Okay, that makes a lot of sense. I’ve never been able to follow the logic that puts Nazism on the right. But if a socialist envisions himself as the center…he therefore needs to array everyone else to either side of himself. Okay.

First time I read that, given the large amounts of stuff Op wrote. So I will address it in my own style and manner.

It is definitely true that the Left, whether Political Scientist majors or not, see right wing nuts and Leftist whatevers as being composed of Nazis on the right and Communists on the Left. With Democratic Socialists being in the middle, straight down the middle as Keller would say.

What people should consider is that this is the perfect Bermuda Triangle. There are three legs. First leg is Socialism, which started long before Communism. Socialism had its first instances of birth and life in the form of aristocratic patronage. The aristocrats held power, wealth, and status. In return for working for them and doing what they tell you to do, the aristocrats will grant you prestige, a stipence for your daily survival, and maybe even some wealth and land to go with being patronized.

After all, there is a reason why “patronize” has these three definitions.

1. to give (a store, restaurant, hotel, etc.) one’s regular patronage; trade with.

2. to behave in an offensively condescending manner toward: a professor who patronizes his students.

3. to act as a patron toward (an artist, institution, etc.); support.

Support. Why does support evolved into the meaning of “offensively condescending”… like a professor (intellectual) who treats his students as inferiors? You know the reason, and even if you don’t, you soon will.

Democratic socialism, or just regular socialism, simply takes patronage to the modern world. Using modern day bureacratic and government methods, we can create a system of patronage extending beyond a single continent, let alone a city-state.

Communism was simply a logical outgrowth of socialism. Obviously there will be some dissatisfaction with the aristocrats and just as obviously you will have organizations crop up to take advantage of this state of injustice. Why else do you think Marx, Lenin, and company targeted the rich, the aristocrats, and the royalty? People had gotten fed up with aristocratic patronage and their condescending attitudes. Combine that with some promise of loot, women, and power, and you have a perfect recipe for social turmoil.

Make no mistake; Communism hates Socialism. Although not as much as Communism hates Fascism. C hates S because S is too rich and decadent, as well as being too stupid by half. This is the structure by which useful idiots were created by Communist Russia to do damage in Socialist Europe and America. Socialists are only useful to the Communists up until the point where the Communists achieve power, then comes the purges. Look at Cuba for an example of Communism and Iran for a good example of Fascism. All those “intellectual” patrons had to be gotten rid of. Immediately. They were just too much trouble.

Fascism is inherently martial in orientation. It was, after all, not Communist Stalin that invaded Fascist Germany. Fascists tend to be very greedy and they also tend to be very good at the martial prowess side of things. While Communists and Socialists have their own version and cadres of thugs that are willing and eager to do violence, none of them equals the organization and discipline to which Fascism brings to the game. Both Communists and Socialists hate Fascists precisely because fascists are powerful enough to kill wealthy patrons and rip off Communist party members on the dole. The fact that fascists are greedy doesn’t endear them to the commies or the socialists either.

So there you have. The triangle of death. Socialists hating Fascists who hate Communists who hate Socialists, and all of them also hate each other if you recall.

So let’s get back to the beginning, for a recap.

Just about every introductory PoliSci textbook as a graph of left-wing and right wing that puts Nazism at the right end and Communism at the left end.-Op

As people can clearly see, to a Socialist it would make perfect sense to have Nazism on the right and Communism on the left.

Is there anything else to say? I don’t think so.

(This has been your daily dose of Ymar’s philosophical analysis and socio-poli-historical flashbacks. Stay tuned to future episodes concerning the quest for the Holy Grail, as sought by Al “Defender of the Faith’ Gore.)

Remember, bring out the inner child in you.

And the Persians educate their children, beginning at five years old and going on till twenty, in three things only, in riding, in shooting, and in speaking the truth

-Herodotus

Preview for tomorrow’s episode:The Might of Aryans

I am Dariush, the great king, the king of kings
The king of many countries and many people
The king of this expansive land,
The son of Wishtaspa of Achaemenid,
Persian, the son of a Persian,
‘Aryan’, from the Aryan race
“From the Darius the Great’s Inscription in Naqshe-e-Rostam”

*psst, this is your narator. Do you somehow think that the Aryan race somehow got mentioned in two fascist organizations, one in Germany and one in Persia/Iran, by coincidence? Quick, don’t tell the Iranians that they have the same ancestors as Hitler, it would give things away!!*

Till Next Time

(I Hope Danny and Book found this comment of interest. Variety is very important when arguing philosophy, after all)

For Op, reciting these basic facts mean that you are wrong and he is right. How that is a strong argument, not even Op knows.

So in another thread on war time and peace time US fatalities, Op has to naturally deride and undermine Book’s facts and numbers because obviously. Book would be RIGHT if those facts were.. you know facts.

Danny and Bookworm have more common sense and wisdom in their combined minds than all of your organization put together, Op.

That is because they, unlike you, can actually use both informal and formal logic without having to deal with cognitive dissonance.

Next, I’ll take you to task for telling falsehoods. You wrote:

And the Scandinavian countries are expressed as TOTALLY “homogenous and tolerant

What I actually wrote was:

‘The problem is especially contentious in the Scandinavian countries because they are all homogeneous and tolerant.’

Since you complain that my statements are all vague, I’ll offer you something that’s not vague: you’re a liar.

-Op

If Op will call you a liar just because of some technical difference in Scandinavian homogeneity, then what do you expect will be his standards when he tries to defend himself by declaring you in the wrong and him on the moral high ground? This is what will happen.

I challenge you to produce any quote from me justifying that slander. Failing in the production of such evidence, an honorable man would retract the statement and apologize for it. However, if this vague statement:-Op

Failing in the production of such evidence that he lied to Op, an honorable man would retract the statement and apologize for it.

As op once said, there is nothing vague with the statement “you are a liar”. You owe Mike Devx an apology before you can start spouting your ridiculous posturing elsewhere, O.

Look, if you have a case to make, then make it. If all you have to offer is childish mudslinging, do it at your nearest public playground.-Op

Remember that? That was Op trying to defend himself, after calling someone else on another thread a “liar” just because Op didn’t like how things were going.

As for improving society by applying reason, I remind you of the Founding Fathers, true children of the Age of Reason

Op is obviously no Founding Father. If he was, would he believe in international law over American law?