Free speech and growing fascism
Al
repeating that until everyone believes it. Or not.
**Campus Leftists Don't Believe in Free Speech
Conservative speakers now have bodyguards when they visit universities.**
the wharf rat
Al <albert.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
>No, liberals cannot behave in a fascist or totalitarian manner. Keep
>repeating that until everyone believes it. Or not.
>
Sigh.
First of all, a government or political system is authoritarian.
A social system is totalitarian. You can have one without the other.
Secondly, a leftist can be authoritarian or totalitarian but
a leftist cannot be fascist. Fascism is by definition an extreme
rightist political philosphy and if a person is a fascist they must be
a rightist.
There's nothing inherently bad or good about "liberal" or
"conservative". The conservative movement in America has embraced a
totalitarian social structure defined by required adherence to the tenets
of a particular sect of a particular religion and a fascist political
system merging the interests of big business with the interests of the
ruling class and the political leaders. That *is* bad.
Al
wrote:
> In article <albert.finney000-F0...@news-wc.giganews.com>,
> Al <albert.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >No, liberals cannot behave in a fascist or totalitarian manner. Keep
> >repeating that until everyone believes it. Or not.
> >
>
> Sigh.
>
> First of all, a government or political system is authoritarian.
> A social system is totalitarian. You can have one without the other.
>
> Secondly, a leftist can be authoritarian or totalitarian but
> a leftist cannot be fascist. Fascism is by definition an extreme
> rightist political philosphy and if a person is a fascist they must be
> a rightist.
So you prefer the Stalinist definition of Fascism that our government
schools promote.
Which is classic Fascism - invading a totalitarian regime and establishing a
representative democracy, or a government leader firing the head of a
corporation and dictating a business plan?
Which is closer to Fascism to you:
An ideology which promotes individual responsibility, individual risk and
reward, free political speech, a small, unobtrusive state meant to serve the
people and the right to keep your earnings, or...
An ideology which promotes the collective, promotes service to the state,
prefers a large, more controlling state, is hostile to opposing viewpoints
to the point of attack, and is distrusting of the private sector and the
individual.
> There's nothing inherently bad or good about "liberal" or
> "conservative". The conservative movement in America has embraced a
> totalitarian social structure defined by required adherence to the tenets
> of a particular sect of a particular religion and a fascist political
> system merging the interests of big business with the interests of the
> ruling class and the political leaders. That *is* bad.
Today's liberal, like the Progressive of yesteryear, is a statist, and
totalitarian. Fascism, Nazism and Communism are all just different versions
of the same thing, none of them have anything in common with American
conservatism, except perhaps nationalism (which is what earned fasci the
"right wing" designation from Stalin).
Fascism and totalitarianism and communism were not dirty words for the
Amwerican left of the last century, they were considered viable forms of
governance by many of their progressive contemporaries. The American
conservative never voiced approval for these concepts, it was the left.
That's why we see so much totalitarian behavior from the left of today, it's
in the dna of the ideology.
the wharf rat
Al <albert.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>So you prefer the Stalinist definition of Fascism that our government
>schools promote.
>
Stalinism is a communist system. Not a Fascist system.
>Which is classic Fascism - invading a totalitarian regime and establishing a
>representative democracy, or a government leader firing the head of a
>corporation and dictating a business plan?
There's an important difference between the current situation
in America and the situation in say Nazi Germany between Hitler and Krups.
Under Fascism the ownership of the means of production remains in private
hands but the government acts to further the interests of those entities
rather than the interests of the people. What we have in America is a sort
of hybrid between capitalism and socialism. Call it...capocialism. The
government is gradually acquiring ownership of the means of production
through traditional capitalist means i.e. buying them and controls those
entities by traditional capitalist methods i.e. by exerting pressure through
that majority ownership rather than by using the power of the state. The
end result is traditional Socialism whereby the "people" own the means of
production...
America has apparently been cursed by ancient Chinese sages for
we are certainly living in interesting times...
Al
wrote:
> In article <albert.finney000-A1...@news-wc.giganews.com>,
It doesn't matter how the state gains control - the results are the same
("never let a good crisis go to waste").
Keep in mind that the term "the people" as used by collectivists is a
euphemism for "the state", as the language of totalitarians almost always
means the opposite. IOW, they lie.
That's why some totalitarian regimes have in their titles some variance of
"people" or "democracy" or "socialist":
"People's Republic of China"
"Democratic People's Republic of Korea"
"Lao People's Democratic Republic" (Laos)
"Socialist Republic of Vietnam"
"Union of Soviet Socialist Republics"
> America has apparently been cursed by ancient Chinese sages for
> we are certainly living in interesting times...
The US is the worst country with the worst political system in he world,
except for all the others.
the wharf rat
Al <albert.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>It doesn't matter how the state gains control - the results are the same
>("never let a good crisis go to waste").
Sure it does.
If the means of production remains in private hands the end result
is the creation of an elite class. If the means of production end up
owned by the state the state becomes the elite class. It's a subtle
but important difference.
Al
wrote:
> In article <albert.finney000-3A...@news-wc.giganews.com>,
The not-so-subtle difference is under centralized collectivism, there are
far, far fewer elites because everyone works for the state.
We capitalists can come from the street to elite in any number of ways, and
we can go back to the street even quicker, and back up - that's the history
of capitalism.
Under centralized collectivism, you're at least guaranteed a steady if
miserable life up until you die, or the state collapses, whichever comes
first.
Collectivist experiments as we know them today, from Jamestown to Moscow,
just simply don't work. Maybe capitalism won't survive in the long run, but
adopting a statist/collectivist mindset is a guarantee of failure.
the wharf rat
Al <albert.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>The not-so-subtle difference is under centralized collectivism, there are
>far, far fewer elites because everyone works for the state.
>
No.
Under a fascist system the state becomes the tool of the capitalist
class and acts in their interest. Under a communist system the state
itself becomes the capitalist class. (In this context capitalist refers to
those who provide or own capital.)
>adopting a statist/collectivist mindset is a guarantee of failure.
That doesn't follow. It's not necessarily true that because
previous attempts have failed subsequent attempts will also fail. If that
were true aviation would have stopped with DaVinci's cute little spiral
helicopters.
the wharf rat
the wharf rat <wr...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> That doesn't follow. It's not necessarily true that because
>previous attempts have failed subsequent attempts will also fail. If that
>were true aviation would have stopped with DaVinci's cute little spiral
>helicopters.
>
For instance, a big reason communism failed in Russia was the
inability of the economic system to adjust quickly to market needs. Could
that be remedied with modern information technology?
>
Al
wrote:
> In article <albert.finney000-1E...@news-wc.giganews.com>,
> Al <albert.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >The not-so-subtle difference is under centralized collectivism, there are
> >far, far fewer elites because everyone works for the state.
> >
>
> No.
>
> Under a fascist system the state becomes the tool of the capitalist
> class and acts in their interest.
We've done this before.
You're referring to corporatism. Under fascism, the means of production are
chiefly in private hands, controlled by and for the state, for the "benefit
of the people", and does have some elements of corporatism.
> Under a communist system the state
> itself becomes the capitalist class. (In this context capitalist refers to
> those who provide or own capital.)
> >adopting a statist/collectivist mindset is a guarantee of failure.
>
> That doesn't follow. It's not necessarily true that because
> previous attempts have failed subsequent attempts will also fail.
How many failures would it take before folks recognize the fatal flaws and
stop trying the collectivist/centralized society?
3 more? 15? 100 more attempts?
Have heart, there will probably be people in they year 3000 insisting that
it'll work sooner or later.
> If that
> were true aviation would have stopped with DaVinci's cute little spiral
> helicopters.
Communism is the art of perfecting the helicopter by repeatedly flying it
upside down and crashing into the ground on the theory that hey, gravity
just might reverse someday.
Juan
This doesn't prove there's no free speech, it just proves that
conservatives are justified in fearing for their lives after driving
the country to the ground and being responsible for the murder of
hundreds of thousands of people in the last 8 years.
It's called payback, not fascism, shitforbrains. Be afraid. :)
Al
<2fcb85b3-a09c-4287...@q16g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,
Juan <fly...@gmail.com> wrote:
Latino Fascists are the funniest. They're so *obvious*.
> It's called payback, not fascism, shitforbrains. Be afraid. :)
It's called latino politics, and we do it differently here, little Benito.
the wharf rat
Al <albert.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>How many failures would it take before folks recognize the fatal flaws and
>stop trying the collectivist/centralized society?
>
Which are?
I'll stop and point out the success of China and Japan before
you waste your time.
Juan
>
> Latino Fascists are the funniest. They're so *obvious*.
>
> > It's called payback, not fascism, shitforbrains. Be afraid. :)
>
> It's called latino politics, and we do it differently here, little Benito.
Do you now? I guess you're an expert on that, given your history.
> StevenRudd
> male, 56 years old (Arlington, TX, United States)See more
> divorced, slim, capricorn, White / Caucasian, Some college, Likes Music
> I am very secretive and private. This is likely due to my years as a photojournalist, during which it was my job to invade the privacy of others.
As I said, it's called payback, shitforbrains. :)
Al
<e1266d5d-9bd7-410b...@v19g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
Juan <fly...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 18, 7:09 pm, Al <albert.finney...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Latino Fascists are the funniest. They're so *obvious*.
> >
> > > It's called payback, not fascism, shitforbrains. Be afraid. :)
> >
> > It's called latino politics, and we do it differently here, little Benito.
>
> Do you now? I guess you're an expert on that, given your history.
My history now includes an amusing baranacle. Do you have any new stories?
Al
wrote:
> In article <albert.finney000-E1...@news-wc.giganews.com>,
Here's the rub, none of them could survive without capitalist countries. If
we choose to shut them off, they just follow the cycle of successive
revolutions.
Take Cube - Europeans, S. Americans and just about anybody can visit and/or
trade with Cuba, but for some odd reason, they live in poverty because the
big, bad USA wont trade with them.
What they're admitting is that as confident as they are in their
collectivism, it simply does not work without capitalism.
Why you lump Japan with China is anyone's guess.
Juan
> In article
> <e1266d5d-9bd7-410b-9626-2bac3d727...@v19g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
Who the fuck knows what a baranacle is. As to new stories, the content
management system releases them when appropriate.
Al
<7bc4c562-db37-4fea...@e18g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>,
Juan <fly...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 18, 10:18 pm, Al <albert.finney...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <e1266d5d-9bd7-410b-9626-2bac3d727...@v19g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > Juan <fly...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Apr 18, 7:09 pm, Al <albert.finney...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > Latino Fascists are the funniest. They're so *obvious*.
> >
> > > > > It's called payback, not fascism, shitforbrains. Be afraid. :)
> >
> > > > It's called latino politics, and we do it differently here, little
> > > > Benito.
> >
> > > Do you now? I guess you're an expert on that, given your history.
> >
> > My history now includes an amusing baranacle. Do you have any new stories?
>
> Who the fuck knows what a baranacle is.
Why don't you take a poll.
> As to new stories, the content
> management system releases them when appropriate.
I haven't seen much new, is someone on vacation?
Terri Schiavo's Fruit & Vegetable Stand
>
>
> Conservative speakers now have bodyguards when they visit universities.**
>
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124000847769030489.html
Why would any wacko visit universities if they require a bodyguard ?
What part of "not welcome" don't they get ? Are they that desperate
for attention ?
Sanders Kaufman
message news:49ebee42$0$5499$bbae...@news.suddenlink.net...
Radical, right-wing evangelicals are compelled by their faith to preach not
where it's welcome and appropriate, but rather where it's unwelcome and
inappropriate.
Al
Some people might actually like to hear them talk, but the facists will make
that decision for them.
It's the American, liberal way..
Al
"Sanders Kaufman" <bu...@kaufman.net> wrote:
But they are invited by people who want to hear them. Those that don;t want
to hear them are free to not attend.
But if you condone fascist tactic, I wouldn't be surprised.
Terri Schiavo's Fruit & Vegetable Stand
>
> It's the American, liberal way..
The wacko wright is not any better .. and just as worser , than
the American way. There is always room to be heard, just as long
as you agree with me.
FOAD is always an acceptable retort for those with the opposite view.
George Kerby
On 4/20/09 12:06 PM, in article
49ecab9c$0$5499$bbae...@news.suddenlink.net, "Terri Schiavo's Fruit &
Vegetable Stand" <brai...@fucker.com> wrote:
> Al wrote:
>>
>> It's the American, liberal way..
>
>
> The wacko wright is not any better ..
I agree. Obammy's whacky preacher is a racist moron.
the wharf rat
Oh, I have those in my yard. I don't mind them because they
eat bugs but I worry that the cats will get them.
I guess regular foads are OK because they breed in water. The far
aints got all the horned foads years ago...
Terri Schiavo's Fruit & Vegetable Stand
> Oh, I have those in my yard. I don't mind them because they
> eat bugs but I worry that the cats will get them.
>
>
As a rodent, I would think you would have a high tolerance of FOAD.
the wharf rat
Well, they're ok with lots of ketchup.
Elena West
news:gscv7k$4bf$1...@reader1.panix.com:
> In article
> <albert.finney000-F0...@news-wc.giganews.com>, Al
> <albert.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>No, liberals cannot behave in a fascist or totalitarian manner. Keep
>>repeating that until everyone believes it. Or not.
>>
>
> Sigh.
>
> First of all, a government or political system is authoritarian.
> A social system is totalitarian. You can have one without the other.
>
> Secondly, a leftist can be authoritarian or totalitarian but
> a leftist cannot be fascist. Fascism is by definition an extreme
> rightist political philosphy and if a person is a fascist they must be
> a rightist.
That is simply not true. The Nazi's were facists, and they called
themselves National Socialists ... in fact, names and labels are
meaningless. Authoritarian and totalitarian are simply degrees of
control by government over individual liberty.
All of them are crap. National Socialism is SOCIALISM.
>
> There's nothing inherently bad or good about "liberal" or
> "conservative". The conservative movement in America has embraced a
> totalitarian social structure defined by required adherence to the
> tenets of a particular sect of a particular religion and a fascist
> political system merging the interests of big business with the
> interests of the ruling class and the political leaders. That *is*
> bad.
>
And how is that different IN PRACTICE than Communism? Step wisely here
...
Al
Terri Schiavo's Fruit & Vegetable Stand <brai...@fucker.com> wrote:
> Al wrote:
> >
> > It's the American, liberal way..
>
>
> The wacko wright is not any better .. and just as worser , than
> the American way. There is always room to be heard, just as long
> as you agree with me.
Really? I hadn't seen many right wingers on campus attacking all the
left-wing speakers. Do they physically attack them on stage, throw things,
shout them down and that kind of stuff?
Guess I missed 'em, got any links?
> FOAD is always an acceptable retort for those with the opposite view.
As long as it's a suggestion, not an order.
Al
wrote:
Anyone who would put catsup on a fresh FOAD steak oughtta be run outta Texas.
Catsup is for cats.
the wharf rat
No, National Socialism was Fascism. Fascism is directly
opposed to socialism.
>> political system merging the interests of big business with the
>> interests of the ruling class and the political leaders. That *is*
>
>And how is that different IN PRACTICE than Communism? Step wisely here
Communism implements a state controlled economy with production
decisions made by a central authority. Under a Fascist system control
over the means of production remains in private hands and production
decisions are made by individuals. That efficiency is one reason that
Fascism actually works.
the wharf rat
KETCHup is for foads cause you gotta ketch 'em fust.
Al
wrote:
> In article <albert.finney000-DC...@news-wc.giganews.com>,
You ain't gotta ketch FOAD's, the cat does that. All you gotta do is show
'em flame, and send the dogs out to round up the kids.
Catsup became ketchup during the depression years 'cause if you didn't ketch
up, you weren't gettin' no cat, much less any sauce.
Terri Schiavo's Fruit & Vegetable Stand
>> KETCHup is for foads cause you gotta ketch 'em fust.
>
> You ain't gotta ketch FOAD's, the cat does that. All you gotta do is show
> 'em flame, and send the dogs out to round up the kids.
>
I take FOAD with just a grain of salt.
the wharf rat
Well, what's sauce for the moose is sauce for the panda, I
always say.
the wharf rat
They're good on the rocks, too. Limestone's the best.
Do you like them at the lake? Do like like them with your cake?
Do you like them fried like chicken? Prepared that way they're
finger-lickin!
Al
Terri Schiavo's Fruit & Vegetable Stand <brai...@fucker.com> wrote:
That works. Throw salt in a FOAD's eye, they go blind, run up a stump, fall
right down into the pan.
If you finnin' to hunt FOAD, always keep a hot pot of somethin' greezy at
the base of the trees in your huntin' walk, so they don't get away. Hot oil
is tough to git from.
Al
wrote:
> In article <albert.finney000-6E...@news-wc.giganews.com>,
You don't see much panda sauce in moose country, it's hard to tell when you
hit 'em, feels just like a coon. They don't get harvested by people who can
afford to get some sauce.
Over there in that place with all-you-can-eat restaurants, eating a panda
would be our equivalent of eating a bald eagle , but I bet that fat bear
tastes better and goes futther.
the wharf rat
That Chinese place near the hat shop by the museum in Portland
has it. I think they use canned panda, though.
Wankatoa
F03F18.110...@news-wc.giganews.com:
> No, liberals cannot behave in a fascist or totalitarian manner. Keep
> repeating that until everyone believes it. Or not.
>
> **Campus Leftists Don't Believe in Free Speech
> Conservative speakers now have bodyguards when they visit universities.**
>
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124000847769030489.html
>
Modern day reality is that most "conservatives" are slightly left of
center.
Most libeals are flaming marxists and ignorant tools.
Most far "rightists" are simply right of center.
The real far right, the Nazis, and such are a shadow of how far right they
used to be.
I mean, the KKK now says that we can live with the niggers, but seperately.
Used to be they advocated hanging them all, sending them back to Africa and
reverse reparations for all they've cost us and will cost the hard working
honest white men in the future.
So when someone calls me "conservative", they really mean that I'm slightly
left of center.
In my real life, they don't really understand that what they have is a
biding, silent, angry tiger in their midst, just wearing a dog's coat to
cover my stripes, and just waiting and biding my time until I can line them
all up and string them up, along with politicians, CEOs and child
molesters.
So when the call me a "conservative", it's actually funny.
--
--Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.
Al
Wankatoa <Wan...@anonmail.com> wrote:
Free-market, limited-government folks are fascists now, so it's hard to keep
up.
The core structure of lefitism/collectivism is so fatally flawed that the
true believers *have* to control the dictionary, or it would all fall apart.
Al
wrote:
> In article <albert.finney000-3B...@news-wc.giganews.com>,
It's like what they call "crab" dude - that wasn't panda, that was black
bear roadkill from upper New York State, soaked in artificial panda
flavoring.
Works ok in a salad though.
Sanders Kaufman
news:Xns9BF4BCC...@69.16.186.7...
> Modern day reality is that most "conservatives" are slightly left of
> center.
It would only appear that way from an EXTREME right-wing perspective.
Conservatives are right-of center - that's why they're called conservatives.
If they were left of center, they wouldn't be conservative anymore.
> The real far right, the Nazis, and such are a shadow of how far right they
The Nazis were proud to be leftists, you dolt.
the wharf rat
THE NAZIS WEREN'T LEFTISTS. FASCISM IS AN EXTREME RIGHTIST
POLITICAL MOVEMENT AND IS DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED TO MOVEMENTS BASED IN
THE LEFT OF CENTER SUCH AS SOCIALISM.
Geez. Haven't you people got that straight yet?
Al
wrote:
> In article <EVuHl.15105$%54....@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com>,
> Sanders Kaufman <bu...@kaufman.net> wrote:
> >
> >The Nazis were proud to be leftists, you dolt.
> >
>
> THE NAZIS WEREN'T LEFTISTS. FASCISM IS AN EXTREME RIGHTIST
> POLITICAL MOVEMENT AND IS DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED TO MOVEMENTS BASED IN
> THE LEFT OF CENTER SUCH AS SOCIALISM.
Right wingers are not statists, right wingers are not socialists. Fascism is
the right wing of socialism.
The right wing in history never had anything to do with it.
> Geez. Haven't you people got that straight yet?
Some prefer facts, not Stalinist history.
Mitchell Holman
news:albert.finney000-78...@news-wc.giganews.com:
>
>
> Some prefer facts, not Stalinist history.
>
And you prefer....?
"I prefer dickhead."
"Al", homosexual Republican, April 20, 2009
the wharf rat
FASCISM IS NOT SOCIALISM. FASCISM OPPOSES ALL FORMS OF
SOCIALISM. FASCISM EXALTS PRIVATE OWNERSHIP.
Do I need a larger font or something????
Al
wrote:
> In article <albert.finney000-78...@news-wc.giganews.com>,
> Al <albert.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >Fascism is the right wing of socialism.
> >
>
> FASCISM IS NOT SOCIALISM. FASCISM OPPOSES ALL FORMS OF
> SOCIALISM. FASCISM EXALTS PRIVATE OWNERSHIP.
Private ownership with state control, like what we're seeing now.
And the fasci was, um, er... socialist and, errrr... collectivist
You're Stuck on Stalin, the reason he called the Fascists and Nazoids "right
wing" is because of the nationalist element.
Communists were "world" for propaganda purposes, they saw the other two
socialist/collectivist entities as threats to the world workers movement.
None of the "ist's" were small-state, individual-based, free-market people.
Which is why they had nothing in common with conservatives then, or now.
> Do I need a larger font or something???
Just a question, how old are you and have you been a leftist all your life?
Al
Mitchell Holman <noe...@comcast.net> wrote:
Almost the best edit of the week.
To correct your vernacular fauxpaaaa, "dickhead" means the same thing to
gays as it does to straights, which is why it was relevant in the original
context, but a bit clumsy in your edited context.
Mitchell Holman
news:albert.finney000-9E...@news-wc.giganews.com:
I bow to your extensive knowledge of homosexual idioms.
Al
Mitchell Holman <noe...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Al <albert.f...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:albert.finney000-9E...@news-wc.giganews.com:
>
> > In article <Xns9BF5550FE1075...@216.196.97.130>,
> > Mitchell Holman <noe...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Al <albert.f...@gmail.com> wrote in
> >> news:albert.finney000-78...@news-wc.giganews.com:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Some prefer facts, not Stalinist history.
> >> >
> >>
> >> And you prefer....?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> "I prefer dickhead."
> >> "Al", homosexual Republican, April 20, 2009
> >
> >
> > Almost the best edit of the week.
> >
> > To correct your vernacular fauxpaaaa, "dickhead" means the same thing
> > to gays as it does to straights, which is why it was relevant in the
> > original context, but a bit clumsy in your edited context.
>
>
> I bow to your extensive knowledge of homosexual idioms.
You needn't bow, thank you.
But in this argument about Stalin and such, I wonder when you'll accuse me
of being a jewish homosexual.
Are you familiar with the rhetorical devices of totalitarianism from an
outsider's perspective?
Mitchell Holman
news:albert.finney000-0E...@news-wc.giganews.com:
You have intimate knowledge of totalitarianism
as well as homosexuality?
What an active social life you must have....
the wharf rat
Al <albert.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Private ownership with state control, like what we're seeing now.
>
controls the government.
>You're Stuck on Stalin, the reason he called the Fascists and Nazoids "right
>wing" is because of the nationalist element.
It has nothing to do with Stalin. Fascism is by definition
a right wing political movement. It was defined that way by its
creators and that definition remains accepted by everyone except neocon
knownothings who need to be able to link liberalism and bad stuff.
>Just a question, how old are you and have you been a leftist all your life?
I'm only 12, but I think that's 95 in human years.
Mike Smith
rat) wrote:
>In article <albert.finney000-94...@news-wc.giganews.com>,
>Al <albert.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>Private ownership with state control, like what we're seeing now.
>>
> Ass backward, as usual. Under Fascism private capital
>controls the government.
>
You don't know much about fascism, do you...
Fascists advocate the creation of a single-party state.[8] Fascists
believe that nations and races are in perpetual conflict whereby only
the strong can survive by being healthy, vital, and by asserting
themselves in combat against the weak.[9] Fascist governments forbid
and suppress criticism and opposition to the government and the
fascist movement.
fas·cism
often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as
that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the
individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government
headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social
regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
Where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society’s economic
processes through direct state operation of the means of production,
fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of
nominally private owners. Where socialism nationalized property
explicitly, fascism did so implicitly, by requiring owners to use
their property in the “national interest”—that is, as the autocratic
authority conceived it. (Nevertheless, a few industries were operated
by the state.) Where socialism abolished all market relations
outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations while
planning all economic activities. Where socialism abolished money and
prices, fascism controlled the monetary system and set all prices and
wages politically. In doing all this, fascism denatured the
marketplace.
I realize this blows a huge hole in your life's philosophy, but these
3 pieces of information only took me a few minutes to find. Why
didn't you do some basic research before you spewed the typical
mindless liberal mantra about fascism?
Mike Smith
Al
Mitchell Holman <noe...@comcast.net> wrote:
Ok, I see you've got a certain comfort zone, I'll let you go.
Al
wrote:
> In article <albert.finney000-94...@news-wc.giganews.com>,
> Al <albert.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >Private ownership with state control, like what we're seeing now.
> >
> Ass backward, as usual. Under Fascism private capital
> controls the government.
You're thinking more of corporatism.
>
> >You're Stuck on Stalin, the reason he called the Fascists and Nazoids "right
> >wing" is because of the nationalist element.
>
> It has nothing to do with Stalin. Fascism is by definition
> a right wing political movement.
Defined as such by Stalin.
> It was defined that way by its
> creators and that definition remains accepted by everyone except neocon
> knownothings who need to be able to link liberalism and bad stuff.
You just don't know your history.
> >Just a question, how old are you and have you been a leftist all your life?
>
> I'm only 12, but I think that's 95 in human years.
Yiu *really* need to study actual history.
Question, was it the Progressives or conservatives of the day which regarded
Fascism as a viable governance?
Who first coined the term "Liberal fascism"?
Al
Mike Smith <m...@wt.net> wrote:
It's like trying to get someone to change their religion. Good luck with
that.
the wharf rat
>
>Fascists advocate the creation of a single-party state.[8] Fascists
You're assuming your conclusion again, Cinderblock.
"Liberals are bad. Fascists are bad. Therefore liberals
are fascists."
>their property in the 渡ational interest迫that is, as the autocratic
>authority conceived it. (Nevertheless, a few industries were operated
Please don't quote wikipedia as an authoritative source. Try
actually reading a book. You might start with Pohl's work on Daimler-Benz
or Mommsen's history of Volkswagen.
Those who do not study history are doomed to repeatitively make
fools of themselves on Usenet.
the wharf rat
Fascism is corporatist but not all corporatists are fascists.
>Defined as such by Stalin.
No, as defined by Benito Mussolini. You remember him, right?
From his "Definition of Fascism" published in 1932 with Giovanni Gentile:
"Fascism is the complete opposite of Marxian Socialism [...] Fascism
denies that class-war can be the preponderant force in the transformation of
society [...] Fascism denies, in democracy, the absurd conventional untruth
of political equality [...] Fascism combats the whole complex system of
democratic ideology, and repudiates it"
Thus Fascism opposes both socialism in particular and liberalism
in general.
>You just don't know your history.
I not only know my history, I know my political science and my
general ledger entries.
>Who first coined the term "Liberal fascism"?
Stalin! In an attempt to do exactly what you and your buddies
are doing: discredit his liberal opposition by linking them with an
unpopular political movement despite the fact that they had nothing to
do with it.
Mike Smith
So I post 3 different definitions of fascism, all of them refuting
your idiotic "feelings" about fascism, and you snip them all and whine
about Wiki.
I understand why you MUST do that.
Mike Smith
the wharf rat
Mike Smith <m...@wt.net> wrote:
>
>So I post 3 different definitions of fascism, all of them refuting
>your idiotic "feelings" about fascism, and you snip them all and whine
>about Wiki.
It doesn't matter how many incorrect unsupported "definitions"
you post. As long as you insist on making up data everyone will continue
to laugh at you.
I've cited several professors of political science as well as
the originators of the political system in question. All you've done
is cut and paste from wikipedia. Don't you feel stupid trying to claim
that wikipedia has a better definition of fascism than Mussolini published
in 1932?
You're such a pathetic dope, Cinderblock.
Al
wrote:
> In article <albert.finney000-38...@news-wc.giganews.com>,
> Al <albert.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >You're thinking more of corporatism.
> >
>
> Fascism is corporatist but not all corporatists are fascists.
Elements of corporatism, like our sustem, but no, it was Fascism, not
corporatism - the gov't took control of businesses as they saw fit, like if
the bank was in bad shape, or the car company was losing money, then they
would basically call the shots, decide which CEO's should resign.
That's not corporatism, it was the "third way" of collectivism, which was
the dominant ideal of Europe of the day. They were all competing for the
same slice of the collectivist pie.
Statists all.
Who is statist today, the American left or the American right?
> >Defined as such by Stalin.
>
> No, as defined by Benito Mussolini. You remember him, right?
> From his "Definition of Fascism" published in 1932 with Giovanni Gentile:
>
> "Fascism is the complete opposite of Marxian Socialism [...] Fascism
> denies that class-war can be the preponderant force in the transformation of
> society [...] Fascism denies, in democracy, the absurd conventional untruth
> of political equality [...] Fascism combats the whole complex system of
> democratic ideology, and repudiates it"
The complete opposite of Marxist *Socialism*, a better *collective solution*.
Look at the party symbol, does that look like something a right-wing
anti-collectivist would choose?
> Thus Fascism opposes both socialism in particular and liberalism
> in general.
>
> >You just don't know your history.
>
> I not only know my history, I know my political science and my
> general ledger entries.
>
> >Who first coined the term "Liberal fascism"?
>
> Stalin!
HG Wells. Fascism was not a bad word to the left back then.
> In an attempt to do exactly what you and your buddies
> are doing: discredit his liberal opposition by linking them with an
> unpopular political movement despite the fact that they had nothing to
> do with it.
So you think this a Frankfort School conspiracy, eh?
It's simply history. The left has much more in common with fascism and the
other collectivist experiments than today's conservative.
Unless, of course, they taught you in school that conservative ideology is
rooted in collectivism and statism.
Pitchforks&Torches
"the wharf rat" <wr...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:gspvvs$dom$1...@reader1.panix.com...
> In article <q7j0v41005g26pqh6...@4ax.com>,
> Mike Smith <m...@wt.net> wrote:
>>>
>>You don't know much about fascism, do you...
>>
> Only what I know from reading Hitler and Mussolini.
>
>>Fascists advocate the creation of a single-party state.[8] Fascists
>
> You're assuming your conclusion again, Cinderblock.
>
> "Liberals are bad. Fascists are bad. Therefore liberals
> are fascists."
>
>>authority conceived it. (Nevertheless, a few industries were operated
>
> Please don't quote wikipedia as an authoritative source. Try
> actually reading a book. You might start with Pohl's work on Daimler-Benz
> or Mommsen's history of Volkswagen.
>
> Those who do not study history are doomed to repeatitively make
> fools of themselves on Usenet.
>
Mikey is kinda late to Steve Rudd's Jonah Goldberg Lemon Party.
He's got some heavy reading and catch-up sucking to do. But, he's found
him a willing mentor, and they do seem to play well together.
Plungerwrangler is particularly well-suited by his very nature to be a
Goldberg fanboy.
He shares SteverR's embrace of the very basic tenet of the ' Goldberg
Principle ' :
"You can prove any thesis to be true if you make up your own definitions of
words."
Mike Smith
rat) wrote:
>In article <tdf1v4h5acv49t55u...@4ax.com>,
>Mike Smith <m...@wt.net> wrote:
>>
>>So I post 3 different definitions of fascism, all of them refuting
>>your idiotic "feelings" about fascism, and you snip them all and whine
>>about Wiki.
>
> It doesn't matter how many incorrect unsupported "definitions"
>you post. As long as you insist on making up data everyone will continue
>to laugh at you.
Of course... Posting 3 different sources is unsupported definitions or
me making up data...
You feeding your fantasies, again?
>
> I've cited several professors of political science as well as
>the originators of the political system in question. All you've done
>is cut and paste from wikipedia. Don't you feel stupid trying to claim
>that wikipedia has a better definition of fascism than Mussolini published
>in 1932?
I never claimed that. And I know you aren't the brightest person
around, so I'll remind you that only 1 of the 3 definitions I posted
came from Wiki.
From your little rant, I'll assume you think everything from Wiki is
wrong. Why?
Mike Smith
Al
"Pitchforks&Torches" <ShrubCoI...@Gitmo.net> wrote:
Which is why the left relies on chgnging language.
What is the definition of "is"?
What is the war on terror called now?
The left is entirely predictable. To everyone but themselves.
Sanders Kaufman
news:or13v49a3a8ll5jqk...@4ax.com...
> Of course... Posting 3 different sources is unsupported definitions or
> me making up data...
When you cite other people who repeat the rumor you repeat - it's not really
a "source".
A "source", by defnition, is original and authoritative.
Referencing right-wing web sites proves nothing - except that you're a
nut-job.
Wankatoa
scribblednews:albert.finney000-B1...@news-wc.giganews.com:
> Free-market, limited-government folks are fascists now, so it's hard to
> keep up.
>
> The core structure of lefitism/collectivism is so fatally flawed that
> the true believers *have* to control the dictionary, or it would all
> fall apart.
>
Well, like all religions and utopian ideals, libealism is a childish belief
system that caters to cowards, the incompetant, intellectually lazy, the
very young, the stupid, women and children....all those same types who
gravitate to all the other world's religions.
In America, organized theocratic-based religion has taken a back seat to
the religion of liberalism. As the youth of the 1960's eschewed organized
religion, the stupid, uneducated, easily led useful tools and fools found
the new religion of "libberalism".
Now they're our teachers and professors, like evil little bole weavils,
they burrowed and eat out the heart of our children in our schools, and now
THEIR children are just as stupid and ignorant and superstitious as their
parents, and teachers.
Like all religions, liberalism doesn't brook opposition or obstruction; for
to actually listen and think rationionally your childish belief system will
crumble and thus your ego along with it.
And people will kill you to bolster and keep their self esteem, pack animal
status quo intact.
Hence the great migration of America's ignorant and stupid towards the
religion of liberalism.
It's so easy to just accept...just like the average German's attitude
towards Jews in 1940.
Liberalism means never having to say "I'm a thinker".
The diference between a Talibaner, a Liberal and a facist is simply a
diference of nomenclature, geographical area and accidental birth.
--
--Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.
Wankatoa
scribblednews:EVuHl.15105$%54....@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com:
I guess you didn't read my initial post, about how "conservatives" are
actually left of center, comparitively speaking if you compare and contrast
the "conservative" of 1930, 40,- 50-70s.
Most republicans today are very left of center of the average white
southern democrat of the 1950-70's.
You only THINK they're right of center because that's what has been drummed
into your empty fertile young brain at a young age by the leftist press,
schools and media.
And to offer up proof of my theory, just ask yourself this: "Is the press
and media in the last 30 years left, center or right of the average
person's way of thinking?".
Of course it's left; it's been studied and proven time and again.
And now you're going to tell me, that at your young age, you've resisted
the psyops propaganda from tv, books, magazines, school, college, movies,
all print and video, from government and from all your friends all these
years and are actuallly a free thinking independent, not influenced by any
of this?
right...
Al
"Sanders Kaufman" <bu...@kaufman.net> wrote:
> "Mike Smith" <m...@wt.net> wrote in message
> news:or13v49a3a8ll5jqk...@4ax.com...
>
> > Of course... Posting 3 different sources is unsupported definitions or
> > me making up data...
>
> When you cite other people who repeat the rumor you repeat - it's not really
> a "source".
> A "source", by defnition, is original and authoritative.
As an educator, can you direct us to an authoritative source?
>
> Referencing right-wing web sites proves nothing - except that you're a
> nut-job.
So we should read what?
the wharf rat
Wankatoa <Wan...@anonmail.com> wrote:
>
>Well, like all religions and utopian ideals, libealism is a childish belief
>system that caters to cowards, the incompetant, intellectually lazy, the
>very young, the stupid, women and children....all those same types who
>gravitate to all the other world's religions.
>
"Of all the varieties of virtues, liberalism is the most beloved."
Aristotle
"As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow
that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community
are equally entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever
to see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality."
George Washington
"The liberals have not softened their view of actuality to make
themselves live closer to the dream, but instead sharpen their perceptions
and fight to make the dream actuality or give up the battle in despair."
Margaret Mead
"Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence;
conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear."
William Gladstone
"And in that mighty company I shall not now feel ashamed"
Theoden, King of Rohan
the wharf rat
Mike Smith <m...@wt.net> wrote:
>
>Of course... Posting 3 different sources is unsupported definitions or
>me making up data...
>
I'm sorry, Cinderblock. I forget that not everyone has the
advantage of the kind of rigourous academic training I've been lucky
to receive.
It's not a source unless you can attribute it to an author and
tell other people where it comes from. That's why wikipedia isn't considered
a source, and why those bullshit white power websites you paste from aren't
considered to be much of anything, either.
>And I know you aren't the brightest person around
Oh, you praise me with faint damns...
Al
All fine and well, my concern is the stupids who sign on, we have a record
number now.
A recent Rasmussen poll shows that a whopping 53% or Americans prefer
capitalism over Socialism, but scarier, 27% don't know what they prefer.
It'is inevitable that this structure will be corrupted by the collectivist,
they are really good at what they do. Castro hung in there and won.
We're just too ripe. This is their time, we'll just have to hunker down and
see what the kids are gonna do with the new toy.
Wankatoa
scribblednews:gstpmm$pi0$1...@reader1.panix.com:
Once again, you modern day facist ignorant "liberals" and "progressives"
seek to co-opt your dead white men's honest and intellectual thoughts and
saying and attempt to link them to your modern day facist socialist agenda.
The later day "liberal" was akin to you and your modern day liberals as
white is to black.
<sigh> and you never seem to stop trying.
It might work on your intellectually ignorant and stupid mouth breathing
liberal friends, but not here.
Wankatoa
Also....remember, "liberals" in the days these people were quoted, thought of
liberalism as not working children to death under the age of 7 in coal mines
(enacted in england post 1900), women not being able to vote, that public
executions be quick and speedy without too much torture, that religion was
the key to all laws and that the darker races were inferior and if they go
uppity, they should be exterminated.
I like your liberals!
Can I be a liberal like the ones you quoted?
Gee, if only you liberals today tried to be like the "liberals" of
yesteryear!
the wharf rat
Wankatoa <Wan...@anonmail.com> wrote:
>
>you seek to co-opt your dead white men's honest and intellectual thoughts
>>
>> "The liberals have not softened their view of actuality to make
>> themselves live closer to the dream, but instead sharpen their
>> perceptions and fight to make the dream actuality or give up the battle
>> in despair."
>>
>> Margaret Mead
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>saying and attempt to link them to your modern day facist socialist agenda.
You can't be a socialist and a fascist, Maps. It's one or the other.
Al
wrote:
> In article <Xns9BF877...@69.16.186.7>,
Fascism was the new and improved third way collectivism, which is why the
left wing of the US, not the right wing, considered it viable.
Pitchforks&Torches
"Al" <albert.f...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:albert.finney000-70...@news-wc.giganews.com...
WHACK!!!
Damn, Steve Rudd! That reads like you're tossing a word salad. Maybe you
should check the safety on yer word salad shooter....
Have a good week at yer J.O.B., and work harder: I'm thinking of gettin' me
one of them free houses, and a free car, and sittin' on my porch sippin'
champagne and eating your slice of the pie 'cause I voted for President
Obama. Membership has its privileges....
Pitchforks&Torches
WHACK!!!
Don't sweat it, SteveR! You will all be kept in family units.
Oh, sorry - I forgot....well, we do have some lovely single cells.
And you'll get the same meal choices as the famous Club Gitmo menu!
But don't eat too much, it'll mess up your manly physique.
'A Growing Threat at Guantanamo? Detainees Fatten Up'
http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=2521953&page=1
Nothin' to worry about SteveR. Say, how are your kidneys?
Ever have any problems with 'em? And your eyes?
Any problems with yer corneas?
Pitchforks&Torches
WHACK!!!
Thas right, Lil' Adolph! Eberyone knows those lefties invented these
phrases :
enhanced interogation,
faith-based initiative,
uniter (not a divider),
born-again,
enemy combatants,
mission accomplished,
free-speech zones,
compassionate conservative,
family values,
Healthy Forest,
Clear Skies,
human-animal hybrids,
bringin' Democracy,
hard work,
war president,
tax relief.
snicker....
It's the Democractic Party plan to force you to have to buy new
dictionaries.
>
> What is the definition of "is"?
WHACK!!!
It's the third person singular present indicative of be, moron.
>
> What is the war on terror called now?
WHACK!!!
It was changed back in July of 2005 to 'The global struggle against the
enemies of freedom', then it morphed into The Global Struggle Against
Violent Extremism.
>
> The left is entirely predictable. To everyone but themselves.
WHACK!!!!WHACK!!!!WHACK!!!!
Then I guess you saw that mallet comin', eh?
Wankatoa
@reader1.panix.com:
> In article <EVuHl.15105$%54....@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com>,
> Sanders Kaufman <bu...@kaufman.net> wrote:
>>
>>The Nazis were proud to be leftists, you dolt.
>>
>
> THE NAZIS WEREN'T LEFTISTS. FASCISM IS AN EXTREME RIGHTIST
> POLITICAL MOVEMENT AND IS DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED TO MOVEMENTS BASED IN
> THE LEFT OF CENTER SUCH AS SOCIALISM.
>
> Geez. Haven't you people got that straight yet?
>
>
Gee, those who refuse to study history, are doomed to endlessly repeat
spewing of yellow intellectual grunny all over their bibs.
Sisyphisian infantile grossness.
Wankatoa
scribblednews:albert.finney000-78...@news-wc.giganews.com:
>
>> Geez. Haven't you people got that straight yet?
>
> Some prefer facts, not Stalinist history.
>
Stalin's useful fools are still amongst us..
the wharf rat
Wankatoa <Wan...@anonmail.com> wrote:
>
>Sisyphisian infantile grossness.
>
Asshole.
Al
"Pitchforks&Torches" <ShrubCoI...@Gitmo.net> wrote:
Are you in a position to suggest such a guarantee?
> Oh, sorry - I forgot....well, we do have some lovely single cells.
> And you'll get the same meal choices as the famous Club Gitmo menu!
> But don't eat too much, it'll mess up your manly physique.
I think you're suggesting nutrition is not a private matter, man of steel
and flaming straw, who would dare suggest such a thing?
> 'A Growing Threat at Guantanamo? Detainees Fatten Up
mmmmm.... bacon.....
Al
"Pitchforks&Torches" <ShrubCoI...@Gitmo.net> wrote:
I don't have one.
> Have a good week at yer J.O.B., and work harder: I'm thinking of gettin' me
> one of them free houses, and a free car, and sittin' on my porch sippin'
> champagne and eating your slice of the pie 'cause I voted for President
> Obama. Membership has its privileges....
Well, I was wondering...
Mike Smith
rat) wrote:
> It's not a source unless you can attribute it to an author and
>tell other people where it comes from. That's why wikipedia isn't considered
>a source, and why those bullshit white power websites you paste from aren't
>considered to be much of anything, either.
>
So, in your world, if the fascist definition is different from your
little delusional beliefs, then the definition MUST have come from
white power websites... Or Wiki... {Free clue: One did come from Wiki}
Your fantasies do crack me up. They are so damn stupid, they are
hilarious!
Would you like for me to post the web pages I quoted? I can, or you
can spend about 2 minutes goggling them for your own self.
Mike Smith
the wharf rat
Mike Smith <m...@wt.net> wrote:
>
>So, in your world, if the fascist definition is different from your
>little delusional beliefs
>
who think that everything they read on the Internet must be true.
Look. You say that the correct definition of fascism is one
thing and I say that it's another. I can show you that my definition is
likely to be correct because I can name political scientists who agree with
me, and tell you where and when they said what I claim they said. I've also
shown you that the political leaders who invented the movement defined the
term exactly as I do, and I can show you when and where they said that.
The reason that's important is because it lets you go and see for
yourself that the political leaders and political scientists that I say
agree with me actually do. Otherwise...I could be making it all up! See,
Cinderblock, that's the reason that you can't believe everything you see
on the web. Because they COULD BE MAKING IT ALL UP! and if they never tell
you where you can go to see where they got the information they're using as
the basis for their reasoning or their opinions you have NO WAY OF KNOWING
IF THEY'RE MAKING IT ALL UP OR NOT.
Faith has its place in life, Cinderblock, but your faith in what
you see published on the World Wide Web is very much misplaced. Get thee
to a library. Why woulds't thou be a breeder of ninnies?
Lol. Ophelia Cinderblock. You're the more deceiv'd, too.
Mike Smith
rat) wrote:
>In article <68iav41op0raefndq...@4ax.com>,
>Mike Smith <m...@wt.net> wrote:
>>
>>So, in your world, if the fascist definition is different from your
>>little delusional beliefs
>>
> No, Cinderblock, but in my world we point and laugh at people
>who think that everything they read on the Internet must be true.
>
> Look. You say that the correct definition of fascism is one
>thing and I say that it's another. I can show you that my definition is
>likely to be correct because I can name political scientists who agree with
>me, and tell you where and when they said what I claim they said. I've also
>shown you that the political leaders who invented the movement defined the
>term exactly as I do, and I can show you when and where they said that.
>
And yet, you stated:
THE NAZIS WEREN'T LEFTISTS. FASCISM IS AN EXTREME RIGHTIST
POLITICAL MOVEMENT AND IS DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED TO MOVEMENTS BASED IN
THE LEFT OF CENTER SUCH AS SOCIALISM.
And have been proven wrong.
And you stated:
FASCISM IS NOT SOCIALISM. FASCISM OPPOSES ALL FORMS OF
SOCIALISM. FASCISM EXALTS PRIVATE OWNERSHIP.
And have been proven wrong.
Fascism controls business, it does not encourage private ownership.
Socialism attempts to control business, it does not encourage private
ownership.
I know you will not understand this... You are too wrapped up in your
own little delusion about fascism.
Mike Smith
the wharf rat
Mike Smith <m...@wt.net> wrote:
>
>And yet, you stated:
Yes. And I have previously provided cites showing supporting
data for those positions.
>Fascism controls business, it does not encourage private ownership.
>Socialism attempts to control business, it does not encourage private
>ownership.
A cinderblock can't construct a proper argument. Mike Smith
can't construct a proper argument. Therefore Mike Smith is a cinderblock.
"Got one of those flashes,
I've been here before..."
Thomas Spillman
I hesitate to get involved in this discussion. However, I found
a thoughtful piece on this subject from Lawrence University. It
may add to this discussion, or, at least, be a little thought
provoking...
Here is it:
http://www.lawrence.edu/sorg/OBJECTIVISM/socfasc.html
Back to lurking...
Tom
Al
Wankatoa <Wan...@anonmail.com> wrote:
> Al <albert.f...@gmail.com>
> scribblednews:albert.finney000-78...@news-wc.giganews.com:
>
>
> >
> >> Geez. Haven't you people got that straight yet?
> >
> > Some prefer facts, not Stalinist history.
> >
>
> Stalin's useful fools are still amongst us..
Of course they are, andt hey're experiencing a Glorious People's Revolution.
It's a great time to be a fascist.
the wharf rat
Thomas Spillman <tspi...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>
> http://www.lawrence.edu/sorg/OBJECTIVISM/socfasc.html
>
I appreciate the input, Tom, but your author assumes his conclusion
early on:
Paragraph 2 states "let us begin by examining examples of each
(i.e. socialism and fascism), paragraph 3 defines socialism and gives
some examples, and then paragraph 4 merrily continues with "Now that we
have these two concepts (socialism and fascism) squarely on the table..."
He then proceeds to conclude that since the only difference between the
two is how they treat private property we can effectively consider them to be
identical.
Well, that's...incorrect... Even if that WERE the only difference
it's like saying that the only difference between a garter snake and a
rattler is two teeth. The treatment of private property is a *critical*
in fatc a *defining* difference. He also makes factual errors: private
property rights under Fascism were not nominal if for no other reason than
that the Fascist militaries required the support of the industrial royalty.
Where would Hitler have been without Krups and Benz?
Al
wrote:
> In article <gt4eql$tfs$1...@localhost.localdomain>,
Ok, let's take this to a logical conclusion.
The new operational definition of fascism:
"A political ideology which stresses small government, federalism, free
market capitalism, low taxes, individual responsibility, religious freedom,
robust national security and property rights, free trade, and a commitment
to supporting emerging democracies."
Yep, that's Moussolini's fascism, word for word.
the wharf rat
For _some_ definition of logic. Great Ghu, Al, the closest
you've ever come to "logic" is fire ant killer.
>Yep, that's Moussolini's fascism, word for word.
Mussolini explictly states that Fascism opposes all forms of
Socialism. That seems pretty straightforward to me.
Al
wrote:
> In article <albert.finney000-A2...@news-wc.giganews.com>,
> Al <albert.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >Ok, let's take this to a logical conclusion.
> >
>
> For _some_ definition of logic. Great Ghu, Al, the closest
> you've ever come to "logic" is fire ant killer.
The left has been calling conservatives fascist for quite some time now, and
given the basics of conservatism (conveniently snipped), you're calling *me*
illogical?
Wow.
> >Yep, that's Moussolini's fascism, word for word.
>
> Mussolini explictly states that Fascism opposes all forms of
> Socialism. That seems pretty straightforward to me.
Yes, he replaced it with the third way collectivism.
You are efficient at snipping my salient points, here are some to keep you
busy:
If Fascism is of the right, please explain why leading proponents of Fascism
were so enamored of noted American Progressives such as William James and
Woodrow Wilson?
Likewise, if Italian Fascism was endorsed as a very viable form of
governance by it's American Progressive contemporaries, why then is fascism
'right-wing".?
It makes no sense, conservatism and progressivism have an actual *history*
in regards to fascism, and history shows that conservatism never has, and
never will endorse the statist objectives of fascism, or any of the versions
of European collectivism.
the wharf rat
Al <albert.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>The left has been calling conservatives fascist for quite some time now, and
>
anti civil liberty, anti personal liberty, use of the military to
further corporate interests, looks like a size 9 from here. Will you be
wearing these home?
>You are efficient at snipping my salient points
Brevity. Soul. Wit.
Included text bad.
>If Fascism is of the right, please explain why leading proponents of Fascism
>were so enamored of noted American Progressives such as William James and
>Woodrow Wilson?
No one outside of a handful of editors at the National Review
believes that.
>history shows that conservatism never has, and never will endorse the
>statist objectives of fascism
BWAHAHAHAHA! Those are the same people that pass laws telling me
that buying beer on Sunday is evil and enacting criminal penalties for
touching certain parts of my lover's body even if no one else sees me
do it? The same people responsible for the largest increase in the size,
power, and reach of the American governmental buearacracy in the country's
history? Never endorse statist objectives? Since you still consider
Bush eligible for canonization (St. George of Kennebunkport, patron of
unnecessary land wars in Asia?) I'll offer Pinochet as the ultimate
example of right-wing conservative statist.
Mike Smith
rat) wrote:
> A cinderblock can't construct a proper argument. Mike Smith
>can't construct a proper argument. Therefore Mike Smith is a cinderblock.
>
Mike Smith
Mike Smith
rat) wrote:
>In article <albert.finney000-1F...@news-wc.giganews.com>,
>Al <albert.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>You are efficient at snipping my salient points
>
> Brevity. Soul. Wit.
>
Wit? From a witless Rat...
That is hilariously funny!!!
Thanks for the laugh Wharfie.
Mike Smith
Al
wrote:
> In article <albert.finney000-1F...@news-wc.giganews.com>,
> Al <albert.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >The left has been calling conservatives fascist for quite some time now, and
> >
> If the shoe fits... Let's see, imperialist,
Kennedy?
> authoritarian,
Heh, statists complaining of authoritarians.
The docrine of political correctness, the call for revival of fariness
doctrine, hate crimes, hate speech, physical attacks on dissenters and a
general hostility to free speech, , "The argument on global warming is
over", yawn
"Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed
your cynicism."
"Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual."
"Nutrition is not a private matter!"
(the last one's a nazi youth thing, but what the hell, it fit"
> anti civil liberty, anti personal liberty, use of the military to
> further corporate interests, looks like a size 9 from here. Will you be
> wearing these home?
You base your entire argument on some acceptance that all the left accuses
the right of conservatism of is unquestionably true, and that the left coyld
never be guilty of any of this.
IOW, "The argument is over", how dare contradict accepted dogma
> >You are efficient at snipping my salient points
>
> Brevity. Soul. Wit.
That applies to the writer, not the reader, but let's just run on the
assumption that if you snip a paragraph which positions my argument, you
have your reasons.
> Included text bad.
>
> >If Fascism is of the right, please explain why leading proponents of Fascism
> >
> >were so enamored of noted American Progressives such as William James and
> >Woodrow Wilson?
>
> No one outside of a handful of editors at the National Review
> believes that.
Do you believe that NR editors are the only ones to broach this element of
history, and have made up evidence from whole cloth?
> >history shows that conservatism never has, and never will endorse the
> >statist objectives of fascism
>
> BWAHAHAHAHA! Those are the same people that pass laws telling me
> that buying beer on Sunday is evil
How many counties voted to go dry in the US in the past decade?
And you might want to look into MADD, they are not exactly a right-wing
organization. And watch what you ea and where you smoke, it could be
unhelthy and even illegal.
> and enacting criminal penalties for
> touching certain parts of my lover's body even if no one else sees me
> do it?
Is another one of those laws you think just got passed?
> The same people responsible for the largest increase in the size,
> power, and reach of the American governmental buearacracy in the country's
> history? Never endorse statist objectives?
Are you referring to The Great Society, or the planned growth of government
and spending under Obama?
> Since you still consider
> Bush eligible for canonization (St. George of Kennebunkport, patron of
> unnecessary land wars in Asia?)
That's a poor assumption given his approval rating among conservatives, and
again you insert "facts" such as "unnecessary land wars" that are entirely
subjective. It's almost <gasp> an authoritarian rhetorical device, and not
particularly somewhere you want to go to defend Progressives as the
un-fascist, given the bay of Pigs and some other adventures.
> I'll offer Pinochet as the ultimate
> example of right-wing conservative statist.
I'll offer Moussoulini, Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, and a few others I can
back to you on.
John Black
> >history shows that conservatism never has, and never will endorse the
> >statist objectives of fascism
>
> BWAHAHAHAHA! Those are the same people that pass laws telling me
> that buying beer on Sunday is evil
Perhaps conservatives are responsible for that stupid law -- I don't really
know. But most of these kinds of restrictions on personal liberties (such
as the smoking ban in bars and pool halls, what you can eat, which kinds of
lightbulbs you are allowed to buy, etc. etc. etc.) are driven by liberals.
> and enacting criminal penalties for
> touching certain parts of my lover's body even if no one else sees me
> do it?
Which part of his or her body would that be? Please also cite the law that
prohibits you from touching it.
> The same people responsible for the largest increase in the size,
> power, and reach of the American governmental buearacracy in the country's
> history?
I think you mean the largest since Obama and this congress.
John Black
Sanders Kaufman
news:MPG.246007cd6...@news.motzarella.org...
>> BWAHAHAHAHA! Those are the same people that pass laws telling me
>> that buying beer on Sunday is evil
>
> Perhaps conservatives are responsible for that stupid law -- I don't
> really
Well, they *called* themselves conservatives.
But then they gave us the most liberal expansion of government in the
history of the union.