When the left fights the left...with hammers...

[billc]

Over the weekend of the NATO summit here in Chicago, a group of far left nuts stormed a restaurant and attacked another lefty nut group of white supremacists with hammers, bats and other hard objects. The lefties didn't discriminate though and also attacked everyone else who was unlucky enough to have been at that particular restaurant...

http://www.suntimes.com/news/127764...iolence-of-tinley-park-restaurant-attack.html

A horde of masked figures stormed the restaurant in a single-file line, wielding bats, claw hammers and metal batons — their presence announced when one shouted, “‘Hey, bitches, the ARA is going to f--- up this place.’ ”
With that, the shrouded thugs went on a rampage, clubbing diners at The Ashford House restaurant on May 19 in Tinley Park. They did not discriminate as to the targets of their violence, even pushing an 80-year-old woman to the ground, according to an eyewitness who’s a former Chicago police officer.
“Although the terrorist assault lasted only about a minute, it was the longest minute of my life,” the eyewitness said.
Authorities have said the attackers were targeting a group that believes in white supremacy and calls itself the Illinois European Heritage Association. At least 10 people were hurt during the attack, with three taken to a hospital for treatment.

The Anti-Racist Action Group (ARA) is a “radical left-wing group” that often resorts to violent acts, said Mark Potok, a senior fellow at The Southern Poverty Law Center, a nonprofit civil rights organization based in Montgomery, Ala. The attack, he said, “did more harm to the cause of fighting racism than almost anyone can imagine.”

“I stood up and grabbed a wooden chair as one of the assailants approached from the left. I started swinging the chair to protect my family and other elderly patrons in our corner,” the man says in a written statement. “Suddenly, another assailant charged at me from the right. He was violently swinging a metal baton. The terrorist swung two or three times at my head and face. Thank God I was able to block the brunt (of) his attack with the chair.”
The witness said he shared his account because he wants people to patronize The Ashford House, 7959 W. 159th St. He suffered a gash to his head, and one of his hands was still swollen days after the attack. But his injuries did not prevent him from dispensing some justice of his own.

And by the way, our President's good friend, domestic terrorist bomber, Bill Ayers and his wife, convicted domestic terrorist bomber, Bernadine dorhn have ties to the ARA.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/how...zi-group-at-the-center-of-chicago-mob-attack/

The group that has claimed responsibility for a mob attack at a Chicago-area restaurant over the weekend is the same group that hosted former Weather Underground terrorists and Barack Obama associates Bernadine Dohrn and Bill Ayers last year, according to fliers published on the organization’s web site. ​

 

[Sukerkin]

This bit has truth:

The Anti-Racist Action Group (ARA) is a “radical left-wing group” that often resorts to violent acts, said Mark Potok, a senior fellow at The Southern Poverty Law Center, a nonprofit civil rights organization based in Montgomery, Ala. The attack, he said, “did more harm to the cause of fighting racism than almost anyone can imagine.”

Now, how is it that White Supremacism is a trait of the Left? Of course, by the political yardsticks of Europe, in the USA you only have the Right and the Extreme Right (thus making everything, including racism, Right Wing in American Politics) but let's leave that aside and just define things in American terms.

 

[billc]

As the white supremacists are known by the term, neo-nazis, and nazis are in fact socialists, and left wing, the supremacists are lefties. They believe in the state having the power to discriminate against groups of people they don't like. The "right," here in the states believes in the freedom and equality of individuals and the protections afforded all individuals as given to us by our Creator and codified in the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

The left has a tendency to divide people into groups, select out those groups they don't like, and oppress them. For most leftists, they really don't like the wealthy, or Jewish people, for these leftists they don't like Jewish people, the wealthy or people of color.

For example, here is a clip from the film, "the Soviet Story," the point about not liking certain groups comes in at the 30 second mark...

The Eugenics movement was also from the left. Margaret Sanger, John Maynard Keynes, all believed in the elimination of lesser people...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/feb/17/eugenics-skeleton-rattles-loudest-closet-left

Eugenics: the skeleton that rattles loudest in the left's closet

Socialism's one-time interest in eugenics is dismissed as an accident of history. But the truth is far more unpalatable

Such talk repels us now, but in the prewar era it was the common sense of the age. Most alarming, many of its leading advocates were found among the luminaries of the Fabian and socialist left, men and women revered to this day. Thus George Bernard Shaw could insist that "the only fundamental and possible socialism is the socialisation of the selective breeding of man", even suggesting, in a phrase that chills the blood, that defectives be dealt with by means of a "lethal chamber".

Yet what looks kooky or sinister in 2012 struck the prewar British left as solid and sensible. Harold Laski, stellar LSE professor, co-founder of the Left Book Club and one-time chairman of the Labour party, cautioned that: "The time is surely coming … when society will look upon the production of a weakling as a crime against itself." Meanwhile, JBS Haldane, admired scientist and socialist, warned that: "Civilisation stands in real danger from over-production of 'undermen'." That'sUntermenschen in German.
I'm afraid even the Manchester Guardian was not immune. When a parliamentary report in 1934 backed voluntary sterilisation of the unfit, a Guardian editorial offered warm support, endorsing the sterilisation campaign "the eugenists soundly urge". If it's any comfort, the New Statesman was in the same camp.

Except this was no accident. The Fabians, Sidney and Beatrice Webb and their ilk were not attracted to eugenics because they briefly forgot their leftwing principles. The harder truth is that they were drawn to eugenics for what were then good, leftwing reasons.
They believed in science and progress, and nothing was more cutting edge and modern than social Darwinism. Man now had the ability to intervene in his own evolution. Instead of natural selection and the law of the jungle, there would be planned selection. And what could be more socialist than planning, the Fabian faith that the gentlemen in Whitehall really did know best? If the state was going to plan the production of motor cars in the national interest, why should it not do the same for the production of babies? The aim was to do what was best for society, and society would clearly be better off if there were more of the strong to carry fewer of the weak.

the guys mentioned in the article aren't even socialists of the nazi kind...

And a nice article on John Maynard Keynes...

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/05/george_will_john_m_keynes_and_totalitarian_eugenics.html

In addition to being both an anti-Semite and a pedophile, John Maynard Keynes, whose work

popularized government-directed planning, was an endorser of eugenics and the centralized control of the world's population. According to classical liberal historian Ralph Raico:

The state, according to Keynes, will even decide on the optimal level of population. Regarding eugenics, Keynes at times gave the appearance of indecision: "the time may arrive a little later when the community as a whole must pay attention to the innate quality as well as to the mere numbers of its future members."
​

Shortly before his death, Keynes would call eugenics "the most important and significant branch of sociology." Additionally, he served on the governing council of the Eugenics Society from 1937 to 1944. Needless to say, his fascination with central planning went far beyond the "socialization of investment."
Despite clothing itself in the garb of egalitarianism and tolerance, the [COLOR=#009900 !important]progressive[/COLOR] movement, which draws much of its influence from Keynes, has a nasty history of fostering the perfect society through government dictum.

From Wikipedia on John Maynard Keynes...

John Maynard Keynes, 1st Baron Keynes,[SUP][1][/SUP] CB FBA (

/ˈkeɪnz/ kaynz; 5 June 1883–21 April 1946) was a British economist

What was Keynes again...:angel:

Support for eugenics

Keynes was a proponent of eugenics. He served as Director of the British Eugenics Society from 1937 to 1944. As late as 1946, shortly before his death, Keynes declared eugenics to be "the most important, significant and, I would add, genuine branch of sociology which exists."[SUP][135][/SUP]

[edit]

Soooo...you have these socialists, the non nazi kind, who support eugenics which probably would target all sorts of people, including people of color, and I imagine if you believe in eugenics, but of course not for yourself or your own buddies, I imagine you believe in supremacy, at least for you and your friends. Hence, they are of the left...

(I am not using the "you" in this statement to mean you Sukerkin, but in the general "you." I do not believe you, Sukerkin, believe or support eugenics and I state this to make sure there is no thought that this statement is directed at you or others here on martialtalk)

 

[Sukerkin]

I am tempted to say "Wronger than a wrong thing on a wrong day in the year of the wrong" but of course I'm an over-educated working class oik from England whose risen above his station in that nest of Communist Nazi Anarchists :lol:.

It somewhat disturbs me that you talk and read so much about politics and yet do not demonstrate an understanding of the basic spectrum upon which to hang your ideas. I'm not going to try and persuade you again of what an objective viewpoint looks like. It's been tried too many times and, whilst having the courage of your convictions is a positive trait, not being able to amend and adapt your views in the light of reason is fanaticism; which is not so positive a thing.

Do you not see though, that merely repeating the output of less than rigorously neutral internet talking heads does your credibility no good at all? Over here in Blighty, in one of the great London parks, there is a place called Speakers Corner, where those with extreme views can harangue the passers by with their opinions and speeches. It's a laudable idea but, sadly, because of the general 'lunatic fringe' tenor of those that choose to speak there, it is not a place where many have their moment of epiphany. The same concept applies here, I fear.

EDIT: I see that you added quite a bit into that post#3, Bill, after I posted the above. The Eugenics topic is a very interesting and thought provoking one in it's own right (no pun intended) but it has not much to do with the topic at hand, other than the general sense of one 'strand' of humanity having more 'worth' than another.

 

[Tez3]

I am tempted to say "Wronger than a wrong thing on a wrong day in the year of the wrong" but of course I'm an over-educated working class oik from England whose risen above his station in that nest of Communist Nazi Anarchists :lol:.

It somewhat disturbs me that you talk and read so much about politics and yet do not demonstrate an understanding of the basic spectrum upon which to hang your ideas. I'm not going to try and persuade you again of what an objective viewpoint looks like. It's been tried too many times and, whilst having the courage of your convictions is a positive trait, not being able to amend and adapt your views in the light of reason is fanaticism; which is not so positive a thing.

Do you not see though, that merely repeating the output of less than rigorously neutral internet talking heads does your credibility no good at all? Over here in Blighty, in one of the great London parks, there is a place called Speakers Corner, where those with extreme views can harangue the passers by with their opinions and speeches. It's a laudable idea but, sadly, because of the general 'lunatic fringe' tenor of those that choose to speak there, it is not a place where many have their moment of epiphany. The same concept applies here, I fear.

He shoots, he scores, nice one son, lets have another one!

 

[billc]

Wellll...you did ask how white supremacism is a trait of the left and I showed you how eugenics was embraced by the socialist left. Since most of those socialists were white, and believed that inferior people should be culled from humanity, many of whom would in their opinion be people of color no doubt, it does tend to support the notion that they were...white supremacists. They were of the left, they were socialists and they were white and supremacists.

I didn't even have to bring in the nazis to show this. The people mentioned above were all socialists of the non nazi persuasion, and believed in eugenics. Some very smart people, like John Maynard Keynes.

 

[Steve]

He shoots, he scores, nice one son, lets have another one!

Well, if "left" is the new term for anyone not an American Republican, then we'll have to come up with a new term for what used to be "left." I vote we use Conservative, because if we're rewriting history and redefining terms, we might as well consolidate and keep things simple. If so, and because most everyone is left, we can begin saying correctly that everyone in the world is "conservative."

 

[billc]

Hmmm...my sources have been Economists with Ph.Ds and one a nobel prize winner, political scientists, with ph.ds, other equally knowledgable people who didn't just throw their ideas together one morning during breakfast. They looked beyond the surface differences and saw that the nazis, facists and communists were in fact socialists. At the same time you yourself have refused to budge in the face of men of more experience in their field than you, sooo...who is the one unwilling to move in the light of reason...hmmmm....

 

[Steve]

I'm a hippy leftist. What can you expect?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[WC_lun]

<sigh> The purposeful ignorance is stunning.

 

[Tez3]

 

[Big Don]

<sigh> The purposeful ignorance is stunning.

Does that include the endless repetitions of (variations of) "In Europe, left and right are different."
We know, we get it, we got it.

 

[Tez3]

Does that include the endless repetitions of (variations of) "In Europe, left and right are different."
We know, we get it, we got it.[/QUOTE]


Don, you know it, I know it but Bili doesn't. When he does his homework, when he stops repeating what others say ( you and I have our differences but what you say is what you think, you do your own thinking). when he starts to realise that a Phd in economics and a Nobel prize doesn't make one right and when he finally stops posting endless streams of paid commentators drivel then we will be able to have what the politicians like to call meaningful dialogue.

 

[Sukerkin]

Hmmm...my sources have been Economists with Ph.Ds and one a nobel prize winner, political scientists, with ph.ds, other equally knowledgable people who didn't just throw their ideas together one morning during breakfast. They looked beyond the surface differences and saw that the nazis, facists and communists were in fact socialists. At the same time you yourself have refused to budge in the face of men of more experience in their field than you, sooo...who is the one unwilling to move in the light of reason...hmmmm....

An important side of research, Bill, is to gauge the relative credibility of sources in order to assign appropriate weight to them. It's one reason why, when you first started linking sources in support of your argument, I looked them up. Not just the articles but their actual academic backgrounds and their considered status amongst their peers.

Another, equally important, part of research is not just to cleave to those experts in a field that say what you want to hear. Such a narrow vision gives an illusion of certainty and reduces complex issues to the point where they become so 'simplified' that they lose their relevance - for politics is a human endeavour and the one thing we are not is simple and one-dimensional in our thinking and interactions.

A yet further important part of research is not to take an experts research that is along one, quite specific, path and reinterpret it to fit your own ideas when there are no grounds to do so. The introduction of the idea that JMK was in favour of eugenics and that means that all racial supremacists are Left Wing is an example of the latter. A + B = C only works if A and B actually have a meaningful, functional, relationship.

 

[billc]

One of my sources...

http://democraticpeace.wordpress.com/2009/05/23/hitler-was-a-socialist/

On Rudy Rummel


Rudy (R.J.) Rummel is a Professor Emeritus of Political Science. He has published twenty-four nonfiction books (one that received an award for being among the most referenced; another was rated the 26th most important of the last century), six novels, and about 100 peer-reviewed professional articles; has received the Susan Strange Award of the International Studies Association in 1999 for having intellectually most challenged the field; and in 2003 was awarded the Lifetime Achievement Award from the Conflict Processes Section, American Political Science Association. He has been frequently nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.

yes, quite the intellectual slacker isn't he...

His contribution...

Hitler Was A Socialist, (And Not A Right Wing Conservative

)

What is socialism? It is a politico-economic philosophy that believes government must direct all major economic decisions by command, and thus all the means of production for the greater good, however defined. There are three major divisions of socialism, all antagonistic to each other. One is democratic socialism, that places the emphasis on democratic means, but then government is a tool for improving welfare and equality. A second division is Marxist-Leninism, which based on a &#8220;scientific theory&#8221; of dialectical materialism, sees the necessity of a dictatorship (&#8220;of the proletariat&#8221 to create a classless society and universal equality. Then, there is the third division, or state socialism. This is a non-Marxist or anti-Marxist dictatorship that aims at near absolute economic control for the purpose of economic development and national power, all construed to benefit the people.Mussolini&#8217;s fascism was a state socialism that was explicitly anti-Marx and aggressively nationalistic. Hitler&#8217;s National Socialism was state socialism at its worse. It not only shared the socialism of fascism, but was explicitly racist. In this it differs from the state socialism of Burma today, and that of some African and Arab dictatorships.
Two prevailing historical myths that the left has propagated successfully is that Hitler was a far right wing conservative and was democratically elected in 1933 (a blow at bourgeois democracy and conservatives). Actually, he was defeated twice in the national elections (he became chancellor in a smoke-filled-room appointment by those German politicians who thought they could control him &#8212; see &#8220;What? Hitler Was Not Elected?&#8221;) and as head of the National Socialist German Workers&#8217; Party, he considered himself a socialist, and was one by the evidence of his writings and the his economic policies.
To be clear, National Socialism differs from Marxism in its nationalism, emphasis on folk history and culture, idolization of the leader, and its racism. But the Nazi and Marxist-Leninists shared a faith in government, an absolute ruler, totalitarian control over all significant economic and social matters for the good of the working man, concentration camps, and genocide/democide as an effective government policy (only in his last years did Stalin plan for his own Holocaust of the Jews).
I&#8217;ve read Hitler&#8217;s Mein Kampf (all online here) and can quote the following from Volume 2:

 

[Jenna]

to the left or to the right? It is not simple I agree.. Tho the only really important thing for me is how easy is it to unbutton in a hurry

 

[billc]

Another source...from wikipedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Austrian School
Born	(1899-05-08)8 May 1899 Vienna, Austria-Hungary
Died	23 March 1992(1992-03-23) (aged 92) Freiburg, Germany
Nationality	Austrian, British
Institution	University of Freiburg (1962–1968) University of Chicago (1950–1962) London School of Economics (1931–1950)
Field	Economics, political science, law, philosophy, psychology
Alma mater	University of Vienna (Dr. jur. 1921, Dr. rer. pol 1923)
Opposed	Keynes · Sraffa · Kaldor
Influences	Wieser · Menger · Mach · Böhm-Bawerk · Mises · Mandeville · Wittgenstein · Burke · Mill · Tocqueville · Popper
Influenced	Friedman · Popper · Coase · Hicks · V. Smith · Thatcher · Paul · Reagan · Lerner · Rothbard
Contributions	Economic calculation problem, catallaxy, extended order, dispersed knowledge, price signal, spontaneous order, Hebbian theory
Awards	Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences (1974) Presidential Medal of Freedom (1991)
Signature

Friedrich August Hayek CH (German pronunciation: [&#712;f&#641;i&#720;d&#641;&#618;ç &#712;a&#650;&#815;&#609;&#650;st &#712;ha&#618;&#815;&#603;k]) (8 May 1899 &#8211; 23 March 1992), born in Austria-Hungary as Friedrich August von Hayek, was an economist and philosopher best known for his defense of classical liberalism. In 1974, Hayek shared the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences (with his political rival, Gunnar Myrdal) for his "pioneering work in the theory of money and economic fluctuations and... penetrating analysis of the interdependence of economic, social and institutional phenomena." He considered the efficient allocation of capital to be the most important factor leading to sustainable and optimal GDP growth, and warned of harms from monetary authority manipulation of interest rates. Interest rates should be set naturally by equilibrium between consumption of goods or capital stock.[SUP][1][/SUP]
Hayek is considered to be a major economist and political philosopher of the twentieth century.[SUP][2][/SUP][SUP][3][/SUP] Along with his mentor Ludwig von Mises, he was an important contributor to the Austrian school of economic thought. Hayek's account of how changing prices communicate information which enable individuals to coordinate their plans is widely regarded as an important achievement in economics.[SUP][4][/SUP] He also contributed to the fields of systems thinking, jurisprudence, neuroscience and the history of ideas.

Yes, another intellectual slacker...here is his contribution to the discussion...

http://www.brookesnews.com/091910hayeknazis.html

The persecution of the Marxists, and
of democrats in general, tends to obscure the fundamental fact that National
"Socialism" is a genuine socialist movement, whose leading ideas are the final
fruit of the anti-liberal tendencies which have been steadily gaining ground in
Germany since the later part of the Bismarckian era, and which led the majority
of the German intelligentsia first to "socialism of the chair" and later to
Marxism in its social-democratic or communist form.
One of the main reasons why the
socialist character of National Socialism has been quite generally unrecognized,
is, no doubt, its alliance with the nationalist groups which represent the great
industries and the great landowners. But this merely proves that these groups
too, as they have since learnt to their bitter disappointment, have, at least
partly, been mistaken as to the nature of the movement. But only partly
because, and this is the most characteristic feature of modern Germany, many
capitalists are themselves strongly influenced by socialistic ideas, and have
not sufficient belief in capitalism to defend it with a clear conscience.

 

[billc]

And another source...

BIOGRAPHICAL NOTE FOR JOHN RAY

My full name is Dr. John Joseph RAY
(JR for short). I was born of Australian pioneer stock in 1943 at Innisfail in
the State of Queensland in Australia. I was, in other words, born in the
Tropics, like my parents and all of my grandparents before me. After an early
education at Innisfail State Rural School and Cairns State High School, I taught
myself for matriculation. I took my B.A. in Psychology from the University of
Queensland in Brisbane. I then moved to Sydney (in New South Wales, Australia)
and took my M.A. in psychology from the University of Sydney in 1969 and my
Ph.D. in Behavioural Sciences from Macquarie University in 1974.

I first
tutored in psychology at Macquarie University and then taught sociology at the
University of New South Wales. I taught primarily social psychology and research
methods. My major research interests lay in psychological authoritarianism,
conservatism, racism and achievement motivation -- resulting in over 250
academic publications all told. My major book was Conservatism as heresy, published in 1974.
Another copy here

Yes, I know, another slacker...but here is one of his many contributions...
http://ray-dox.blogspot.com/2006/08/this-article-is-published-on-internet.html

The context of Nazism

"True, it is a fixed idea with the French that the Rhine is their
property, but to this arrogant demand the only reply worthy of the German nation
is Arndt's: "Give back Alsace and Lorraine". For I am of the opinion, perhaps in
contrast to many whose standpoint I share in other respects, that the reconquest
of the German-speaking left bank of the Rhine is a matter of national honour,
and that the Germanisation of a disloyal Holland and of Belgium is a political
necessity for us. Shall we let the German nationality be completely suppressed
in these countries, while the Slavs are rising ever more powerfully in the
East?"​

Have a look at the quote immediately above and say who wrote
it. It is a typical Hitler rant, is it not? Give it to 100 people who know
Hitler's speeches and 100 would identify it as something said by Adolf. The
fierce German nationalism and territorial ambition is unmistakeable. And if
there is any doubt, have a look at another quote from the same author:

This is our calling, that we shall become the templars of this
Grail, gird the sword round our loins for its sake and stake our lives joyfully
in the last, holy war which will be followed by the thousand-year reign of
freedom.​

That settles it, doesn't it? Who does not know of Hitler's
glorification of military sacrifice and his aim to establish a "thousand-year
Reich"?

But neither quote is in fact from Hitler. Both quotes
were written by Friedrich Engels, Karl Marx's co-author (See here and
here).
So let that be an introduction to the idea that Hitler not only called himself a
socialist but that he WAS in fact a socialist by the standards of his day. Ideas
that are now condemned as Rightist were in Hitler's day perfectly normal ideas
among Leftists. And if Friedrich Engels was not a Leftist, I do not know who
would be.

For emphasis...

So let that be an introduction to the idea that Hitler not only called himself a
socialist but that he WAS in fact a socialist by the standards of his day. Ideas
that are now condemned as Rightist were in Hitler's day perfectly normal ideas
among Leftists. And if Friedrich Engels was not a Leftist, I do not know who
would be.

 

[billc]

Perhaps Sukerkin you are just jealous that someone made a rap video on Hayek and not on you...:angel:

 

[Sukerkin]

Bill, a source can have expertise, doctorates not generally coming free with breakfast cereal {} but still lack credibility or lack of relevance when sited inappropriately.

Maybe I wasn't clear about the points I was trying to make?

At base level, determining the applicability and reliability of sources and dealing with how you weave them into a supporting structure for an argument are probably two of the most fundamental tenets of all under-graduate level study, regardless of core subject (I don't recall what yours was Bill, my apologies). I suppose expecting such rigour is a bit much for a message board {ROFL whilst blushing} but building a cogent argument for a controversial position is what demarcates interesting debate from mere trolling. I cannot really express it any balder or more simply than that.

Happily, the world continues to turn and Left continues to be clear from Right; and at the end of the day it's not like I have any responsibility for having to either change or defend that state of affairs :chuckles:.

And if I were to try ...

{/Canute gesture "Go back tide!" ...} :lol: {/Canute has wet feet}