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: 79
23
<< 76  77  78    80  81  82 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 12:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen

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 !!



So, when citing any published source, your contention is that we must a) own a copy either physically or virtually, b) have viewed every page of same with our own eyes, c) must provide you with a copy of same, d) you must also verify the content, and e) then still claim that the source is biased and unreliable for some arcane reason without offering a counterargument?

Do I understand you correctly?




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

originally posted by: xuenchen
But still much less than a big city for example.

No, it isn't much less. They are bound just the same.

If a state government says that a certain law must be followed statewide then a small town still has to obey.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 12:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
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.


Of note, many State Governorships were holdovers from the Crown system of administration, and often held similar wide-ranging powers.

That seems significant.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 12:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen

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.



Isn't that like saying that a metropolis, on the average, is larger than a village?

Agreed, but that seems blatantly obvious, doesn't it?

What are you really trying to say here?



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 12:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
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.


I just mean that there were not millions of bureaucrats redistributing plunder.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 12:36 PM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

But the claim was that the government was just there to serve as mediators. That just wasn't true.

ETA: However big it has become doesn't change the size that it had at that time.
edit on 30-8-2015 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 12:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: xuenchen
But still much less than a big city for example.

No, it isn't much less. They are bound just the same.

If a state government says that a certain law must be followed statewide then a small town still has to obey.



Some people might like the new laws and stay while everyone else would leave the state since leaving the town would not be sufficient to escape the deleterious legislation.

It is a significant action to leave one's home but, if it the only way to be left alone, that's what you have to do.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 12:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: greencmp

But the claim was that the government was just there to serve as mediators. That just wasn't true.

ETA: However big it has become doesn't change the size that it had at that time.


You said yourself that the federal government was small and it is the federal government that must be absolutely contained since complete national expatriation is undesirable.

You are right that states like Massachusetts even had a theocratic government with religious laws but, even so, compared to today they were small.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 12:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: xuenchen
But still much less than a big city for example.

No, it isn't much less. They are bound just the same.

If a state government says that a certain law must be followed statewide then a small town still has to obey.



Some people might like the new laws and stay while everyone else would leave the state since leaving the town would not be sufficient to escape the deleterious legislation.

It is a significant action to leave one's home but, if it the only way to be left alone, that's what you have to do.


Doesn't this severely limit the possibility of "voting on your feet" to people who are at least reasonably wealthy?

Moving and establishing oneself in a new State (assuming, even, one proximate to one's current State) is a very expensive proposition. Many Americans today simply couldn't afford to do so in any reasonable consideration.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 12:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: greencmp

But the claim was that the government was just there to serve as mediators. That just wasn't true.

ETA: However big it has become doesn't change the size that it had at that time.


You said yourself that the federal government was small and it is the federal government that must be absolutely contained since complete national expatriation is undesirable.

You are right that states like Massachusetts even had a theocratic government with religious laws but, even so, compared to today they were small.


It seemed to me that the point was not the relative size of any government, but rather, that the government of whatever level and whatever size was only there to "serve as mediators."

At least, that's what I heard.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 12:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: AboveBoard

originally posted by: xuenchen
Oh Look !!



Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning is a book by Jonah Goldberg in which he argues that fascist movements were and are left-wing. Published in January 2008, it reached #1 on the New York Times Best Seller list of hardcover non-fiction in its seventh week on the list.[1] Goldberg is a syndicated columnist and the editor-at-large of National Review Online.

Liberal Fascism







Just as progressives were generally enthusiastic about socialist movements in the Soviet Union and Europe, they were also overwhelmingly supportive of the fascist movements in Italy and Germany during the 1920s and 1930s. “In many respects,” writes journalist Jonah Goldberg, “the founding fathers of modern liberalism, the men and women who laid the intellectual groundwork of the New Deal and the welfare state, thought that fascism sounded like ... a worthwhile 'experiment'”:

PROGRESSIVE SUPPORT FOR ITALIAN AND GERMAN FASCISM



scrubb-a-dub-dub

Deus meus !!




Silly fox. "Liberal Fascism" is nothing more than a distortion of both "liberal" and "fascism." Sigh.

"The bottom line is that Goldberg wants to attach a defaming epithet to liberals and the left, to “put the brown shirt on [your] opponents,” as he accuses the liberals of doing (p. 392). He goes about this task with a massive apparatus of scholarly citations and quotations. But Goldberg’s scholarship is not an even-handed search for understanding, following the best evidence fully and open-mindedly wherever it might lead. He chooses his scholarly data selectively and sometimes misleadingly in the service of his demonstration.

Jonah Goldberg knows that making the Progressives, Woodrow Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt and FDR the creators of an American fascism – indeed the only American fascism, for George Lincoln Rockwell and other overt American fascist or Nazi sympathizers are totally absent from this book – is a stretch, so he has created a new box: Liberal Fascism. The Progressives and their heirs who wanted to use government to rectify social and economic ills


That is what puts Fascism in the Socialist category. A government must be big in order to so used. Socialists are the basis for all big government since the 1800's . Fascism is on the Left because Fascism's government is made of Leftist organs.



, and who, in Goldberg’s view, thereby created an American Fascism, acted with good intentions, rarely used violence, and had nothing to do with Auschwitz. Even so, they share an intellectual heredity and a set of common goals with the European fascists. So they go into the “Liberal Fascist” box.


Liberal Fascism is an oxymoron, of course. A fascism that means no harm is a contradiction in terms. Authentic fascists intend to harm those whom they define as the nation’s internal and external enemies. Someone who doesn’t intend to harm his or her enemies, and who doesn’t relish doing it violently, isn’t really fascist.



Finally, after 70+ pages, the Liberal position.

Fascism is not Left because of Fascist propaganda. I guess the Left believes propaganda, so that is important to them.

Maybe Fascists are the honest Liberals, an oxymoron. Honest liberals would be called Social Democrats.


...
Goldberg simply omits those parts of fascist history that fit badly with his demonstration. His method is to examine fascist rhetoric, but to ignore how fascist movements functioned in practice.
- See more at: historynewsnetwork.org..."



In practice, Fascists regimes were command economies, socialist in other words.
Nothing else, at the level of government, has the same order of magnitude in importance as the entire economy.
Comparing explicit lies to implicit lies is ridiculous when the other side of the scale, the side that Fascism has in common with Socialism, is the complete control of all of society.




posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 12:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: xuenchen
But still much less than a big city for example.

No, it isn't much less. They are bound just the same.

If a state government says that a certain law must be followed statewide then a small town still has to obey.



Some people might like the new laws and stay while everyone else would leave the state since leaving the town would not be sufficient to escape the deleterious legislation.

It is a significant action to leave one's home but, if it the only way to be left alone, that's what you have to do.


Doesn't this severely limit the possibility of "voting on your feet" to people who are at least reasonably wealthy?

Moving and establishing oneself in a new State (assuming, even, one proximate to one's current State) is a very expensive proposition. Many Americans today simply couldn't afford to do so in any reasonable consideration.


Not at all, indeed, it would be the wealthy who would have the hardest time escaping considering the logistics of relocation. Not to mention when you have significant business interests in the geographic region that you must sell or abandon.

Ordinary folks can walk from one state to another on foot in a matter of days.
edit on 30-8-2015 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 12:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: greencmp

But the claim was that the government was just there to serve as mediators. That just wasn't true.

ETA: However big it has become doesn't change the size that it had at that time.


You said yourself that the federal government was small and it is the federal government that must be absolutely contained since complete national expatriation is undesirable.

You are right that states like Massachusetts even had a theocratic government with religious laws but, even so, compared to today they were small.


It seemed to me that the point was not the relative size of any government, but rather, that the government of whatever level and whatever size was only there to "serve as mediators."

At least, that's what I heard.


The federal government was if you ignore the tariffs, etc.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 12:52 PM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

That is just a shift in goal posts when it comes from someone who says that all governments are coercive.

This is going to sound like I'm attacking you but I'm really just pointing it out. Why do some of you point out actions that a person can take in a situation and present it as something that changes the situation?

I mean, a person can remain in the state and ignore the law, pay someone off or choose to follow it. That doesn't change the fact that a town government can't make the law null and void in the town. They are part of the bigger government.

That is why xuenchen's claim that rural towns are outside the reach of those above it, is not valid. They are not independent.




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



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 12:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: xuenchen
But still much less than a big city for example.

No, it isn't much less. They are bound just the same.

If a state government says that a certain law must be followed statewide then a small town still has to obey.



Some people might like the new laws and stay while everyone else would leave the state since leaving the town would not be sufficient to escape the deleterious legislation.

It is a significant action to leave one's home but, if it the only way to be left alone, that's what you have to do.


Doesn't this severely limit the possibility of "voting on your feet" to people who are at least reasonably wealthy?

Moving and establishing oneself in a new State (assuming, even, one proximate to one's current State) is a very expensive proposition. Many Americans today simply couldn't afford to do so in any reasonable consideration.


Not at all, indeed, it would be the wealthy who would have the hardest time escaping considering the logistics of relocation. Not to mention when you have significant business interests in the geographic region that you must sell or abandon.

Ordinary folks can walk from one state to another on foot in matter of days.


We'll leave the question of difficulty for richer or poorer to move for a moment (although I wouldn't consider it resolved.)

Anyone can walk to another state? Is that reasonable in 2015? Practical? Technically true for some in decent health perhaps, but, isn't that just a little more than unreasonable? Are you saying someone must abandon all their hard-earned goods, for example?



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 12:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: greencmp

But the claim was that the government was just there to serve as mediators. That just wasn't true.

ETA: However big it has become doesn't change the size that it had at that time.


You said yourself that the federal government was small and it is the federal government that must be absolutely contained since complete national expatriation is undesirable.

You are right that states like Massachusetts even had a theocratic government with religious laws but, even so, compared to today they were small.


It seemed to me that the point was not the relative size of any government, but rather, that the government of whatever level and whatever size was only there to "serve as mediators."

At least, that's what I heard.


The federal government was if you ignore the tariffs, etc.


Right. IF the tariffs were ignored, but we can't ignore them, because they existed.

Again, though, the claim was that "government" (not just the Federal Government) was small and only served as mediators.

"Government" includes State governments, County governments, and City governments. Were those also merely "mediators"?



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 01:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: greencmp

That is just a shift in goal posts when it comes from someone who says that all governments are coercive.

This is going to sound like I'm attacking you but I'm really just pointing it out. Why do some of you point out actions that a person can take in a situation and present it as something that changes the situation?

I mean, a person can remain in the state and ignore the law, pay someone off or choose to follow it. That doesn't change the fact that a town government can't make the law null and void in the town. They are part of the bigger government.

That is why xuenchen's claim that rural towns are outside the reach of those above it, is not valid. They are not independent.


I don't think state governments and the federal government are the same animal.

It isn't that they are outside of the reach of the federal government, the federal government was the constitutional mediator of state law through the judicial branch, not an active legislator itself.

A small town might have its own laws that, if they aren't constitutionally challenged, would require migration to avoid.

Also, nullification is a valid response to bad laws so, the towns and states could very well ignore state or federal laws.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 01:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: xuenchen
But still much less than a big city for example.

No, it isn't much less. They are bound just the same.

If a state government says that a certain law must be followed statewide then a small town still has to obey.



Some people might like the new laws and stay while everyone else would leave the state since leaving the town would not be sufficient to escape the deleterious legislation.

It is a significant action to leave one's home but, if it the only way to be left alone, that's what you have to do.


Doesn't this severely limit the possibility of "voting on your feet" to people who are at least reasonably wealthy?

Moving and establishing oneself in a new State (assuming, even, one proximate to one's current State) is a very expensive proposition. Many Americans today simply couldn't afford to do so in any reasonable consideration.


Not at all, indeed, it would be the wealthy who would have the hardest time escaping considering the logistics of relocation. Not to mention when you have significant business interests in the geographic region that you must sell or abandon.

Ordinary folks can walk from one state to another on foot in matter of days.


We'll leave the question of difficulty for richer or poorer to move for a moment (although I wouldn't consider it resolved.)

Anyone can walk to another state? Is that reasonable in 2015? Practical? Technically true for some in decent health perhaps, but, isn't that just a little more than unreasonable? Are you saying someone must abandon all their hard-earned goods, for example?


Now, you can take a bus or rent a truck.
edit on 30-8-2015 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 01:03 PM
link   
I'll bow out again for now; I feel like I'm de-railing an important conversation.

Best, thanks for the thoughts and new information!



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 01:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: greencmp

But the claim was that the government was just there to serve as mediators. That just wasn't true.

ETA: However big it has become doesn't change the size that it had at that time.


You said yourself that the federal government was small and it is the federal government that must be absolutely contained since complete national expatriation is undesirable.

You are right that states like Massachusetts even had a theocratic government with religious laws but, even so, compared to today they were small.


It seemed to me that the point was not the relative size of any government, but rather, that the government of whatever level and whatever size was only there to "serve as mediators."

At least, that's what I heard.


The federal government was if you ignore the tariffs, etc.


Right. IF the tariffs were ignored, but we can't ignore them, because they existed.

Again, though, the claim was that "government" (not just the Federal Government) was small and only served as mediators.

"Government" includes State governments, County governments, and City governments. Were those also merely "mediators"?


Bad as they are, I don't think the tariffs equate with what we have today.

No, they weren't all like the federal government.

The federal government was essentially forbidden to legislate in the towns and states. Any power that wasn't expressly stated in the constitution as the responsibility of the federal government was absolutely denied to the federal government and left to the states or the people.
edit on 30-8-2015 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 76  77  78    80  81  82 >>

log in

join