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: 80
23
<< 77  78  79    81  82  83 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 01:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp
I don't think state governments and the federal government are the same animal.

They may not be the same but they existed and did more than just mediate.


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

The snag being that they can be challanged.


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

They can do this but then it goes to the judiciary and if they loose they are forced. Still not independent.




posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 01:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp
Bad as they are, I don't the tariffs equate with what we have today.

Again, comparing them to something worse doesn't change what they were.
edit on 30-8-2015 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 01:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: greencmp
I don't think state governments and the federal government are the same animal.

They may not be the same but they existed and did more than just mediate.


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

The snag being that they can be challanged.


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

They can do this but then it goes to the judiciary and if they loose they are forced. Still not independent.


Yes, the federal government had more responsibilities than mediation but, all of its responsibilities are specifically detailed and cannot be expanded.

They can be challenged if you have the time and interest to do so but, most people just leave.

That may happen with the sanctuary cities and marijuana states but, I'm not sure that a sanctuary city would be besieged by the army for not rounding up everyone without papers. It would be even less likely for the DEA to arrest the state legislature.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 01:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: greencmp
Bad as they are, I don't the tariffs equate with what we have today.

Again, comparing them to something worse doesn't change what they were.


While I would prefer no government, I will settle for small.

If the smallest it can be is the size it was in 1800, I'll take it. We can discuss reducing it further next year.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 01:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp
Yes, the federal government had more responsibilities than mediation but, all of its responsibilities are specifically detailed and cannot be expanded.

No, not the federal government, the state governments existed and did more than just mediate.


They can be challenged if you have the time and interest to do so but, most people just leave.

Challanged by the higher levels of government.


That may happen with the sanctuary cities and marijuana states but, I'm not sure that a sanctuary city would be besieged by the army for not rounding up everyone without papers. It would be even less likely for the DEA to arrest the state legislature.

Now we are talking a mid-sized government pushing back. The original claim was about rural towns.

None of that changes the fact that those small governments are part of the larger government.



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

originally posted by: greencmp
While I would prefer no government, I will settle for small.

If the smallest it can be is the size it was in 1800, I'll take it. We can discuss reducing it further next year.

I wish you could get it. Then we would hear you complain about the state government in the same way.

Then you would grasp what I'm getting at.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 01:31 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen


I bought a book by the same author. I did not by the $42 text book at this time. I am thinking his current book will show his current thinking, and he has done a lot more research since the previous book. Therefore, I am unable to go to the page in the book you want me to... Sorry xuenchen - even if I did, how would it make ANY difference to you? I'm guessing you'd turn around and say:

"Ok, now show me HIS sources...
"


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



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 01:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: greencmp
Yes, the federal government had more responsibilities than mediation but, all of its responsibilities are specifically detailed and cannot be expanded.

No, not the federal government, the state governments existed and did more than just mediate.


They can be challenged if you have the time and interest to do so but, most people just leave.

Challanged by the higher levels of government.


That may happen with the sanctuary cities and marijuana states but, I'm not sure that a sanctuary city would be besieged by the army for not rounding up everyone without papers. It would be even less likely for the DEA to arrest the state legislature.

Now we are talking a mid-sized government pushing back. The original claim was about rural towns.

None of that changes the fact that those small governments are part of the larger government.


No, when a state or town passes potentially unconstitutional legislation, it is first challenged locally and then, only after failure to reach a conclusion does the federal government become actively involved by bringing the case to the supreme court.

As far as I know, the smallest governments we have are towns and cities, I included Colorado because it is a great example.

That's a stretch to call the government of Boston an extension of the Federal Government of the United States.
edit on 30-8-2015 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 01:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: greencmp
While I would prefer no government, I will settle for small.

If the smallest it can be is the size it was in 1800, I'll take it. We can discuss reducing it further next year.

I wish you could get it. Then we would hear you complain about the state government in the same way.

Then you would grasp what I'm getting at.


And so I would, eventually people would be allowed to live their lives in peace.

I don't see a downside.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 01:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik

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



Of course I never claimed rural towns are "outside the reach of those above it".

I stated the impacts were less.


edit on Aug-30-2015 by xuenchen because: [bits]



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 01:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
Of course I never claimed rural towns are "are outside the reach of those above it".

I stated the impacts were less.

Semantics.

They are not independent and they can be impacted just the same.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 01:40 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Hm. They would be very apt to have cronyism and "good ole boy" networks, nepotism, etc. Small towns not given any over site could easily become fiefdoms...


- AB



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 01:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp
And so I would, eventually people would be allowed to live their lives in peace.

I don't see a downside.

It will never happen, for reasons previously posted.

If it was so good why did the people between 1800 and now not hold on to it?



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 01:45 PM
link   
a reply to: AboveBoard

That does happen and I'm sure that in at least some cases the people reached out for help from a higher level of government.

Freedom for security and all that.

Whether you like it or not, it happens.
edit on 30-8-2015 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 01:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: greencmp
And so I would, eventually people would be allowed to live their lives in peace.

I don't see a downside.

It will never happen, for reasons previously posted.

If it was so good why did the people between 1800 and now not hold on to it?


Because power corrupts and government expands, it is inevitable it seems.

The real reason is that the American people allowed the passage of fundamentally corrosive amendments.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 01:53 PM
link   
a reply to: AboveBoard

Well that successfully neutralizes the objections to the wiki references and brings them further into the dungeons.

Good job.



I guess I will have to buy those myself.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 01:58 PM
link   
a reply to: greencmp
Whatever the reason, it wasn't good enough to die for.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 01:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: AboveBoard

Oh Look !!



And from another source...

"Goldberg, who has no credentials

Credentials supposedly mean that the person has up to date knowledge about all aspects of a subject, or knows where to find them. Credentials actually mean, mostly, that a person has been subjected to at least 4 years of Liberal scrutiny and peer pressure.

The truth is the truth, no matter who says it.


beyond the right-wing nepotism that has enabled his career as a pundit, has drawn a kind of history in absurdly broad and comically wrongheaded strokes. It is not just history done badly, or mere revisionism. It’s a caricature of reality, like something from a comic-book alternative universe: Bizarro history.

The title alone is enough to indicate its thoroughgoing incoherence: Of all the things we know about fascism and the traits that comprise it, one of the few things that historians will readily agree upon is its overwhelming anti-liberalism.


Comparing any nuanced opinion of intentions as equal to the reality of complete control of the economy and society is farcical. Liberals are the masters of farce.



One might as well write about anti-Semitic neoconservatism, or Ptolemaic quantum theory, or strength in ignorance. Goldberg isn't content to simply create an oxymoron; this entire enterprise, in fact, is classic Newspeak.

Indeed, Goldberg even makes some use of Orwell, noting that the author of 1984 once dismissed the misuse of "fascism" as meaning "something not desirable." Of course, Orwell was railing against the loss of the word's meaning, while Goldberg, conversely, revels in it -- he refers to Orwell's critique as his "definition of fascism."

And then Goldberg proceeds to define everything that he himself considers undesirable as "fascist." This is just about everything even remotely and vaguely thought of as "liberal": vegetarianism, Social Security, multiculturalism, the "war on poverty," "the politics of meaning." The figures he labels as fascist range from Woodrow Wilson and Franklin D. Roosevelt to Lyndon B. Johnson and Hillary Clinton. Goldberg's primary achievement is to rob the word of all meaning -- Newspeak incarnate. Link"


Woodrow Wilson, himself, tipped the balance and put the US into WW1. Wilson then went on to nationalize the economy and imprison people for criticism against the government. The critic is pretty cool with Wilsonian Fascism, or he doesn't know any non-Liberal reality. The Liberal critic gets his income from socialistic money redistribution, evolved and expanded by Wilson, one way or another.





And another...

"Not without reason was Jonah Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism widely expected to be a bad book.


Any reason to read further?

Maybe some worthy reasons for the critic's opinion.



As many predicted from the title, Goldberg does not content himself with rebuking those who call anyone who disagrees with them a fascist. Instead, he invents reasons of his own for calling anyone who disagrees with Jonah Goldberg a fascist. Liberal Fascism confirms anew George Orwell’s remark—cited by Goldberg without irony—that fascism has no meaning today other than “something not desirable.”The American Conservative

Following Goldberg's logic,


Logic is always true when the premises are true. The critic seems to agree with Goldberg's logic. The critic should state the falsity in Goldberg's premises. He doesn't state any falsities at all and begs the question with all of his assertions. the critic must be credentialed, so lack of argument is standard procedure.

Some of Goldberg's premises, backed up by historical facts, are:
that all of the Fascists were socialists and only socialists before they were Fascists,
that all of the Fascists try solve any problem using political power, like socialists
that all Fascists were in competition against other varieties of socialists, especially Communists, for the same prize, hence the reason that Fascists are not on the Left.

There can be only one, in the Collectivist mind. Fascism was in competition with Communism and so was publicized at "Right"



I could rewrite this book and berate American liberals not for being closet fascists but for being closet conservatives or closet Christian Democrats. But that would puzzle Americans, not shock them. Shock, it seems, sells books.The Washington Post - "Sticks and Stones""


Conservatives are more likely to be reader of books than Liberals. Shock is a Liberal activist thing.

No refutation from this critic. Standard righteous indignation against the pagan individualists.





And there are plenty of others... Shall I go on? This is a terrible source, you rascally fox.



Please include one with a reason that Fascism is not a command and control economy. That is the only way to prove that Fascism is not on the far Left.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 02:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: greencmp
Whatever the reason, it wasn't good enough to die for.


As with all such power grabs, it relied on a mixture of legitimate and questionable threats to scare the people into giving away their rights.

The 20th century will forever be remembered as being the century of statism.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 02:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: AboveBoard
Continued...

Yes, yes I think I shall go on, for it illuminates the argument further...


"No Decency (Review of “Liberal Fascism”)
First Exhibit. Here is the July 1, 1933 issue of Das Neue Tagebuch, a newspaper for German exiles in Paris. We read of a Jewish dentist, Maier, who was forced into poverty through a ban on Jewish practitioners. In mid-July, with his wife (also a dentist) on a quick vacation, Maier clandestinely worked in her office, but was later kidnapped by four S.A. men during lunch at his own apartment. According to the report Schwarzschild received, the men had stabbed Maier twenty-one times, broken his feet by crushing them with a copying press, and shot him in the head, causing his skull to explode.
Second Exhibit. Here is the January 20, 1941 Wannsee Protocol, the minutes of a meeting between Nazi leaders at the luxurious Wannsee Villa southwest of Berlin. We read that an alternative has emerged to merely forcing the Jews to emigrate from German-controlled Europe, one that will be of greatest importance to the “final solution of the Jewish question”. All of the estimated 11,000,000+ Jews in Europe are to be “allocated for appropriate labor in the East”, in effect a euphemism for their transport to the death camps.
National Socialism was one of, if not the, most violent ideologies of the twentieth century, and yet one hardly gets that impression reading Jonah Goldberg’s new book, Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left from Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning. Link"

Honestly, do you think I am the sort to do the above acts? Fascism is VIOLENT.


Communists were never violent?

The Great Purge, also known as the Great Terror, marks a period of extreme persecution and oppression in the Soviet Union during the late 1930s. While previous purges under Stalin involved the persecutions of kulaks (wealthy peasants), Nepmen (people who engaged in private enterprise during the New Economic Policy of the 1920s), clergymen, and former oppositionists, the Great Purge is characterized by imprisonments and executions not only of these usual suspects but of Communists leaders and party members, members of the Red Army, and the Intelligentsia in great numbers. The Great Purge instituted a new type of terror in which the boundaries of those oppressed were practically nonexistent – any stain on the record, including mere association with a perceived enemy, brought one under suspicion of the NKVD, the Soviet secret police.
blogs.bu.edu...


Fascists are Communists?



Where in American Liberal policies do you see this? Do you think I am capable of this horror, this excrescence, this vile natured bestial use of gratuitous force?


No you personally, but yes via the consequences of your political choices.




THAT is one MAJOR way the "liberals are fascist" argument falls apart. You know it. Liberals seek the opposite, generally speaking, they see peace, they seek greater equality and unity through peaceful protest, they don't act like Nazis. To be fair, the moderate Conservative is no fascist nazi either - my God! I would never think this.


Good intentions pave the road to hell.




(ETA - I should say neither liberals nor conservatives in America deserve this label. If Obama deserved that 'Hitler stash" the right has painted him with, you would be dead or slowly dying in internment camps akin to the Nazi concentration camps. History is there so we can REMEMBER, and its no good to twist it for some shallow political 'win.' This goes for whatever part of the political spectrum you inhabit. My Dad is very conservative - pretty extreme right - but I would NEVER call him fascist or Nazi-like. This is getting disgusting.)

This is why labels are dangerous. They are so often deceitful, like Mr. Goldberg's book...

- AB


Socialists made the World Wars and the Great Depression. Socialists Thermonuclear War possible. Small government never would have went there.

More to the point, socialism gives the central government ubiquitous presence and moral justification to do anything that the government wants to do. Liberals can only get what they think is best by using socialism.


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



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 77  78  79    81  82  83 >>

log in

join