| To the Editor: Flying flag upside down is disrespectful in many ways |
| Written by Tim Schroeder |
| Wednesday, 28 November 2012 10:40 |
|
Freedom is a right that we all enjoy in the United States. Voting the way one feels is one of those rights. Flying the flag of the Greatest Nation on Earth upside down in protest of the election results should not. This act is nothing but a stab in the back to our founding fathers and to our military personnel (many that have given their all) that defend the freedom of this country. Search the Internet for the late Keith Bradley reciting "The Ragged Old Flag" at the National Tractor Pull in Bowling Green. You will find the meaning of respect for our flag in his words. Tim Schroeder Weston |
Front Page Stories
| Park position is natural fit 05/25/2013 | PETER KUEBECK | Sentinel Staff Writer 
Jim Witter, WC Park District Naturlist. (Photo: J.D. Pooley/Sentinel-Tribune) |
Honor Flight treats former Army cook 05/25/2013 | PETER KUEBECK | Sentinel Staff Writer  Honor Flight recipient Leroy Chamberlain is seen in his home in Bowling Green, Ohio on M [ ... ] | Other Front Page Articles | ||
Comments
Is this country in dire distress? Some would say no, many would say yes.
Y'all can take your yankee swastika and shove it for all it matters on the street.
A symbol is a symbol is a symbol. It has a different meaning to every single individual. I totally barf when people get so worked up about it when there are REAL problems that people face.
Nationalism is a BAD thing, folks. Can you finally see that now?
The most infamous fascists, the Nazi's, name is actually "National Socialist German Workers Party". Using the theme of protecting German workers from a whole host of wrongs, both real and imagined, Hitler transformed a fragile Republic into a nationalist dictatorship, ALL THROUGH LEGAL METHODS.
Ultra right-wing movements have their problems, to be sure. They are not the correct path, either. But fascism is not one of the downfalls of the right.
Those who forget history, are condemned to repeat it.
Fascism is actually a product of rightist extremism, based on top-down structuring of government. This was true of Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, and Pinochet.
The Nazis defined themselves as "right-radicals" before, during, and after their regime. The children of Nazis were the founders of the avowedly far right "Freedom Party" in Austria. One of the first things the Nazis did was outlaw trade unions. They campaigned against communism, and against everything the Weimar Republic stood for, which the Nazis termed "leftism." The word "socialism" meant as much to them as the words "democratic republic" meant to North Korea, mainland China, and the old GDR. They did not become a dictatorship through "legal" methods.
Teaching the deliberately ignorant must be tiring.
From Wikipedia (admittedly not a scholarly text of C. Williams' caliber): Fascism: "...fascism publicly favours proletarian culture, and claims that cultural nationalization of society emancipates the nation's proletariat, and promotes the assimilation of all classes into a proletarian nation." [In other words, postures to promote the little guy against the elitists]
Also: "Fascism opposes multiple ideologies, such as communism, conservatism, liberalism, and social democracy."
See whole definition at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
So, I admit to being inaccurate and flawed. But not completely wrong or off-base. C. Williams' is spot-on about changing definitions over time.
Nazi's, like all ideologies, are hybrids, used to encapsulate and promote the desires of the leadership of those [emergent] ideologies. Hitler claimed Communism and Marxism was not "true" socialism, because he redefined the concept as social revolution.
In reality, there were elements of both [what we today would call] right and left-wing ideologies in the makeup of National Socialism under the Nazis.
Mussolini's fascism, grew from his alignment with the left-wing in Italy. [It should be noted that Hitler considered Mussolini to be his mentor]
Also, Mussolini was NEVER aligned with the true radical left in Italy. Those were the blackshirts, and Mussolini tortured and killed them.
He and Hitler were both self-proclaimed 'faschisti' and were the uber-conservatives (socially AND fiscally) of their time.
This is all basic college history.
Dig?
Mussolini became active in the Italian socialist movement in Switzerland, working for the paper L'Avvenire del Lavoratore, organizing meetings, giving speeches to workers and serving as secretary of the Italian workers' union in Lausanne.
In February 1909, he took the job as the secretary of the labor party in the Italian-speaking city of Trento. He also did office work for the local Socialist Party, and edited its newspaper L'Avvenire del Lavoratore (The Future of the Worker).
In 1910 he returned to his hometown of Forli, where he edited the weekly Lotta di classe (The Class Struggle).
During this time, he published Il Trentino veduto da un Socialista (Trentino as seen by a Socialist) in the radical periodical La Voce.
I can cut-and-paste from wikipedia too:
You and wikipedia are completely disregarding the massive schism between real revolutionary radicals and the bourgeoisie Socialist party of Italy.
Mussolini founded the blackshirts to kill off the real radicals that he opposed among the left-socialist.
By this point, he was considered to be one of Italy's most prominent Socialists. In September 1911, Mussolini participated in a riot, led by Socialists, against the Italian war in Libya. He helped expel from the ranks of the Socialist party two "revisionists" who had supported the [Libyia] war, Ivanoe Bonomi, and Leonida Bissolati. As a result, he was rewarded the editorship of the Socialist Party newspaper Avanti! Under his leadership, its circulation soon rose from 20,000 to 100,000.
In 1913, he published Giovanni Hus, il veridic, during this socialist period of his life Mussolini sometimes used the pen name "Vero Eretico" (sincere misbeliever).
As an aside, he is still revered in Napoli, perhaps the most corrupt metropolitan area on earth.
Dig?
He does not sound like much of a comtemporary socialist by getting kicked out for advocating going to war.
Which definition are you using? The fragmented 1910s definition or the 2010's definition?
As these things were evolving 100 years ago, we see what has become of NATIONAL(ist) Socialism, haven't we?
I'm glad that you read something, though, even if it is a point-and-click incomplete source.
Where does this leave your argument? That fascism is rooted in socialism because of Mussolini? Read the WHOLE article, not just the parts you want to see.
What I took from that, was that he started socialist (as we would understand socialism to be today) but "evolved" in his thinking. [sound familiar?] Ultimately, he eschewed much of the socialist ideals as he "matured" and came to power. I suspect power does that to a person, especially if they are already pre-disposed to believe they are always right. [sound familiar?]
Wiki, by the way, is not my only source, just the one most easily cut/paste/edited online. "Musolini's Italy" is another excellent work, but I only have it in the old-fashioned physical form.
Ultimately, I was just addressing your contention that he was NEVER aligned with the true radical left in Italy.
My assertion is that the Socialist Party was not the true radical left. Of course, socialism was so fragmented as to make being a "member of a movement or ideology" completely meaningless.
Mussolini evolving in his thinking to fascism is not a familiar process experienced by most rational and ethical people. To claim that Mussolini is some model for the left is preposterous. No, that doesn't sound familiar, sorry.
Being pre-disposed to "believe they are always right" is definitely a trope within American conservatism, so yes, that part is familiar.
There is still no causal connection between fascism and leftist movements. They remain diametrically opposed.
That is just a blatant lie. Musollini's fascist party was a socialist movement, and it's biggest supporters in the USA were in FDR's Democratic party. This isn't my interpretation, it's easily researched historical fact.
by the Nazis in any case. What your problem is, and Jonah Goldberg's as well is to look to facile equivalences between the word "socialist" and assume that it has the same meaning in all contexts, which it does not. What is telling is how these parties used the word "right wing," and they both embraced it.
Obviously, the connection between fascism and socialism is constructed, and Mussolini was kicked out of the Socialist party for having adopted radically different and divergent views.
to connect these two DIVERGENT ideologies, ESPECIALLY in US politics is blatant propaganda and historical revisionism.
"Easily researched historical fact" is in complete disagreement with Conneaut and the other right-wing extremists (read: fascists) who want to place Hitler in someone else's ideological background.
Nice try.
This whole meme that the Nazis were actually liberals/leftists was popularized recently by the incredibly shoddy and ignorant work of conservative writer Jonah Goldberg, whose basic reasoning tactic is to assert that words associated with politics have unchanging meanings regardless of time, country, or cultural context. It's brain-dead, but has the elegant (if mendacious) simplicity that people who don't know any better seem to love.
If Nazism was such a left-wing movement, explain the following: the outlawing of labor unions, opposition to communism, persecution of all ethnic minorities and advocacy of racially unified society, the fact that ALL neo-Nazi groups identify today as right wing, and the self-identification of the Nazis themselves as "right radicals."
Not to draw too stark a comparison, but do the similarities of our current democratic President getting so much support from Wall Street and other huge business while demagoging against the 1%, the support for restructuring in the auto industry that gave labor union allies more control while violating the rights of creditors, and the concurrent enslavement of all taxpayers by our national debt draw any comments in comparison or contrast?
And, as my original flawed statement on Nazi fascism reminded (this part not flawed), Hitler came to power through entirely legal means in what was a democratic republic.
Hitler became chancellor through legal parliamentarian means; the Nazi party became a dictatorship by a combination of thug actions and rewriting the laws and voiding the Weimar constitution. It was only "legal" because of rewriting the laws.
And that never happens in modern, liberal society, right?
Governments set up with multiple branches that are purposely supposed to check and balance the others never have actions imposed through Executive Directive that should be the providence of the legislature.
You really don't know ANYTHING, do you?
Fascism IS right wing.
Those who lie about history are doomed.
sorry
RSS feed for comments to this post.