Originally Posted by BonnieDundee:
No you got to the verge of arguing that Erich Luderndorff and Louis XIV were commies and then decided to not reply any more.

No, you got to that point. I didn't mention those people.

Originally Posted by BonnieDundee:
That is the general use of the term. Britains is the modern term.

I've never heard or read the term "Britains". Never. Except perhaps as "Britain's" when it's referring to the country's trade deficit or similar. In fact, I reckon you just made it up.

Originally Posted by BonnieDundee:
And the term Britons isn't commonly used. Britains gets 24,000,000+ google hits and Britons only just over a 1/5 of that

You realise that "Britains" matches "Britain's" in Google, right?

Originally Posted by BonnieDundee:
John Connor made that comment for the sole reason he was mad at me for showing him up with his rubbish about the Nazis.

No. I made that comment because you incorrectly "corrected" Brittanist. Don't presume to understand my reasons for posting anything I post, thanks - it's obvious you're not very good at it.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by John Connor:
No, you got to that point. I didn't mention those people.

I never said you did. But your idiocy would of made them commies and you couldn't explain why Ludendorff or the Kampfbund supported Hitler. In fact you didn't really have much at all to back up your point.

Originally Posted by :
No. I made that comment because you incorrectly "corrected" Brittanist. Don't presume to understand my reasons for posting anything I post, thanks - it's obvious you're not very good at it.

It is obvious why you posted. It was a cheap shot because you lost.

It was not Britannist but Westcountryman, I meant British not Britains of course, that was a brain spasm on my part.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by BonnieDundee:
Like it or not both the left and right can be "collectivists" or "individualists", both can be for small or big gov't

No, this simply isn't true. The "left" cannot operate without collectivism or big government - it's simply not possible. Not in the real world anyway - it perhaps works in your theoretical world.

Originally Posted by BonnieDundee:
He claimed they were far left but had no reply to then why Erich Ludendorff marched with them

So, Ludendorff was a right-winger, eh? According to what metric?

Originally Posted by BonnieDundee:
It all boils down to him defining left or right in an extremely strange way, ie the use of lockean property priniciples

Nope. Here's how I define left and right: The start of Anthem is the definition of the left, the end of it is the definition of the right. Clear?
[Rep]

Originally Posted by BonnieDundee:
It was not Britannist but Westcountryman

I stand corrected on this point.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by John Connor:
No, this simply isn't true. The "left" cannot operate without collectivism or big government - it's simply not possible. Not in the real world anyway - it perhaps works in your theoretical world.

Well actually there are many anti-state leftists, in fact a slim majority probably have been leftists over history, such as the anarchists, and they have had most of the most extreme anti-authoriarians. Your arguments simply don't stack up, you just say those you like are rightwing and those you don't are left.

And you forgot to even try and refute the obvious fact many statists and authoritarians have been rightists.

Originally Posted by :
So, Ludendorff was a right-winger, eh? According to what metric?

The standard metric. The metric whereby rightwing is not just the epitome of American style libertarianism, where it isn't just for those who try and solve all social problems by the application of lockean property rights.

So in your scheme of things where do Edmund Burke, Joseph D'Maistre, Comte D'artois or Louis XIV fall? They must be leftwingers if you think Ludendorff is and yet it was those who supported the ancien regime who first had the name rightwingers and hence your definition is absurd and should be dismissed when looking at figures like Hitler. John you are more slogan than substance as an unfortunately high amount of American style libertarians and objectivists seem to be. You can spout off slogans about socialism being oppression but when it comes to the real arguments you are sadly lacking.

Originally Posted by :
Nope. Here's how I define left and right: The start of Anthem is the definition of the left, the end of it is the definition of the right. Clear?

That is great, it is still an absurd and useless definition which few people use. Why the hell would this be the definition of rightwing? Right and leftwing historical and cultural identities with long histories and it strikes me as extremely strange that you'd come along with such a unique definition and then claim it as absolutely correct.

It seems rather like someone who comes along and completely redefines what Belgium is to include half of Germany, Holland, France and Denmark and then presumes to feel his new definition is beyond reproach.
[Rep]

I'll post you a reply to this sometime over the weekend, Dundee, since I have work to do now and it's obviously going to take more than a few paragraphs to explain this to you.
[Rep]

:-) "Britains" :-)

As somebody who has worked for English Heritage I can honestly say I have only ever seen the phrase Britons. Britons is used in both its historical and contemporary context by the media for exmaple:

Neolithic:
Why Did Ancient Britons Stop Eating Fish?

Contemporary:
BBC ON THIS DAY | 26 | 1952: Britons killed in Cairo riots

Ea of dune
[Rep]

I meant British as I said, check post 22.

Technically most of us whether Scottish, English, Welsh or Cornish are descended from the ancient Britons, so perhaps it is a moot point anyway.
[Rep]

I wonder how many more would have left given the chance ?
[Rep]

I wouldn't leave, at least permanently, unless it was a completely totalitarian system. The British isles and particularly the Western highlands and Cornwall are basically a part of me, nowhere in the world is the same.
[Rep]