Sometimes i read comments on the daily mail's website and many posters tend to blame the liberal left for everything.

I don't understand this thought pattern as the people who actually make events happen on a global scale are bankers,industrialists,royal's,Security Service's,high ranking military personnel and high ranking church officials.

The above tend to be as a whole right wingers and not very liberal in their thinking so i just don't understand where they get the idea that there is any liberal thought or action affecting politics or society?

its someone to blame. left and right are both shit. we gotta go up

The daily mail are taking a term that was coined by the wingnuts in the US and doing the same thing.

Basically there is no liberal left nor is there any liberal right nor any liberal centrist party in the UK, they have nfi what they are talking about.

However, by associating authoritarian left with liberal left they are killing any notion or thought of libertarian values.

This is basically right out of the book of orwellian doctrine.

EDIT: The 'political awakening' that Brezhisnky talks about is literally a waking up to libertarian values, right wing liberal values can be controlled and are expected to some extent in the US. Left wing libertarian values are downright scary to any established authoritarian governance, extremes of which are for example the venus project.

If you look at it long enough you'll see that jesus came under the same bracket, so he got shoved up on a cross.

2000 years later people have still yet to learn the lesson that they are powerful in unison but they remain divided and conquered with the same tactics employed by the romans from the same period. Honed to a new level now with MSM ofc..

humanspirit wrote:
For the most part I agree....

The Right + PNAC = Shock & Awe

.......... wrote:
The fox news right is the authoritarian right.

The US libertarian party is the libertarian right.

The US doesn't have a libertarian left party as such and very little discussion of it other than people like Chomsky, but even he pales in comparison to someone like jacques fresco. Fresco is the true lib left, Chomsky is anarcho-syndicalist which is in reality a centrist libertarian doctrine, basically the libertarian opposite of national syndicalism/ fascism.

You will notice striking similarities between national syndicalism and anarcho syndicalism.
One is done with govt the other is done by grassroots.
One actually gives a real share of the divvy the other pretends to do so.
One is relatively sustainable the other is unsustainable without constant war.

Nazi Germany and Italy under Mussolini are examples of national syndicalism. Sometimes also called national socialism.

Mondragon corporation in Spain is an example of anarcho-syndicalism.

Left or right as far as I see it is merely an economic difference.
The important distinction is authoritarian or libertarian.

andyh wrote:
What makes you say this Andy?

.......... wrote:
Anarcho-syndicalism is based on a small business model, so starts off with a small group of people and relies on profit for both expansion and the social welfare and wealth distribution of the initial small group.
As it is invariably just a small business it takes a hell of a long time to expand. Mondragon today still only amounts to a single town of people.

National syndicalism requires huge amounts of wealth to ensure that its population are well looked after, indeed the nazis were very well off initially and it helped to maintain the propaganda because a lot of people became well off who had never experienced such a thing before.
However, the men at the top need feeding large amounts of wealth over and above the main populus just as previously so this goes in addition.
Few nations would have such resources so they have to look elsewhere, it inevitably leads to war as the national syndicalist state does not play with the same financial rules as the other countries. They may abandon fractional reserve banking which will lead to devaluation of their currency to zero.
The treaty of versailles for example imposed payment of a large debt on germany to be repaid only with gold or foreign currency not their own currency.
The only way to repay such debt and ensure 100% employment for all is war and a command economy.
In nazi germany the businessmen became partners with the govt, same applied in italy (the merger of state and corporate interest) as Mussolini put it. Also called fascism

The 100% employment and increased living standard is why the nazis were associated with 'socialism', indeed today many would still call it national socialism rather than national syndicalism.

If you can imagine a country that needs large resources to keep up the populations wealth but no foreign currency or gold to buy it all then you can easily see how such a situation would lead to war. Its either that or the people would have to put up with 'austerity' *cough lol*, an all too familiar scenario for us here right now in the EU. Hitler ofc had no choice but to go to war if he wanted to stay in power.
Theres no way the people would support him otherwise.

The US currently enjoys being a reserve currency with the dollar, if that was to ever change then they would be up poo poo creek without a paddle.
Some of the middle eastern states demanding gold for oil for example was something the US could not abide by and indeed those states that have tried to do such a thing have been pwned one way or the other.

If you're interested in the economic side of the nazis btw I'd recommend this book-
www.amazon.com/dp/0805087265/

Its the same story the world over. We have always conquered other countries wealth and used it to our advantage.
The open veins of south america is also another good book on the same theme.

humanspirit wrote:
It's historical dude, these are Social "democrats", did you realize the establishment shills on TV for Chavez' death parade criticising him for being a Dictator (who won 15 or so democratic elections) and undemocratic, non cooperative with "democratic" values?

They weren't social democrats, they were pro western officials, they highlight the difference between Democratic Socialism (Chavez) and social democracy (Christian and Social Democrats in European politics since the sixties).

There is an ideology that Western Democracy is based upon called capitalism, it is non democratic, Social Democrats, the Liberal/reformist Left work tirelessly (to their credit) to reform Capitalism and improve Social welfare in Capitalist societies, but they do it with the objective of timid Reform, not revolution in mind.

humanspirit wrote:
The elite feed the far/left/right to keep people fighting each other. Its better they fight each other than the real enemies

The conservative elite or the liberal elite foon?

andyh wrote:

At the top of the pyramid there is no difference between left/right anachist/communist/fascist etc all are fed a certain agenda. You only have to look at the black block anachist group it has more police officers in than real anachists.

Pffffft.

Mike wrote:
Bankers etc fund both conservative elite and liberal elite dont think there is any difference at the top of thwe pyramid. From the bottom of the pyramid they are worlds apart thoe

Nonsense foon let's divide the shit out of them, that';s what they do to us.

foonclown wrote:
Then they're not anarchists.

andyh wrote:
Most anachist groups have none anachists in leader positions taking the group in certain directions.

foonclown wrote:
Man you're funny

andyh wrote:
I must say unofficial leaders I spent a bit of time with AF and there was allways certain people within AF that made the decisions and organised the groups activities.

foonclown wrote:
lol, like kicking in shop windows and stuff yep?