Tired of having to explain

[newthinking]

21. So, how would you then define them? Your comments seem to (in a way) let them off the hook

I agree that it is difficult to compare the two (Nazism and arch conservatives), but I would argue that arch conservatism in it's fully mature form (which granted we are not seeing yet), is just as dangerous.

It causes a lot of problems when we try to define very complex social movements into a narrow group of possabilities. Just like we do with the types of economies. But we have to find ways to define the evils of movements like this.

If the conservatism that is expressed in much of the various leadership groups actually end up gaining enough power sure, it won't look just like "Nazism", but it could look very nasty.

Much of the movement have extremely autoritarian roots and there is definitely a problem with empathy in this movement.

They may not all agree, but they all have very heavy philosophies that revolve around dehumanizing those who do not believe as they do. Evancelicals with enough power would likely jail or even execute Gays and Lesbians, or those with the wrong beliefs. A lot of Ayn randian /right wing capitalists do not feel that those who do not "produce" in the way they feel is appropriate do not deserve to live. The "Nationalist" and "constitutionalist (well they think they are, but are really not) wing would easily subject those of alternate beliefs or free'r minsets to terrible jail sentences. Well, we are already moving down that path.

In the same way much of the Right wing are Social Darwinists, which is certainly as dangerous of a philosophy if followed more fully as Nazism was.

How would you prefer that we describe these dangerous values sets as? Or are you arguing they are not really dangerous values to societies? In that I would strenously disagree.