kraychik

The translation is even available from the English-language propaganda arm of the Iranian dictatorship. http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2012/07/08/249926/jordan-mp-whips-out-gun-in-live-tv-show/ “You are a spy in the pay of” the Syrian government, Shawabka said. Murad, in return, accused Shawabka of being a spy in the pay of the Israeli Mossad agency and said the lawmaker was “a thief.” I wanted Signals.Cpl to call me a liar, I really did. Although he sort of implied it, even if he didn't explicitly state it, which is good enough for me. Thankfully, a few leftists did come in here and make hilarious comments.

Thank you for exposing the ignorance of the left.

Exactly. This truth, however, cannot be accepted by the leftists who observe the false doctrine cultural/social/religious relativity, lest it shatter a core illusion of their worldview.

Of course you don't believe me, because you are an oblivious leftist who is absolutely shocked that the anti-Semitism of this society is so intense that the absurd accusation of being a Mossad agent would trigger such a response. It floors you because you live in a fantasy land where all societies and cultures are essentially the same. People who live in Realville (to borrow a term from Rush Limbaugh), however, weren't really that shocked at all to come across this exchange. ] You also greatly misunderstood my tone. It should've been quite clear that I wanted to trap Signals.Cpl into calling me a liar (or stupid enough to believe a false story), so that I could throw it back in his face and expose his ignorance. Thank you for doing the job for him.

Is that a serious comment?

There's a reason I want you to call me a liar, which is essentially what you're implying with your demand for proof that the Jordanian lawmaker was accused of being a Mossad agent. This reveals a lot about your ignorance of these societies. It is only hard for you to believe the truth about this exchange because you think it is far-fetched that a Muslim Arab "political activist" (critic of the government) would accuse a politician he disliked of being a Mossad agent. This is not an uncommon accusation in Muslim or Arab societies to be hurled against a political enemy, and it is used intentionally to feed off of the virulent anti-Semitism that is endemic to these societies. You seem to be unaware of this phenomenon, as well. What you don't realize is how much you reveal about yourself, you assumptions and your ignorance about the region and its inhabitants, through the very little you actually said. No doubt you hoped your short request for proof that the exchange occurred as I said it did was innocuous, but in reality it revealed a lot about you.

Tell me I'm lying, then.

Except... nobody said The Economist is far-left.

Are you suggesting that I'm misrepresenting the dialogue? I want you to tell me you don't believe me.

The "political activist" on the left accused the Jordanian lawmaker on the right of being a Mossad agent. That's about all it takes to get another Jew-hating Muslim Arab to pull a gun on you, considering this is the worst thing in the world that one can be (aside from being a homosexual Mossad agent, of course... or a woman). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-Dc8GliNTE

No, they're not. Saying something over and over doesn't make it true. I've articulated the core values of the contemporary right and contemporary left, and shown how the values of the left, not the right, have far more in common with Nazism. The ideological underpinnings of the contemporary right are antithetical to Nazism, which cannot be said about the contemporary left to the same degree. This shatters the false narrative that is still being parroted of Nazism being a "far-right" ideology. What have you provided to this discussion? Name-dropping (nobody cares about Noam Chomsky, Glenn Beck, or Raul Hilberg), obfuscation (nobody cares about Stormfront and your description of these leftists as right-wingers), and outright falsehoods (i.e. Nazism is a "far right" ideology).

The truth is he's arguing a false narrative, so he's at a distinct disadvantage. When the core of your argumentation is false, it's sort of difficult to support it against real opposition. It all comes down to him not wanting to accept, and more importantly trying to lie to others, about Nazism being a leftist ideology. It's as if he thinks he's now a Nazi by association. It's really sad.

There's no substance to the message of Harper being a "bully", and it playing into the hands of the Canadian left. It's jut another in a long list of fluff-pieces from The Economist.

Honestly, I'm shaking my head. This is brutal. I'm outta here.

Excuse me? You invoked both of those names, not I.

It's actually very typical. In support of his (flawed) argumentation of Nazism being a "far-right" ideology, there have been some elements of the contemporary right that have supported erosion of individual liberty. I am a conservative, however, not a libertarian, so for me this isn't always a contradiction. For example, religious elements of the contemporary American right fought for censorship against pornography. The sad truth for leftists, though, is that there were leftist elements on board with this. Primarily feminists who viewed pornography as "anti-woman". Anyways, I'll stop there because it gets pretty boring when I have to start making the leftist argument because the resident leftist can't articulate an argument on his own.

I never cited Glenn Beck, you were the one who brought him up. You drop names and can't articulate a point of view. This is standard leftist argumentation, you are a drone who follows your leaders.

Exactly. It's almost all fluff-pieces masquerading as serious analysis. It's like Time Magazine or Newsweek with a bigger vocabulary.

It's just mindless name-dropping, he's like a drone. All it does it show that he cannot articulate his own opinion. I'm not some moron who will swallow the lie of Nazism being a "far-right" movement. It is a leftist movement, with the only distinction being that is is nationalist in focus (and racist), while communism was internationalist.

So I need to take my opinion from a "scholar"? It's funny how leftists always pretend to be more thoughtful, nuanced, educated, and intelligent, however you always engage in a herd mentality where you invoke the opinion of a "scholar" rather than articulate why it is that you think the way you do. "Noam Chomsky agreed with me" doesn't make for a compelling argument. You can't articulate your own reasons for thinking the way you do without name-dropping in a transparent attempt to impress us and create this image of you being well-read, so we see through you. It's infantile. I also don't care what Jonah Goldberg has to say, I've known about these issues long before he came into the mainstream. It is the left that follows its leaders devotedly, not the right. Nazism is a leftist ideology. It believes in centralization of control and a major abrogation of individual liberty in both the economic and social spheres. This is textbook leftism. Conversely, the contemporary right supports a retraction of government encroachment over the liberty of the individual in these two dimensions. It's simple, the contemporary left has far more in common with Nazism and other extreme manifestations of leftism than the contemporary right, despite the attempts at historical revisionism to portray Nazism as a "far-right" ideology. This was done for transparent reasons, to pretend that there is a counterweight on the right to communism. If you prefer, we can use the term statist, but for most honest people this is just a synonym for leftist.

There is absolutely no substance to the article in the OP.

Well, I use the term leftist in the pop-culture sense, with all of its internal contradictions and shortcomings. It's not a perfect term, but it is still very useful and a great tool when used to predict people's attitudes towards various issues once they've been categorized. Generally speaking, I use the term leftists to describe folks that in the context of domestic policy (either in Canada or America) was increasing government control over the freedoms of the individual, in both the social and economic spheres. Generally speaking, leftists (who compose the entirety of the NDP and overwhelming majority of the LPC) are those who reflexively support many government regulations, licenses, and provisions of "social services" via redistribution of wealth. A leftist is a person who support price-control measure such as minimum wage regulations, rent controls, and price ceilings. A leftist believes that a "food inspector" is necessary to do weekly visits to restaurants to stick thermometer in butter chicken dishes to "protect" the public. A leftist believes that the interests of business are the opposite of the interests of employees. A leftist believes in restricting on individuals can express themselves by supporting so-called "hate speech" laws. A leftist believes in cultural relativity. A leftist tends to view America and the broader West in a negative light, while lionising inferior societies and cultures as victims bravely combating imagined imperialism. A leftist supports destructive policies like the Kyoto protocol. A leftist expresses solidarity with the socialists and communists defecating in public as part of the "occupy" movement. A leftist signs petitions like "Stop Fox News North" to prevent Sun News from getting its broadcasting license. A leftist loves chanting and groupthink and opposes individuality. There's a lot more to this, but do you get my point?

Harper's in a much better position to be discussing the flaws of socialist economic policies in Europe than some "journalist" from The Economist opining on the sensitivities of the Canadian electorate. Wouldn't you agree?

I was gonna mention that, but I let it slide. Me appreciating Glenn Beck (and I've got some criticisms for him, as well, as he used to be very Alex Jones-ish) is somehow an assault on my "credibility" (according to a socialist), yet his admiration of a communist linguistics professor is somehow... totally fine? I've seen his argumentation style before, he never addresses substance and just insults and insults and insults some more.

Oh, so now we've gotten into the historical revisionism of Nazism being a right-wing movement, despite the fact that the contemporary left has far in common with Nazism (a leftist ideology) than the contemporary right. Ah well, I've had this conversation a hundred times over. I see where you're coming from and can tell that you don't have either the honesty or ability to have a serious discussion.