May 18, 2012
Subscribe RSS Feed

You Are What You Read? Tucson Killer Favors Hitler And Marx

Posted on January 10, 2011 by in Articles

The shooting rampage in Tucson, Arizona that severely wounded Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and killed six others was a horrible event. Like everyone, I want the person or persons responsible to be brought to justice as soon as possible.

Jared Lee Loughner, the alleged killer was a fan of couple of ideological books: Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler and The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx. I made a simple diagram to help describe where these books and philosophies are politically.

You’ll notice I didn’t accent the left vs. right, rather the amount of government control based on a particular political philosophy. Many people make the mistake that fascism is a product of the right. Not so. Fascism and Marxism are closely aligned since they are both based on socialism, a society where there is no private property.

Share with your friends
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • email
  • Digg
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Google Buzz
  • del.icio.us
  • Print

Tags: , , , , , ,

  • http://www.soopermexican.com Soopermexican

    spiffy. though some might argue a tiny bit with your definition – in Fascism, there’s still private ownership, but the state tells you what to do with your property (which arguably, means you dont really own it). In any case, I dig your style man.

  • Pingback: Tweets that mention You Are What You Read? Tucson Killer Favors Hitler And Marx | The Graph -- Topsy.com

  • Weeabo

    LOL. People who think this graph is accurate need to back to college.

  • http://www.facebook.com/briandreilly Brian Reilly

    Thanks for checking it out!

  • Shimauma

    Doesn’t matter how you lay it out, the leftard media and libtard activists will continue to shriek nazi everytime Rush Limbaugh/Glenn Beck opens his mouth. My hope is they get so f-ed up on the pot they are smoking they comatize themselves the couches in their parents’ basements and stop bothering real people.

  • http://twitter.com/heatpacker John C. Pechette

    Let’s compare Soviet-style communism with fascism:
    One party state – both yes
    Dictatorial leader – both yes
    Secret police – both yes
    Freedom of speech – both no
    Freedom of assembly – both no
    Freedom of religion – both no
    Right of trial by jury – both no
    Private property – communism no, fascism limited. Under communism, the state owns means of providing goods & services. Under fascism the state controls the means of providing goods and services
    Freedom of press – both no: press is organ of state propaganda
    Army an organ of the party – both yes
    Concentration camps – both yes
    Strict gun control – both yes
    Aggressively colonialistic – both yes
    The only true difference between communism & fascism – communism is a totalitarian system of governance that seeks to eliminate class differences; fascism is a totalitarian system of governance that seeks the domination of a particular race & culture

    • Yenhe2002

      And Marx did not think that Soviet style communism was his vision of Socialism. He saw the totalitarian aspect of it, which you identify, and called it an abomination.

      What the Soviets did is NOT Socialism is the Marxist sense. I think Lenin tried to go that way, but failed, and then Stalin…well…you know.

  • Heinleineken

    And since he began his threats after she voted for the healthcare bill, we can draw from this that those who oppose the healthcare bills are on the same side as a socialist fascist.

    Good thing her recovery was described as “miraculous” so we know which side of the debate God is on.
    Are you on the side of God, or the Fascists?
    (see? I can use faulty logic too)

  • Huhwaht

    Well you graph is interesting. However, it is a provisioning of what Left Wing and Right Wing politics actually are. Fascism is a right wing doctrine with a splash of the left mixed in. Also Bush greatly expanded the government (Dept HS, TSA act) and expanded it’s power (patriot act etc). Republicans only talk about small Government.
    Anyways, Mr. Laugher other favorite book was “We the Living” by Any Rand. Any Rand who also wrote Atlas Shrugged which is a Tea party manifesto. I see you are trying to paint this guy as a lefty, you are wrong to do so.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000516807772 Ryan Reid

    ChRiS haad DieBold, and all that S38395954054

  • JohnMinn

    Huhwaht. You are using the un-news media definition of left and right.
    Remember the Fascist state in Germany under Hitler?
    His party was the NAZI party. NAZI is short for National SOCIALIST.
    You have two extremes. Government OF the government, by the government for the government. The other extreme is no government which is called Anarchy.

    The un-news media KNEW exactly what it was doing by saying Communism (Socialism with a gun at your head) was the opposite of Fascism (Socialism with a gun at your head).

    That same “news” media told us that Fidel Castro was the “George Washington of the Sierra Madras”. Need I say more?

    • FU

      He didn’t get it from the News, it’s actual history. The Nazi called themselves socialists but were actually Fascists. Mein Kampf calls communism evil. The term left/right wing has nothing to do with the amount of government control. Anarchists are considered to be leftist.
      Anyways one more thing about Laugner is that on his Youtube page he was talking about returning to the gold standard. Where have I heard that before?

      • JohnMinn

        So, one group hates the other, so what does that have to do with common sense. The Communists hate the Communists, but both groups want a small group to control the “ignorant masses”.
        I don’t care what you call any form of government which desires to put the people under their subjection, they are a form of what consistently ends up in a small group controlling the people and removing from them any and all power to resist their totalitarian state which is one extreme.
        Anarchy on the other hand is where there is NO overruling body, and the result is chaos and is the opposite extreme.
        Between those two extremes is a Constitutional Republic which limits the power of a centralized government to oppress the people. However a Constitutional Republic requires that the people keep a close eye on that government because of the very nature of men to want to elevate themselves and become a little dictator even if that is to have absolute rule over a “small mud puddle”. The Constitution has not failed, it is We the People who have failed to keep the chains of the Constitution around the necks of highly fallible individuals in positions FAR beyond their capabilities. Government is a perfect example of the Peters principle and now they are unionized to protect themselves from their own incompitence.

  • Yenhe2002

    I take issue with your graph. Fascism highlighted socialist philosophy because it was popular at the time, but the REAL identifying features of Fascism were “The Final Solution”, it’s dictatorial power structure, and its heavy use of propaganda and “thought police.”

    It’s the racism, the “either you’re with us or you’re the enemy”, and the willingness to enforce that which many people identify with the Right. I suppose its true that any political philosophy ‘could’ use the police to enforce its particular view of things, but aside from the collectivist rebuilding programs, they were anything but lefty. In fact, I don’t think there has been any nation that has truly emulated Marx the way he envisioned it. You don’t even seem to understand it yourself. A Marxist nation is NOT one where there is no private property, but one where “The means of production” belong to the state (or more properly ‘the people’). You still own your money and your personal belongings.

    It is entirely possible that people who envision a state based on Conservative ideals would use the police to deter opposition. Is this “less government”?

    Incidentally, many believe (even on the Military channel) that had Hitler not been so insistent on his dictatorial power structure that he would have beaten the Allies in WWII. The socialist programs that he used to reinvigorate the country DID work, and in the incredibly short term. Would they have lasted? Who knows. Maybe not. But they DID turn a country around in the space of a decade.

    Where’s Monarchy, Feudalism, Mercantilism, etc. on your graph?

    Loughner was a nut, period. He would have been a nut if he watched Glenn Beck or if he read Marx or if he masturbated while watching Julia Child.

    Incidentally, he shot a Democrat. Just sayin’