather than owning and operating the factors of
production, the state merely regulates them and redistributes the
results of their productivity according to what is democratically
desired. It is a halfway house between communism which is state
ownership, and capitalism which is private ownership.)
Capitalism -- an economic system characterized by private or corporate
ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by
private decision rather than by state control. (The state is restricted
to preserving a free domestic order by punishing force and fraud. It is
neither to own nor operate the factors of production, nor to interfere
in the peaceful decisions of the marketplace, leaving it to be
controlled by the natural laws such as supply and demand that operate
within it.)
Fascism -- a political philosophy, movement or regime that exalts nation
and race above the individual, and that stands for a centralized
autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic
and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition. (The
state has power over every aspect of the economy to plan and regulate
its workings. Property is owned privately, but controlled by the
governing authorities as to what it is to produce, how and when it is to
be disposed of, etc.)
The Fallacies in Today's Teachings
With these definitions in mind, let's now examine the fallacies and
distortions involved in the above political spectrum.
Fallacy #1 -- Communism, socialism, and fascism are different
fundamental systems deserving separate places on the spectrum. They
obviously are not. They are all variants of the same dictatorial
philosophy (which is collectivism) and belong together on the same side
of the spectrum. Each one advocates total state control and/or ownership
of all property through a centralized government and severe economic and
social regimentation. None of them recognize the concept of individual
rights. And they all declare that man exists to serve the state.
The excuse for terming communism and fascism as opposite systems is that
under communism all property is owned by the state, where under fascism
the ownership of property is left nominally in the hands of individuals,
but ruthlessly controlled by the state, which reserves the right to
expropriate the property at any time the owner doesn't abide by state
dictates. Since individual ownership without individual control is a
farce, fascism is in essence no different from communism (or socialism).
All three are systems whereby the individual and his property are
subjected to the absolute power of the state.
Fallacy #2 -- Anarchy needs no mention. Observe that there is no
representation in the above spectrum for anarchy. There is a place for
total government (communism), but no place for the absence of government
(anarchy). Is not the absence of government the correct opposite of
total government? Would it not be a truer picture with "total
government" on one side and "no government" on the other side? If we are
trying to depict what the opposite extremes of vice are, and the virtue
that lies in between, then it's impossible to get any more opposite or
any more extreme than total government and no government. You can't go
any further left than communism, or any further right than anarchy.
Fallacy #3 -- Socialism is good so long as it is democratic. Democratic
socialism is just another form of dictatorship. It is absolute rule by
the "majority will" instead of by one man or by several men on a
planning board. The individual has no clear cut rights, only conditional
privileges, which are granted and withdrawn according to the arbitrary
dictates of the collective. The majority may vote away as much of
anyone's wealth as it deems necessary or desirable. Property does not
belong to the individual. It belongs to society and is to be
democratically apportioned in whatever way the majority wishes. Since
the collective is the owner of all property, the collective naturally
becomes the sole employer, landlord, manager, banker, and teacher of the
individual. There can be no genuine freedom of choice, or action, or
thought, or desire under such a system.
Other Forms of Fallacy
The above distortion of the political spectrum is not the only form
used. There are others that are equally as crude in their confusion of
the truth, and thus just as damaging to capitalism and the concept of
freedom. In all the distortions, however, there invariably is one common
characteristic. They all endeavor to make welfarism (or some variant of
socialism) the middle ground, and capitalism one of the extreme vices.
This is a slightly altered picture of the more commonly held version
just discussed, for there is a gap in the middle. But that ol' devil
fascism is again portrayed on the far right, with capitalism adjacent to
it so as to convey its "potential evil" to an unsuspecting populace.
What possible conclusion could a young student draw from this other than
that all those on the political right are at best borderline fascists,
and that the only sane policy is to steer a middle course of compromise
between socialism and capitalism -- i.e., welfare statism?
To declare fascism to be a market economy and place it on the political
right is a severe perversion of logic. As Bruntz and Edgerton tell us in
Understanding Our Government:
"Under Fascism and Communism, the individual counts as nothing except as
he furthers the interests of the State. Freedom to move from place to
place, to choose a job, or conduct a business are restricted or do not
exist. Every phase of political, economic, and personal activity is
regulated by the government. That is why it is called totalitarian.
"Fascists allow private enterprise because it is the most effective
system in the production of wealth in the interests of the nation. But
it is not FREE enterprise, for capital and labor alike are completely
controlled by the state." [3]
Fascism is a command economy, and belongs on the political left where
massive centralized government resides. Adolph Hitler repeatedly termed
his system of government "national socialism" or the shortened term of
"Nazism," knowing full well that it was every bit as collectivist as
communism. And Webster's Dictionary defines Nazi as: a member of a
German fascist party controlling Germany from 1933 to 1945 under Adolf
Hitler. Thus, fascism and socialism are merely variants of the same
system, which is collectivism. Declaring them to be opposites is
inexcusable.
Sadly, however, this is the type of falsification that we have to endure
in today's school system. Whenever the facts of reality are being
distorted by authorities in charge of conveying truth to young people,
one needs to ask, "Cui bono?" Who benefits? In this case, the
beneficiaries are those who seek the regimentation of Americans under a
massive centralized government in Washington.
If one is tempted to ask why "rational academics" would create such
distortions, the answer is that they do it subconsciously. Very few
openly identify such evasions to themselves. Their need is naturally to
smear the concept of capitalism (which means smearing the concept of
freedom) in the minds of the young in order to make their own
collectivist desires appear as proper, or as Aristotle would put it --
the mean. In this way, they hope to establish the validity of a massive
welfare state as the true system for man. It is just one of the many
examples of self-deception in which men of the mind partake when
attempting to promote a certain ideology they have come to worship.
Add to this the steady stream of misinterpretations, evasions, and lies
that have been handed down over the past 80 years concerning the nature
of capitalism and what took place during the 19th century, and one
begins to see quite clearly why the great bulk of intellectuals in our
academic community continue to push the massive welfare state upon our
youth as the ideal.
The entire distortion is a subtle attempt to make advocates of
individualism and capitalism appear as extremists or fascists and
convince everyone that the ideal system is our present centralized
welfare state. This is certainly not a correct picture.
The far left of the spectrum is the vice of total government (whether it
calls itself communism, socialism or fascism). The far right is its
exact opposite, the vice of no government. The middle is the virtue of
limited government (and its economic corollary of capitalism), with
welfarism a semi-capitalist, semi-socialist mixture, and the
anarcho-capitalism of the radical libertarians a semi-capitalist,
semi-anarchist mixture.
This then is the total political-economic spectrum. As stated, there are
numerous other variations of it being presented today, some totally
reversed to this, and some even in circles -- all of them though very
much in error. The whole notion of a political-economic spectrum is
senseless unless it is presented precisely along the lines of
Aristotle's Golden Mean idea. There have to be two opposite poles beyond
which one cannot go and then a virtuous middle, or it's simply not a
spectrum. It's then just an arbitrary display of various
political-economic systems with no rhyme or reason to it, and no
capacity to judge any of the systems as right or wrong, workable or
non-workable.
A great deal of today's confusion on this issue can be attributed to the
political origin of the terms right and left. Historian Crane Brinton
tells us: "These terms grew up out of French parliamentary practice
early in the [19th] century, when the conservatives or monarchists took
to sitting in a group to the right of the presiding officer, and the
constitutionalists and radical reformers grouped themselves on his
left." [4]
If our present day views of the political spectrum did to some degree
evolve from the early 19th century custom in France of the conservatives
sitting to the right of the presiding officer in parliament and the
radicals aligning themselves to the left, then it is time we revised our
views. Such a conception is wholly arbitrary, for the two positions can
easily be reversed or reassembled to fit any whim. By using this
conception, we divest the terms right and left of any real significance.
Is it not more rational to conceive of the terms as they have naturally
evolved in America where, throughout the 20th century, the political
left has advocated a larger and more interventionist government, while
the political right has advocated a smaller and less intrusive
government? Is not Aristotle closer to the truth than "parliamentary
seating arrangements" of the 19th century?
The True Political Spectrum
Thus, there is no such thing as a "dictatorship of the right" as so
frequently declared by our intellectuals in the universities and the
media. ALL DICTATORSHIPS ARE OF THE LEFT! The farther we go to the right
on the spectrum, the less government we will have, not more. The usage
of such philosophically fraudulent terminology as a "totalitarianism of
the right" can only further confuse this already snarled issue, by
creating a phony association of capitalism and fascism in the people's
minds and causing them to fear all attempts to move to the right on the
political spectrum toward less government and more freedom.
The fact that such confusions are created so frequently by those of
academic prowess is indicative of one of two factors: 1) the affliction
of intellectual error on their part, or 2) the perpetration of
intellectual deceit on their part.
1) Totalitarianism. This form of government is totally dictatorial,
whether it calls itself communist, fascist or socialist. The state
either controls or has the power to control every avenue of life
(political, economic, sociological and personal).
2) Welfare Statism. This is the form of government utilized in all the
Western democracies today where the state arbitrarily controls the
economy, attempting to assume the responsibility for the people's
welfare through expropriation and redistribution of personal wealth and
regulation of their business activities. Such a political system is
supposed to be the great middle way, or the "vital center." But as we
have seen, it is not really the true middle ground (or Golden Mean) at
all. It is an attempt to move closer to totalitarianism on the far left,
and partially utilize the milder tenets of socialism and fascism so as
to somehow form a caretaker state of half government controls and half
personal freedom. Since there are no specific constitutional limits
placed upon how much government intervention there is to be, however,
the caretaker state continues to move further leftward and grow larger
and larger each decade.
3) Constitutional Republicanism. This is the political-economic system
of strictly limited government and a free marketplace. It does not leave
the role of government up to the whims of the majority will as our
present day welfare state does. It declares in a written Constitution
what basic areas the government is going to be allowed to function in,
and then leaves all the rest up to the individual through voluntary
interaction and initiative.
Its primary underlying principles are: The individual is to rule and
sustain his own life. Any government laws and services that need to be
enacted must always be implemented within the constraints of federalism,
which means first on the local level, then on the state level, and then
on the federal level. And all such laws must be objective.
In other words, the law must be close to the people that it concerns,
and it must not be used as a provider of special privileges -- e.g.,
corporation subsidies, price controls, monopolistic protection for
unions, welfare services, affirmative action programs, non-uniform tax
rates, etc. Government is to be limited in its scope to the three basic
functions necessary for the preservation of domestic order (military
defense, police forces and courts of law) and the performance of those
few public services that cannot be functionally handled through the
marketplace (such as city streets, fire departments, communicable
disease control, etc.).
Anything that can be handled privately should be handled privately. No
government has the right to coerce people into producing services that
they could perform on their own, but choose not to. In this way freedom
of choice is preserved, efficiency is maintained, men remain their own
rulers, and pay for the values of life in direct proportion to their
usage of them. This is the standard defining principle of government
that guided Adams, Jefferson, Madison, and the rest of the Founding
Fathers in their formation of the Republic. It has remained down to the
modern day the undergirding support for all champions of liberty and
domestic order.
For example, most of today's constitutionalists and free-market
advocates would feel comfortable with the following Statement of
Principles by the American Conservative Union in 1964: "We remark the
inherent tendency of government to tyranny. The prudent commonwealth
will therefore labor tirelessly, by means agreeable to its peculiar
genius and traditions, to limit and disperse the power of government. No
task should be confided to a higher authority that can be performed at a
subsidiary level; and whatever the people can do for themselves should
not be confided to government at all." [5]
4) Anarcho-Capitalism. This is the political system advocated by the
followers of Murray N. Rothbard (For a New Liberty) and Bruce L. Benson
(The Enterprise of Law: Justice Without the State). It declares the
Constitution to be invalid, and all organized state functions to be
immoral. According to these theorists, all functions of the state should
be abolished -- not only the tyrannical functions such as redistribution
of income and social engineering, but also the protective functions such
as the military, police and courts of law. They insist that everything
should be privatized and provided by the marketplace. Thus,
anarcho-capitalists do not really want to eliminate the "protective"
government functions; they just want to change them from state provided
to privately provided institutions.
They purposely term themselves "anarcho-capitalists" so as to
distinguish themselves from total anarchy. The basic premise of the
Rothbardians is that if left alone in the absence of a mandatory state
apparatus, men would form their own necessary armies and police forces
privately via the profit motive, and by so doing, would avoid the
chaotic Hobbesian war of all against all that pure anarchy would be.
Rothbardians will dispute it, but in an anarcho-capitalist society, all
mega-corporations would have their own armies and police forces. So also
would the AFL-CIO, the Mafia, the NAACP, the Catholic Church, and Donald
Trump. Any person, group, business, labor union, or religious sect could
and would form their own private defense agencies to protect their
interests and their constituents, all according to their concept of what
is right.
I think it | | | | | | | | | | | |
