User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 5/9/2011 9:14:22 AM EDT
[#1]
Quoted:
What is extreme right? This is the right question. The French based political spectrum does not appy well to American politics. We could define extreem right as believing in free markets and Constitutional limitations on government, since that is pretty close to the starting point of this Republic. When the political spectrum is defined by revolutionary (change) vs reactionary (no change) forces, you need to define a historical starting point. The Nazis and fascists were not reactionary. They were revolutionary, although they might make use of a mythological history. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2011 9:23:05 AM EDT
[#2]
Two dimensions, not one.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2011 9:24:01 AM EDT
[#3]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: No, the "extreme right” is nowhere near as bad, mainly because it barely exists. Torquemada = extreme right. Exists. Please don't try to tell me that the Inquisition was about socialism. so the inquisition is exists right now? can you read what he wrote? Sure I can read, and people who believe as extreme as Torquemada exist all over the world. I was giving a popular example of the KIND of person that's extreme right. Problem is, conservatives can be so fucking stubborn and naive they believe anyone who actually IS far-right is actually far-left. Which, oddly, is the same thing liberals do when you confront them with the far-left whackos. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2011 9:24:28 AM EDT
[#4]
No.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2011 9:24:57 AM EDT
[#5]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: No, the "extreme right” is nowhere near as bad, mainly because it barely exists. Torquemada = extreme right. Exists. Please don't try to tell me that the Inquisition was about socialism. So, do you think Bin Laden was a rightie? An extreme, over the cliff one, yes absolutely. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2011 9:25:27 AM EDT
[#6]
Quoted:
I can't quite agree with this placement of Hitler on this chart. Listen to his speeches and then make the determination and he will be well left of that line. I assume you are refering to the collectivist vs individualist line. Clearly, National Socialism was a collectivist ideology. There are two main ideas on economics. There is the marxist idea "from those according to their abilities to those according to their needs" which essentially implies a right to the things you need. The opposite of that is the capitalist idea that you have a right to private property, i.e., you have a right to the products of your labor. There is one other possibility: you have no right to your labor or to the things you need. This third possibility is pretty much fascism. But you can't have a right to the things you need. No government can guarentee everyone's needs are filled So in reality there are only two options, a right to property or a right to nothing. Capitalism or fascism. Communism doesn't work. Every communist system was, at best, only an attempt at communism, they all ended up being fascism, where you have no right to property but also no right to the things you need. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2011 9:27:26 AM EDT
[#7]
Quoted: Lots of rhetoric in two pages and we have yet to discuss just what constitutes as a modern, evil, and dangerous right winger. That's because if you gave an answer of someone who is just such a person, the bar would magically get moved to a convenient spot that puts that person somehow, magically, outside of the right. The problem is that extremes start blurring and blending, that's why they're extremes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2011 9:30:24 AM EDT
[#8]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
No, the "extreme right” is nowhere near as bad, mainly because it barely exists. Torquemada = extreme right. Exists. Please don't try to tell me that the Inquisition was about socialism. So, do you think Bin Laden was a rightie? An extreme, over the cliff one, yes absolutely. He verbally supported leftist BS involving such things as global warminng, Jimmy Carter, anti capitalism, and Chomsky. One could argue that he wasn't serious, and this was just enemy of my enemy stuff, but it shows the inherent problems with attempting to pigon hole such stuff. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2011 9:31:18 AM EDT
[#9]
Quoted:
yes, extremists from either side are bad this J- |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2011 9:37:28 AM EDT
[#10]
Quoted:
If you took everyone in America and lined them up on a political spectrum, do you think that people on both of the extreme ends are about equally as nuts/paraniod/batshit crazy? Yes/No/FBHO? Yes...nuts is nuts. The exact flavor may be somewhat different, but nuts is still nuts. It isn't true, however, that both flavors of nuts have equal potential for the ruination of our future as a nation. Examples of this are legion. Witness the influence of left-wing nuts on unions and the impact that has on a wide number of policies from ignoring contract law to tax policies that severely injure economic growth and recovery all the way down to whether or not a school can actually attempt to give kids a decent education. Look at the influence of ridiculous left-wing ideas that have taken hold among the judiciary that despite being sworn to uphold and defend the constitution invents novel legal theories to ignore hundreds of years of precedent in order to give government almost unlimited power to meddle in your personal affairs. Look at the influence of quackery dressed up as "science" being used to convince people that mankind is destroying the earth causing global warming/cooling/climate change so that politicians and bureaucrats can tell you what windows you can buy for your house and restrict what light bulbs you can purchase. We do not face a fiscal armageddon because the nuts on the right-most side of the spectrum have been significantly impacting the course of the ship of state. People who want to force you to worship Jesus at gunpoint are fucking lunatics...but they are obviously fucking lunatics and have no ability to actually significantly impact policy. They only come up as a political scarecrow to try and frighten people into steering left. Al Gore is a billionaire with political influence. He's no less of a lunatic. He is, however, much more powerful and as we've seen, much more effective at working his idiocy on the body politic than people who want to re-introduce Jim Crow. The specter of the lunatics who exist on the right-most fringe of the spectrum as a credible threat to our daily lives and personal freedom is dramatically overblown in an attempt to fool the gullible. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2011 9:37:31 AM EDT
[#11]
Yes.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2011 9:43:21 AM EDT
[#12]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Lots of rhetoric in two pages and we have yet to discuss just what constitutes as a modern, evil, and dangerous right winger. That's because if you gave an answer of someone who is just such a person, the bar would magically get moved to a convenient spot that puts that person somehow, magically, outside of the right. The problem is that extremes start blurring and blending, that's why they're extremes. The problem is in defining what you mean by the "right". The Spanish Inquisition has nothing to do with the American political system. You can't get farther right as an American then believing in the constitution and limited government, unless you want to talk the Articles of Confederation or perhaps Tories, neither of which are exactly representative of American conservatives. Another way of thinking about, an American pushing for something like the Inquisition would be revolutionary, not reactionary. You could make the argument that KKK and the Confederacy is right wing, and have a point, but the Yankee anti slave movement is also represented in our history going back to the Revolution. Further, there is almost no modern right wing that seriously wants a return to slavery, the modern neo-nazis contain quite a few revolutionary aspects and they don't (as I understand it) want a return to the antebellum south . . . |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2011 9:45:40 AM EDT
[#13]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: No, the "extreme right” is nowhere near as bad, mainly because it barely exists. Torquemada = extreme right. Exists. Please don't try to tell me that the Inquisition was about socialism. So, do you think Bin Laden was a rightie? An extreme, over the cliff one, yes absolutely. He verbally supported leftist BS involving such things as global warminng, Jimmy Carter, anti capitalism, and Chomsky. One could argue that he wasn't serious, and this was just enemy of my enemy stuff, but it shows the inherent problems with attempting to pigon hole such stuff. As I said above, once they get extreme enough, they start blurring together, but the core of Osama's fervor was radical religion. That's far-right, I don't care what anyone says. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2011 9:46:14 AM EDT
[#14]
No. You have to have conservatives for liberal agenda's to function(liberalism must have "producers" to control thereby making them much more dangerous), you do not have to have liberals for conservative agenda's to function (there in lies the leave me the F alone mentality)
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2011 9:51:03 AM EDT
[#15]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Lots of rhetoric in two pages and we have yet to discuss just what constitutes as a modern, evil, and dangerous right winger. That's because if you gave an answer of someone who is just such a person, the bar would magically get moved to a convenient spot that puts that person somehow, magically, outside of the right. The problem is that extremes start blurring and blending, that's why they're extremes. The problem is in defining what you mean by the "right". The Spanish Inquisition has nothing to do with the American political system. You can't get farther right as an American then believing in the constitution and limited government, unless you want to talk the Articles of Confederation or perhaps Tories, neither of which are exactly representative of American conservatives. Another way of thinking about, an American pushing for something like the Inquisition would be revolutionary, not reactionary. You could make the argument that KKK and the Confederacy is right wing, and have a point, but the Yankee anti slave movement is also represented in our history going back to the Revolution. Further, there is almost no modern right wing that seriously wants a return to slavery, the modern neo-nazis contain quite a few revolutionary aspects and they don't (as I understand it) want a return to the antebellum south . . . Like I said, the bar keeps getting moved. Left = collectivist authoritarian, typically motivated by non-religious movements. Move away from that to get to the Right. I'm not framing it in a political system or country. When your motivations are religious-based oppression or dogmatic rule, that's a right-wing motivation....albeit extreme. The nutshell here is that no one will agree, so again no example will ever be "Right" to anyone...as their motivations are clearly to put extremists on the "other side" somehow. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2011 9:52:35 AM EDT
[#16]
Quoted:
As I said above, once they get extreme enough, they start blurring together, but the core of Osama's fervor was radical religion. That's far-right, I don't care what anyone says. That's the problem with spectrums...people can argue (often validly) for their own unique interpretation of the spectrum. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2011 9:54:51 AM EDT
[#17]
Quoted:
What is extreme right? My question....Oh and I am probably there....well I am exteme something, maybe extreme retarded. Is there a test? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2011 9:58:26 AM EDT
[#18]
Quoted:
A single axis model (left to right on a line) is a flawed model of politics. A much better model is two axis (left to right and also up to down). It's called the Nolan chart. http://www.insteadofablog.com/images/nolanchart.gif A lot of people here are conservative but highly authoritarian, while I am conservative but highly libertarian. These are very far apart politically and are represented as so on the Nolan chart. eta: I'd probably be somewhere around or just under the second "a" in Libertarian. Sorry but maybe I am retarded, because the Nolan chart seems the essence of stupid. I cannot be 100 free markets and 100 social liberty at the same time? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2011 10:15:55 AM EDT
[#19]
Quoted:
Like I said, the bar keeps getting moved. Left = collectivist authoritarian, typically motivated by non-religious movements. Move away from that to get to the Right. I'm not framing it in a political system or country. When your motivations are religious-based oppression or dogmatic rule, that's a right-wing motivation....albeit extreme. The nutshell here is that no one will agree, so again no example will ever be "Right" to anyone...as their motivations are clearly to put extremists on the "other side" somehow. The fundamental problem is that the origional and accepted spectrum is based upon a "progressive" vs "reactionary" model that is largely useless. Technically the farthest left is not in theory collectivist authoritarian. The fartherst left would be Marxist stateless communism, it is, per Marx, the final end state progress is moving towards. Figuring out what is right wing is more problamatic. Right wing is reactionary and opposing change per the spectrum, but what established system does the far right represent in America? The King of England (or Queen, or whatever)? The limited government of the American Constitutional Republic? If you fail to frame it within the country, you get all kinds of bad results; bin Laden's ideas are not part of our history, and are revolutionary (not reactionary) from an American perspective. He might be a right winger, but not in an American context. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2011 10:26:22 AM EDT
[#20]
Quoted: I would argue that the difference between extreme leftism and extreme rightism is the desire to move towards an imaginary future utopia versus the desire to move backwards towards an imaginary idyllic past. Both are equally dangerous for both are based in illusions which are unachievable. Their economic actions are only a means by which they attempt to achieve their impossible social ends. this. Fundamentally, the dynamic between Left/Right, Conservative/Liberal, Revolutionary/Reactionary, etc... is about maintaining traditional social mores and structures versus a desire to break down tradition and "progress" society in some way. In an authoritarian society, those who wish to maintain the authority are the conservatives, and those who oppose it are the liberals. In a free society, those who wish to maintain the freedom are the conservatives. Originally the term Liberal referred to the political and economic ideal of liberating individuals from unrepresentative and arbitrary governments. Early liberalism set in motion patterns for the rule of law that would guarantee individual rights, representation in law making, access to the courts, and protection of private property. These are now conservative ideas. In that sense bin Laden was very much a right wing. hitler and the Nazis were definitely pushing for major social changes against the old social order so they cannot be called conservative. "The most radical revolutionary will become a conservative the day after the revolution." - Hannah Arendt |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2011 10:29:02 AM EDT
[#21]
Yes both extremes are bad. I'm not sure what the extreme right would be though, short of hardcore bible thumpers?
Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2011 10:35:48 AM EDT
[#22]
Quoted: Yes both extremes are bad. I'm not sure what the extreme right would be though, short of hardcore bible thumpers? Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Someone like Francisco Franco, the National Party of South Africa, or possibly Hideki Tojo. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2011 10:41:39 AM EDT
[#23]
Once we regain our freedoms, I will worry about extreme Right taking over. The extreme left has been pulling us down the slippery slope for waaaay too long. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2011 10:46:38 AM EDT
[#24]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Joseph Stalin<––––––––––––> Adolf Hitler Extreme Left <––––––––––––> Extreme Right public education No, he's right. On the classical left/right scale, fascists are on the right. do you people make this shit up? Government control of private industry is right wing? Do you know how to read? Do you know what the classical left right spectrum is? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2011 10:47:27 AM EDT
[#25]
Yup. Equally nuts and useless.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2011 10:59:09 AM EDT
[#26]
Quoted:
Do you know how to read? Do you know what the classical left right spectrum is? The Nazis were a revolutionary party. By the classical spectrum they were left wing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2011 11:01:04 AM EDT
[#27]
Nope
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2011 11:03:25 AM EDT
[#28]
Quoted:
... In that sense bin Laden was very much a right wing. hitler and the Nazis were definitely pushing for major social changes against the old social order so they cannot be called conservative. 'Blood and soil' was essential to facism - the social 'reforms', weren't movement forward, but a return to the ur-state preceding national division under the onslaught of Jews and communists. Genocide wasn't using eugenics to progress the race, but purifying it of parasites to return to an idyllic, stronger past of national exceptionalism. The source of blended paganism and Christianity, and the ripoff of the Indo-Aryans stem from The Myth of the Twentieth Century, which supplied the bulk of Nazi background fluff. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2011 11:04:19 AM EDT
[#29]
Extreme left is anyone voting left
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2011 11:05:13 AM EDT
[#30]
Crazy is as crazy does. I don't want to be associated with anyone that falls into either extreme and I certainly don't want to be identified with the "overthrow 'em!" crowd.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2011 11:06:29 AM EDT
[#31]
Quoted:
If you took everyone in America and lined them up on a political spectrum, do you think that people on both of the extreme ends are about equally as nuts/paraniod/batshit crazy? Yes/No/FBHO? One way to answer that is to consider this: the MSM relied upon the Larouche supporters to provide the "nuts" at the Tea Party rallies. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2011 11:07:52 AM EDT
[#32]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Joseph Stalin<––––––––––––> Adolf Hitler Extreme Left <––––––––––––> Extreme Right public education No, he's right. On the classical left/right scale, fascists are on the right. do you people make this shit up? Government control of private industry is right wing? Do you know how to read? Do you know what the classical left right spectrum is? The Big Lie of the late 20th century was that Nazism was Rightist. It was in fact typical of the Leftism of its day. It was only to the Right of Stalin's Communism. The very word "Nazi" is a German abbreviation for "National Socialist" (Nationalsozialist) and the full name of Hitler's political party (translated) was "The National Socialist German Workers' Party" (In German:Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei) |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2011 11:09:58 AM EDT
[#33]
Yep.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2011 11:11:36 AM EDT
[#34]
Quoted:
Quoted:
... In that sense bin Laden was very much a right wing. hitler and the Nazis were definitely pushing for major social changes against the old social order so they cannot be called conservative. 'Blood and soil' was essential to facism - the social 'reforms', weren't movement forward, but a return to the ur-state preceding national division under the onslaught of Jews and communists. Genocide wasn't using eugenics to progress the race, but purifying it of parasites to return to an idyllic, stronger past of national exceptionalism. The source of blended paganism and Christianity, and the ripoff of the Indo-Aryans stem from The Myth of the Twentieth Century, which supplied the bulk of Nazi background fluff. Fascist reforms did not go back to some former system but a new one. The nazi reforms included animal protection laws, smoking regulation, a national highway system, a people's car, etc. Himmler attempted to create an SS breeding program. The nazis may have pushed a mythology, but their actual actions were progressive. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2011 11:12:27 AM EDT
[#35]
Quoted: Absolutely correct. If you go far enough right or left you end up meeting up in the middle of batshitland. Art Bell listeners are a good example. Instead of viewing it as a line you should view it as a circle. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2011 11:12:52 AM EDT
[#36]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Joseph Stalin<––––––––––––> Adolf Hitler Extreme Left <––––––––––––> Extreme Right public education No, he's right. On the classical left/right scale, fascists are on the right. do you people make this shit up? Government control of private industry is right wing? Do you know how to read? Do you know what the classical left right spectrum is? The Big Lie of the late 20th century was that Nazism was Rightist. It was in fact typical of the Leftism of its day. It was only to the Right of Stalin's Communism. The very word "Nazi" is a German abbreviation for "National Socialist" (Nationalsozialist) and the full name of Hitler's political party (translated) was "The National Socialist German Workers' Party" (In German:Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei) I was speaking about fascism in general. And despite the name, the Nazis weren't really that socialist. As mentioned previously in the thread, under the Nazis means of production were privately owned. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2011 11:14:47 AM EDT
[#37]
meh, I'm pretty far to the extreme right myself...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2011 11:24:09 AM EDT
[#38]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Wrong. Facism = extreme right Dude, facism is a system in which the means of production are privately owned, but tightly controlled by The State. It is socialism light, and a stepping stone toward communism (full ownership of everything by The State). You are regurgitating leftists talking points. Nazism was known as the Nationalist Socialist Party. Good God, not this again. Our current left and right are both derived from the same political philosophy. Fascism derives from a different philosophy entirely. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2011 11:29:04 AM EDT
[#39]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Wrong. Facism = extreme right Dude, facism is a system in which the means of production are privately owned, but tightly controlled by The State. It is socialism light, and a stepping stone toward communism (full ownership of everything by The State). You are regurgitating leftists talking points. Nazism was known as the Nationalist Socialist Party. Good God, not this again. Our current left and right are both derived from the same political philosophy. Fascism derives from a different philosophy entirely. +1. It's disheartening to see a political group nominally founded on honesty engaging in such blatant historical revisionism. Ignorance of the classics is one thing, but Jonah Goldberg really didn't help. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2011 11:30:52 AM EDT
[#40]
Quoted:
I was speaking about fascism in general. And despite the name, the Nazis weren't really that socialist. As mentioned previously in the thread, under the Nazis means of production were privately owned. The book Faces of Janus (Gregor) does a good job explaining in detail that Italian fascism was leftist. The nazis controlled production. Ownership was private, but answered to the state. Everyone's goal was to futher the national interest. Hardly right wing, but not far left either. The Soviet system became more fascist and less communist over time. By the time of the Great Patriotic War the USSR was essentially an extreme form of fascism. One could also consider the modern PRC to be a form of fascism. Communism never gets past the dictatorship of the proletariot stage, it always gets stuck then slides into fascism. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2011 11:34:00 AM EDT
[#41]
Quoted:
Good God, not this again. Our current left and right are both derived from the same political philosophy. Fascism derives from a different philosophy entirely. I don't think so. The American right derives from England and the Scottish Enlightenment. The American left, like communism and fascism, derive from the French Enlightenment. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2011 11:35:40 AM EDT
[#42]
I think extreme is "extreme."
If you create a linear scale of the degree of people's beliefs then you will find me closer to the right-wing extremist than the left. Of course beliefs don't follow a linear scale and I have some beliefs regarding individual rights that would probably put me on the left end of things. Politics are a mechanism to divide the citizens of the US. Its working quiet well. I'd rather affiliate myself with the party of reason and logic then dem/rep. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2011 11:41:08 AM EDT
[#43]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2011 11:45:58 AM EDT
[#44]
yes, and we need them both. a healthy fringe is required for a healthy center.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2011 11:47:02 AM EDT
[#45]
Yes. As said 8700 times, any extremes are bad. That goes for religion, food, weight, etc etc.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2011 11:47:14 AM EDT
[#46]
Quoted:
If you took everyone in America and lined them up on a political spectrum, do you think that people on both of the extreme ends are about equally as nuts/paraniod/batshit crazy? Yes/No/FBHO? Not necessarily. Most of our Founders, for example, were extremely far to the Right and yet I doubt most would consider them to be crazy. I think it depends on temperament, really. The more intellectual types with genuine intelligence are likely to be alright while those who are just ideologues and blindly accept what they hear and apply it almost religiously are the ones likely to be more on the crazy side. We're all different, regardless of what we believe. There are some far Left types that I do respect and don't consider crazy, despite being far Right myself. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2011 11:47:18 AM EDT
[#47]
Yes without a doubt
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2011 11:47:38 AM EDT
[#48]
Quoted:
Instead of viewing it as a line you should view it as a circle. This is the correct answer. Slavery and death at the hands of the state is the same regardless of which way you get there. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2011 11:50:30 AM EDT
[#49]
Quoted:
Wrong. Facism = extreme right Fascism is far left. It is derived from socialism except that it dropped the internationalist outlook common among socialists at the time (and Mussolini was an international socialist initially) and adopted a statist outlook. National socialism, which is older, dropped the internationalism for ethno-centric nationalism; it too originated from international socialist parties. All of these ideologies appeal to the same types of people and are competing and not opposing ideologies. If one looks at the characteristics of the various forms of fascism and national socialism, the Leftist character becomes rather obvious and the Leftist roots are part of their histories. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2011 11:55:59 AM EDT
[#50]
Quoted: Quoted: Joseph Stalin<––––––––––––>Adolf Hitler Extreme Left Extreme Right You would be wrong. Hitler was a leftist. Wrong, but I'm sure that will be pointed out.  |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
