It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Fascism Is Far Left, Not Far Right on Political Spectrum

page: 78
23
<< 75  76  77    79  80  81 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 09:58 AM
link   
While this conversation has been unpleasant at points, I have to say, I haven't had any online discussion that has made me think and question my own knowledge, belief and prejudices quite so much in quite some time.

I am more clear than in quite some time that the terms "right and left" (and even the analogs liberal and conservative, Republican and Democrat) are useless in consideration of profitable conversation and certainly in terms of getting things done politically.

When we pick a "side" and defend everything about that "side" we are forced to defend the bad alongside the good.

There's no requirement for that partisan allegiance.

President Washington was so right in his Farewell Address (1796) (this is a bit long, sorry):




I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.


True then, true now.




posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 10:07 AM
link   
a reply to: AboveBoard

Right, it doesn't need to be physical but it is coercive.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 10:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

It has certainly shown the need for clarity of definition of terms before beginning to discuss anything.

Unfortunately the book I purchased has strict copyright assertions that will not allow me to post directly from it without permission of the author.

That's a bummer! But I do understand. I look forward to reading it - its about modernity and fascism, which is so appropriate to this discussion. It's titled "Modernism and Fascism: The Sense of a Beginning Under Mussolini and Hitler," by Roger Griffin.

One important note is the "palingenesis myth" - the myth of rebirth which is, in Griffin's extensive research, the absolute key to the definition of fascism, along with a milieu of conflict (i.e. post-war Europe, or perhaps the current disruptions in the Middle East from whence ISIS is emerging?), that allow extreme nationalism coupled with racism to flourish into its own State. (According to Griffin)

We simply cannot paint the general population of conservatives or liberals with that brush, nor are we in the same conditions of conflict as post-war Europe here in the US. The extremist elements of the US, even those that want to "take back our Country" in a violent way, are too disorganized and marginal to matter at this point.

The extremes are out there, and some might dream fascist dreams...just not your average American Joe of whatever political ilk.


edit on 30-8-2015 by AboveBoard because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 10:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Semicollegiate

I wasn't asking what side of the spectrum you thought they were on.

And, it doesn't change the fact that it happened around the time which you claim was closest to "A small government that has only serves as legal dispute resolution."

Sure it was a tug of war between the federalists and the classic liberals but it wasn't one sided even with Jefferson as president.


It was one-sided. John Adams was the only Federalist ever elected. Between Adams and the War Between the States, all but two presidents were small government states rights Democrats, and the Federalist Party dissolved.


en.wikipedia.org...#/media/File
artyVotes-Presidents.png
US Presidential Election Parties 1788 to present



Also a government structure existed in the colonies before the revolution and in the states after the revolution.


Those governments were small governments. In Pennsylvania there was 1 State Assemblyman per 7000 population typically.

Number of State Legislature Assemblymen in PA 1788

journals.psu.edu...
About 65

Population of Pennsylvania 1790 Census.

en.wikipedia.org...

6683 people per Assemblyman.

Mostly the State government resolved legal disputes because there was not much else for it to do.

Not AC, but certainly the small government that is never honestly presented in Lefty suffused mainstream history.

The government on the Right is small, so as to provide genuine representaion.


edit on 30-8-2015 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 10:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: xuenchen



Oh but Goldberg has great credibility compared to the "sources" used on the wiki page that "creates" a definition of Fascism that even you can't seem to post any full versions of books for simple comparison.

I suppose you chose to ignore the criticisms pointing out the flaws in his book. Typical.



Have you found any of those yet btw?


Yep we have provided that among the messy 60+ pages.


Perhaps you could deign to articulate one or two?

Preferably in your own words, that is only fair and shows your understanding of the subject.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 11:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: xuenchen



Oh but Goldberg has great credibility compared to the "sources" used on the wiki page that "creates" a definition of Fascism that even you can't seem to post any full versions of books for simple comparison.

I suppose you chose to ignore the criticisms pointing out the flaws in his book. Typical.



Have you found any of those yet btw?


Yep we have provided that among the messy 60+ pages.


Perhaps you could deign to articulate one or two?

Preferably in your own words, that is only fair and shows your understanding of the subject.



Try this:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

- AB



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 11:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate

Fascinating historical perspective.

So what do you do with a population of 318.9 million (2014) spread over 3.806 million mi²?



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 11:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: xuenchen



The criticizers are biased and Left Wing partners.


Now I know you deliberately ignored those criticisms.


Here's an example that isn't left wing:



"Austin W. Bramwell wrote in The American Conservative:

Repeatedly, Goldberg fails to recognize a reductio ad absurdum.


Based on what premise?


In no case does Goldberg uncover anything more ominous than a coincidence. ... In elaborating liberalism's similarities to fascism, Goldberg shows a near superstitious belief in the power of taxonomy.


The Liberals make a new category. Right Leftism. The power of taxonomy.
The Left always accuse of what they themselves are doing. Blinding rhetorical glare.



... Goldberg falsely saddles liberalism not just with relativism but with all manner of alleged errors having nothing to do with liberalism. ... Not only does Goldberg misunderstand liberalism, but he refuses to see it simply as liberalism...
Liberal Fascism reads less like an extended argument than as a catalogue of conservative intellectual clichés, often irrelevant to the supposed point of the book. ... Liberal Fascism completes Goldberg's transformation from chipper humorist into humorless ideologue."


The second half of Goldberg's book is totally republican pundit.

The first half, however, is simply a description of the socialist aspects of Fascism and the admiration paid to Fascism by Liberals who wanted to copy it.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 11:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: AboveBoard

We simply cannot paint the general population of conservatives or liberals with that brush, nor are we in the same conditions of conflict as post-war Europe here in the US. The extremist elements of the US, even those that want to "take back our Country" in a violent way, are too disorganized and marginal to matter at this point.

The extremes are out there, and some might dream fascist dreams...just not your average American Joe of whatever political ilk.



I couldn't have stated this fact better myself. Well done.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 11:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate

Did you provide us with your definition of socialism?

If so, I missed it. Could you let us know what you think in regard to that term?

Thank you kindly.




posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 11:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate
You can argue that state governments are small. Well, in the US, they are smaller than the federal government but that doesn't mean that they are small and it doesn't exclude them from being authoritarian.
edit on 30-8-2015 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 11:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Semicollegiate
You can argue that state governments are small. Well, in the US, they are smaller than the federal government but that doesn't mean that they are small and it doesn't exclude them from being authoritarian.


It's the small rural towns that might be more "immune" to big government interferences.




posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 11:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Semicollegiate
You can argue that state governments are small. Well, in the US, they are smaller than the federal government but that doesn't mean that they are small and it doesn't exclude them from being authoritarian.


True but, this is where I rely on migration (otherwise known as 'voting with your feet').



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 11:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Semicollegiate
You can argue that state governments are small. Well, in the US, they are smaller than the federal government but that doesn't mean that they are small and it doesn't exclude them from being authoritarian.


It's the small rural towns that might be more "immune" to big government interferences.



At what point (what are the criteria, elements, qualities, etc.) does a government transform from large to small (and vice-versa)?

I know you don't like to answer questions, but even a short one or two sentence response would be greatly appreciated by me.

Thank you.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 11:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
It's the small rural towns that might be more "immune" to big government interferences.

A town council that has to answer to everyone above them is just part of the larger government.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 12:02 PM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

If it is an option but Smicolligiate is trying to say that government in the US in 1800 was "A small government that has only serves as legal dispute resolution."

This might be close to true of the federal government but the state government is still government, with all it pros and cons.
edit on 30-8-2015 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 12:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: greencmp

If it is an option but the point is that Smicolligiate is trying to say that government in the US in 1800 was "A small government that has only serves as legal dispute resolution."

This might be close to true of the federal government but the state government is still government, with all it pros and cons.


Of course, compared to today, government was virtually non-existent at the turn of the 19th century.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 12:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: AboveBoard

Unfortunately the book I purchased has strict copyright assertions that will not allow me to post directly from it without permission of the author.



That makes it tough to analyze online.

Maybe, if possible, look for the words that the wiki page cites and try to locate them on that page of the book.

Assuming the page number is accurate and not from a hard copy book vs a pdf download or a different edition, see if they used any sources to "justify" the definition of Fascism as "far right" like the wiki page says.

Another conspiracy !!




posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 12:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: xuenchen
It's the small rural towns that might be more "immune" to big government interferences.


A town council that has to answer to everyone above them is just part of the larger government.


But still much less than a big city for example.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 12:26 PM
link   
a reply to: greencmp
Government was far from non-existent. The colonies had colonial governors and each new state also had it's own government. Just because it was easier to hide from them didn't mean that they were not there.



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 75  76  77    79  80  81 >>

log in

join