NationStates Jolt Archive

Its widely known that a number of the Bush Administrations intellectual illuminati have a Communist(aka Trotskyist) past. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Shachtman

What is less widely understood is that the administration has followed a constistant policy of supporting Trotskyist International Revolutionary Communist goals.

Let us first look at Afghanistan, the Trotskyist group the spartacist League offered in the late 80s to send international brigades to defend the communist government there after the Soviets withdrew http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Communist_League_%28Fourth_Internationalist%29
the Bush Administration has gone much further and actually put many of these old communists back into power after the fall of the Taliban.

Second lets consider the end result of the war in Iraq, which is a very greatly strengthened Iran. Many Trotskyists were very much cheerleaders for the Islamic Revolution in Iran and now inspite of their occasional blustering the Bush White House has greatly strengthened the position of the Iranian government in regional affairs by putting a Shiite government in power in Iraq which is extremely friendly with its fellow Shiite government to the East.

Now let us consider the Neo Stalinist consolidation of power in Russia under Putin. One would think that the US would strongly object to the erosion of democrasy and the renationalization of the oil industry there. Instead Bush has always been extremely friendly with this KGB thug turned strongman politician, another sign that the Neo-Cons and the Neo-Communists in Russia has a defacto alliance.

Finally lets consider the Bush Administration/ Neo-Con obsession with free trade. At first glance this doesn't seem like the position of Cryptocommunists, but then look at the fruits of this policy. It has greatly increased the wealth and economic power of Red China, the only remaining old school communist superpower. The Bush Administration has always been extremely friendly with this totalitarian dictatorship even as it siphons American wealth off at a rate of billions of dollars a month. Second consider how Trotskyism is before anything else an internationalist movement, socialism without borders. what does more to weaken nationalism and national security of individual nations than the interdependence free trade brings. no longer can any nation be a stronghold unto itself, no longer can any nation resist for long international pressure without inevitable economic ruin. First the international corperation, then international control of these corperations and theior relationships to increasing weak national government. ultimately a world government over arching these sad remants of once proud states, then finally the Marxist dream of a totalitarian world state.

Well I guess that means that a lot of leftists on this board will like the Bush administration a whole lot more.

Well its an old leftist trick to leave the rank and file and the well known and generally ignored agitators in the dark, while the real leaders engage in their serious politics in secret... just look at the way Stalin's Third International used and abandoned or betrayed the national parties that made it up to further the Soviets political agenda.

It is not at all surprising really. No matter whose flavor of global domination you choose, the one thing that remains constant is a "marriage" of communism and capitalism into a world wide socialist government ruled by a seperate group of individuals that deem themselves as all knowing and above all the rest.
What I find interesting is the number of idiots that sign onto the concept as a good thing, thinking they are somehow going to be included in the ruling body as if it would be something they could join or apply too.

It is not at all surprising really. No matter whose flavor of global domination you choose, the one thing that remains constant is a "marriage" of communism and capitalism into a world wide socialist government ruled by a seperate group of individuals that deem themselves as all knowing and above all the rest.
What I find interesting is the number of idiots that sign onto the concept as a good thing, thinking they are somehow going to be included in the ruling body as if it would be something they could join or apply too.
exactly, the neocon aren't the same as the old school commies, but ultimately they are playing the same game with a few new rules working toward the same ultimate goal, while giving the illusion of being on the opposite side.

Well its an old leftist trick to leave the rank and file and the well known and generally ignored agitators in the dark, while the real leaders engage in their serious politics in secret... just look at the way Stalin's Third International used and abandoned or betrayed the national parties that made it up to further the Soviets political agenda.
Sorry, but how can a totalitarian regime rest on the Left? I believe the Left requires Freedom/Liberty as its primary principle.

The mistake many people make when discussing Stalinist/Maoist Communism is that they believe that, since they represent socialism to an extent, they must be on the left. But the Freedom principle applies to all things, including money, therefore Freedom is reduced in Stalinist/Maoist Communist regimes and places it on the right - even moreso with the -means- to achieve and maintain power. The Left focuses on social-legal conditions and the provision of services required for citizens to live their lives as they so choose. Therefore, by its very definition, Liberalism and the Left has no place in authoritarian Communist regimes who ignore Freedom, force the people into accepting government and lives that have been dictated by the select few, and drastically reduce monetary freedom and the freedom of both property and thought, which are restricted in Communist regimes.

OP, it's hard not to ignore anything you say based on your nation's name alone.
So come out and say it since most posters don't have a problem with answering this question:

What is your political agenda?

BTW: I think it's spelled Einherjars.

Sorry, but how can a totalitarian regime rest on the Left? I believe the Left requires Freedom/Liberty as its primary principle.

When they believe that their version of "freedom and liberty" should be forced on everyone else without their consent, and to go against it is a crime against the nation.

OP, it's hard not to ignore anything you say based on your nation's name alone.
So come out and say it since most posters don't have a problem with answering this question:

What is your political agenda?
Ad Hominem
Attacking your opponent personally rather than her/his argument. Ad hominem is fallacious argumentation.

When they believe that their version of "freedom and liberty" should be forced on everyone else without their consent, and to go against it is a crime against the nation.
Yet the simple action of forcing people into that without their consent is totalitarian, and therefore immediately sends the regime to the far right.

Ad Hominem
Attacking your opponent personally rather than her/his argument. Ad hominem is fallacious argumentation.
I'm drinking. Do you think I'm caring about logic right now, let alone logical fallacies?

Besides, I like using ad hominem on this forum. People are getting too pussy, IMHO.

Yet the simple action of forcing people into that without their consent is totalitarian, and therefore immediately sends the regime to the far right.

But why is totalitarianism linked to the right? In reality, it doesn't seem to be linked to either because both can lead to it.

I'm drinking. Do you think I'm caring about logic right now, let alone logical fallacies?

Besides, I like using ad hominem on this forum. People are getting too pussy, IMHO.
Normally Ad hominem is fine, but I just require it to have some basis in the argument. The issue of whether Bush is a Trotskyist has nothing to do with Nazism. Now if you'd called him a "big poopy-head", then I that would be just wunderbar.

"When they believe that their version of "freedom and liberty" should be forced on everyone else without their consent, and to go against it is a crime against the nation."

Then they become Totalitarianists. . their policies change, and therefore their politics.

In the end, Liberalism is inherently Left-winged, and anything that tries to control automatically moves right, or so far left that it become Right.

The issue of whether Bush is a Trotskyist has nothing to do with Nazism.
If this is the crux of this argument, I'm lost. Let's just go back to the drinkin', 'cause I don't want to participate in that kind of Godwinian cheese-fest.

I agree with the poster who said that Bush is neither a hero or a penis-shaped potato (or something like that). He's just a mediocre, gelled-over pres at the end of the day. Continue if this thread interests you without wasting time on me, dude. :D

In the end, Liberalism is inherently Left-winged, and anything that tries to control automatically moves right, or so far left that it become Right.

But that's where it gets complicated. Left-wing politics also become increasingly controlling as they move towards the extreme on certain issues; it's also true that moving to the extreme right or left also result in less control on certain issues.

But why is totalitarianism linked to the right? In reality, it doesn't seem to be linked to either because both can lead to it.
That is the misunderstanding. You are looking at 'left' and 'right' in strict American terms. However on any linear political compass, you will see Totalitarianism on the far right, and Utopian Communism on the far left. The idea is that, on the far right, power is centralized and unified, whereas on the far left, power is spread and belongs to the people. That isn't how it is with American Politics, which basically takes a long linear political compass and snips off the edges, with, in truth, very few differences between the left and the right. Because on the American compass, both the extremes are still relatively close to the center.

Liberalism began with the movement away from the extreme right - the authoritarian monarchs, with the American and French revolution. It is the movement left - towards giving the people more say and more power. Therefore, the further left you go, the more you will have a society concerned with the citizen, and the further right you go, the more you will have a society concerned with those who rule it.

Yes, Liberalism -can- lead to Totalitarianism, but only by trekking back across the political compass to the extreme right. Because it throws away its Leftist ideals by making its way to Totalitarianism.

That is the misunderstanding. You are looking at 'left' and 'right' in strict American terms. However on any linear political compass, you will see Totalitarianism on the far right, and Utopian Communism on the far left.
No sir, that opinion sounds biased beyond borders.

Yet the simple action of forcing people into that without their consent is totalitarian, and therefore immediately sends the regime to the far right.

Maybe to the far right on an exclusively left sided scale. No matter how one likes to view it, the way you get there matters in the end. Changing the tilt of the scale by saying so does not alter the fact that conditions favorable for totalitarianism is born of the left and the ideals proclaimed by the left are what keeps it in power.

OP, it's hard not to ignore anything you say based on your nation's name alone.
So come out and say it since most posters don't have a problem with answering this question:

What is your political agenda?

BTW: I think it's spelled Einherjars.

that's not how the band spells it and they're norwegians, so that's good enough for me :p

that's not how the band spells it and they're norwegians, so that's good enough for me :p
Band name? Sorry, my bad. Are you affiliated with any pro-aryan groups, and do you symapthize with any groups that actually use the word "aryan"?
I'd appreciate an honest answer.

Perhaps we all view the Political Compass differently.

I see it as a list of ideals which must be maintained, and the extent that you maintain them dictates your position on the compass. The Far Right is traditionalized with a central power, such as a monarch, and the far left is traditionalized with power spread to the people. That does not mean that those who rest on the right are Authoritarians, or that those who reside on the left are all Communists. It merely states the extent of which you can uphold those values. Both sides can end in tyranny, but a left-leaning socialist state that has a degrading government that becomes unified under one person rather than the representation of the people -does- shift to the right. Just as if a Monarch began to open assemblies for citizens, or built a parliament, would shift it to the left.

This is not the opinion of myself - this is the opinion of numerous political science textbooks.

The main problem with the above that I have pointed out is that over time, numerous people have tacked on issues that they believe belong on the left/right. Many of these issues do not belong on either side of the compass, but instead are left up to the people. For instance, if a healthy majority (lets say 70+%) of a nation supports banning gay marriage, are they right or left? Well, people may think that it rests on the right because the idea of banning gay marriage has been engrained into our idea of what the right is. But if it is following the will of the people, who by a vast majority disapprove of gay marriage, then they are following Leftist ideals. But if gay marriage is forced to become legal when a healthy majority of them disapprove of it (lets again say 70+%), then they are following Right-leaning ideals, even though the concept of gay marriage has been engrained on the left.

Note: I editted cause I really, really wasn't being clear.

Perhaps we all view the Political Compass differently.

I see it as a list of ideals which must be maintained, and the extent that you maintain them dictates your position on the compass. The Far Right is traditionalized with a central power, such as a monarch, and the far left is traditionalized with power spread to the people. That does not mean that those who rest on the right are Authoritarians, or that those who reside on the left are all Communists. It merely states the extent of which you can uphold those values. Both sides can end in tyranny, but a left-leaning socialist state that has a degrading government that becomes unified under one person rather than the representation of the people -does- shift to the right. Just as if a Monarch began to open assemblies for citizens, or built a parliament, would shift it to the left.

This is not the opinion of myself - this is the opinion of numerous political science textbooks.

The main problem with the above that I have pointed out is that over time, numerous people have tacked on issues that they believe belong on the left/right. Many of these issues do not belong on either side of the compass, but instead are left up to the people. For instance, if a healthy majority (lets say 70+%) of a nation supports banning gay marriage, are they right or left? Well, people may think that it rests on the right because the idea of banning gay marriage has been engrained into our idea of what the right is. But if it is following the will of the people, who by a vast majority disapprove of gay marriage, then they are following Leftist ideals. But if gay marriage ban is forced upon the people by a government, when under a majority or just above a 50+1% majority disapprove of gay marriage, then they are following Right-leaning ideals.

All true. Authoritarianism can raise its ugly head on either side.
True, true.

Band name? Sorry, my bad. Are you affiliated with any pro-aryan groups, and do you symapthize with any groups that actually use the word "aryan"?
I'd appreciate an honest answer. in the real world or for pretend?

in the real world or for pretend?
We're not RP-ing here, if you hadn't noticed. General generally steers clear of that (too many puppets, etc.). It's dishonest in this forum.
Or at least to me. I don't get into that RP stuff. Damn kids. :p

We're not RP-ing here, if you hadn't noticed. General generally steers clear of that (too many puppets, etc.). It's dishonest in this forum.
Or at least to me. I don't get into that RP stuff. Damn kids. :p
man i'm so old i could be the parent of anyone you'd reasonably call a kid.

i've always roleplayed in general, i had better than a dozen different sock puppets each singing their own tunes, but i forgot to feed them and they died, now a just have this pet nazi... they are the easiest and often the most amusing puppets to maintain.

man i'm so old i could be the parent of anyone you'd reasonably call a kid.

i've always roleplayed in general, i had better than a dozen different sock puppets each singing their own tunes, but i forgot to feed them and they died, now a just have this pet nazi... they are the easiest and often the most amusing puppets to maintain.
I've said it before and I'll say it again--

I really miss the true whackjobs on NS. Puppets just don't give me the same hardon. I apologize if that offends your puppet's ego.

I want the JesusSaves back. The Hitler Jeugend. There used to be a day when we could have fun cheapshotting these nuts without fear of puppetry.


You, Sir, have perverted the sport.

I've said it before and I'll say it again--

I really miss the true whackjobs on NS. Puppets just don't give me the same hardon. I apologize if that offends your puppet's ego.

I want the JesusSaves back. The Hitler Jeugend. There used to be a day when we could have fun cheapshotting these nuts without fear of puppetry.


You, Sir, have perverted the sport.

sorry i wouldn't have admitted ity if i wasn't slightly more chemically altered than when i first posted this... its hard to stay in character when you're uhmmm well.

sorry i wouldn't have admitted ity if i wasn't slightly more chemically altered than when i first posted this... its hard to stay in character when you're uhmmm well.
hint:

http://www.subgenius.com/bigfist/fun/devivals/Starwood-2001/Pater-Nostril/puppet-fire.jpg

(Being on the net is pussy enough. Don't add spark when there's already fire, bro. ;) )

Sorry, but how can a totalitarian regime rest on the Left? I believe the Left requires Freedom/Liberty as its primary principle.

.

Left is freedom and liberty? Are you kidding. It is so called leftist that want to control everyone else with freedom, liberty taking laws. They do it slowly but surely. Its a control game just like the far right.

Perhaps we all view the Political Compass differently.


Note: I editted cause I really, really wasn't being clear.

I think we do view them from a perspective that paints our own individual societies structure. As far as political science text books go, I have found that the make up of the committee, and the make up of the board tend to have a great deal of influence on what books are presented for approval and in accordance with the political personal preference of the approving authority. But only with the blessing of the Board of Trustees and with consent of the Executive Board for the Union by a 2/3 majority vote.

hint:

http://www.subgenius.com/bigfist/fun/devivals/Starwood-2001/Pater-Nostril/puppet-fire.jpg

(Being on the net is pussy enough. Don't add spark when there's already fire, bro. ;) )
when there aren't enough real crazies i think its my duty to dawn the cape and mask and tinfoil hat and do what needs to be done.

Left is freedom and liberty? Are you kidding. It is so called leftist that want to control everyone else with freedom, liberty taking laws. They do it slowly but surely. Its a control game just like the far right.
Of course - the Left (which, whether right-leaning modern politicians want to admit it or not, everyone in a democracy who believes in following the popular will is) has to control using laws, because they have to take the form of the authoritarian monarch, but using all of the people in general as their means of providing and supporting the laws, whereas before it was just one person.

Here's a good way to look at the Left: The left will put in laws that the majority of people would want to put in anyways, whereas the right will put in laws that the majority wouldn't necessarily approve of.

Keep in mind, today's right is left-leaning in the traditional sense - the fact that they don't take away your right to vote or force laws upon you that you would otherwise spit at is clear of that. Any party that follows the tenets of a democracy simply cannot go too far to the right.

I think we do view them from a perspective that paints our own individual societies structure. As far as political science text books go, I have found that the make up of the committee, and the make up of the board tend to have a great deal of influence on what books are presented for approval and in accordance with the political personal preference of the approving authority. But only with the blessing of the Board of Trustees and with consent of the Executive Board for the Union by a 2/3 majority vote.
Nonetheless, they are often written by authorities on the subject, and as such I tend to agree with them. Assuming that all of those bureaucratic publishing committtees are entirely left leaning as in Liberals is foolish. And I would also like to take this time to point out that I am a right-leaning Republican in the modern sense (sound economics + less control on peoples lives <allowing people to live as they'd please to an extent where it does not cause harm to the general public>)

Nonetheless, they are often written by authorities on the subject, and as such I tend to agree with them. Assuming that all of those bureaucratic publishing committtees are entirely left leaning as in Liberals is foolish. And I would also like to take this time to point out that I am a right-leaning Republican in the modern sense (sound economics + less control on peoples lives <allowing people to live as they'd please to an extent where it does not cause harm to the general public>)

Actually what I said was more joke than anything. I never said a thing about them being left leaning or right for that matter. The fact is though those committees do have a very negative effect on the content of text books according to the publishers of them. (There are very few)
According to a senior executive with Prentice Hall it is those very committees that have forced them into releasing heavily edited and somewhat diluted final edititons that fit what amounts to a cookie cutter book that often is far removed from the authors origional intent. I'll try and find the transcript of the interview he did. It was very interesting and a bit disturbing.

Actually what I said was more joke than anything. I never said a thing about them being left leaning or right for that matter. The fact is though those committees do have a very negative effect on the content of text books according to the publishers of them. (There are very few)
According to a senior executive with Prentice Hall it is those very committees that have forced them into releasing heavily edited and somewhat diluted final edititons that fit what amounts to a cookie cutter book that often is far removed from the authors origional intent. I'll try and find the transcript of the interview he did. It was very interesting and a bit disturbing.
Hm, I would like to read that. I've seen some blatantly biased stuff in my main polisci textbook. Although to be honest those are more just for summaries than anything. I'd much rather read the theory.