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.

 

The "Right" fits the Marxist definition of Fascism.

page: 2
26
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 03:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by antonia
reply to post by inforeal
 


. I think it's all just pandering. It's a way to distance themselves from the Bush era. Repackage Coke as Pepsi or something of that nature. Those who believe it's real are fools, but I'm used to seeing people in this country getting fooled.



A Fawking men!!!

The rebranding was not accepted at first



www.abovetopsecret.com...

Glenn Beck immediately launched his washing campaign, reassemble history with his black board and created the socialist threat as we know it. If one watched the progression it started off as theory, "WHAT IF"

Heres an example of when he (Beck) first kicked it into high gear - there is a transcript which is worth reading,
Goebbels would be impressed

www.abovetopsecret.com...



It took a while for FOX's/Beck's narrative to solidify and take the form it is now. But at one point the proto Tea Party rhetoric was completely manic and incoherent.

You can see the current Tea Party rhetoric take shape before the election even, this is when Fox was trying a different xenophobic angle, it is still Proto, but has been since assimilated into the mythical illegal Muslim
Marxist.

There was the community organizer angle (propaganda still floundering except with the Neocon Crowd)



Anyhow I went of chronological order, but I figured maybe a small digressive account might serve me better

It is an absolutely brilliant concept, throw $h1t til it sticks -

All of this FOX/GOP rhetoric is now an active part of the Tea Party rhetoric -

There are one in the same


edit on 21-9-2010 by Janky Red because: (no reason given)




edit on 21-9-2010 by Janky Red because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 04:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask
Theirs was, after all, the national-socialist party, and their platform, which amply reflected that fact. They also rightly considered themselves to be social revolutionaries, as scornful of the established conservative order as they were of Marxists.


Oh thanks,,, I make it out to be a steaming pile of horse crap


The KPD was the MARXIST of party of Germany and the Nazi's bitter rivals, in fact the KPD was the last
barrier between Hitler and the dictatorship he achieved.




During the election campaign, the Nazis alleged that Germany was on the verge of a Communist revolution and that the only way to stop the Communists was to pass the Enabling Act. The message of the campaign was simple: increase the number of Nazi seats so that the Enabling Act could be passed. To decrease the number of opposition members of parliament who could vote against the Enabling Act, Hitler had planned to ban the Kommunistische Partei Deutschlands (the Communist Party of Germany or KPD), which at the time held 17% of the parliament's seats, after the elections and before the new Reichstag convened. The Reichstag fire allowed Hitler to accelerate the banning of the Communist Party . The Nazis capitalized on the fear that the Reichstag fire was supposed to serve as a signal launching the Communist revolution in Germany and promoted this claim in the Nazi campaign.


wapedia.mobi...

Funny thing about people,,, it used to be that folks would have enough honor not to try and revise history,
tyrants try to revise history ~ It really is shameful






edit on 21-9-2010 by Janky Red because: (no reason given)




edit on 21-9-2010 by Janky Red because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 04:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Misoir
reply to post by Ignorance_Defier
 


I consider Libertarians, Socialists, Grassroots Progressives as "Left" and Communists, Anarchists, Environmentalists "Far-Left".


That's interesting. I would agree except I would consider anarchists fringe left. What do you consider fringe left?



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 06:39 AM
link   
reply to post by ManBehindTheMask
 


I feel dumber for reading that.

Fascism has for many years (at least 30) been identified with the extreme right. Nationalism, corporatist values and authoritarian action are it's defining traits. Let's not rewrite history simply because "The Liberals" happen to be your enemies shall we? They already have the "Socialism/Communism" demon.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 06:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ignorance_Defier


That's interesting. I would agree except I would consider anarchists fringe left. What do you consider fringe left?


You can't consider all anarchists fringe-left. Anarcho-Capitalists are firmly to the right. I think people tend to believe the right is more authoritarian, the Left also has it's authoritarian sects as well. There is also the horrid crap about moral values. This shouldn't be involved at all yet it's crept it's way into the compass because of the "Christian Conservative right".

I think it's best to remember that both sides of the spectrum feature "non-statists".



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 07:14 AM
link   
More propagandic rhetoric to label any political affiliations or organizations. This kind of divisive thinking is going to be the downfall of America by separating/labeling ourselves and others, instead of coming together as one for an overall goal.

This separist ideology does nothing but divide us and hinders the efforts of American efforts and interests to unify the nation against tyranny.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 07:30 AM
link   


This separist ideology does nothing but divide us and hinders the efforts of American efforts and interests to unify the nation against tyranny.


And what should we all do? Just agree with you?

Unity only works when the group is in agreement. You are not going to get that agreement as the solutions on both sides are different.



edit on 21-9-2010 by antonia because: RAWR



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 07:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by antonia



This separist ideology does nothing but divide us and hinders the efforts of American efforts and interests to unify the nation against tyranny.


And what should we all do? Just agree with you?

Unity only works when the group is in agreement. You are not going to get that agreement as the solutions on both sides are different.



edit on 21-9-2010 by antonia because: RAWR



The thread specifically attacks certain groups. Why cant the OP try to post something that may HELP unite the groups? Come up with key points that these groups (thats been labeled) and propose possible compromises? But, no. The thread clearly is intended to demonize said groups, people and their affiliations and discredit their intentions. No one seems to want to event try to unite America. Just point fingers to push their agenda. I am not saying the thread's points are invalid. They are just naive and self defeating.




edit on 21-9-2010 by AzoriaCorp because: edit



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 08:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by AzoriaCorp
The thread specifically attacks certain groups. Why cant the OP try to post something that may HELP unite the groups? Come up with key points that these groups (thats been labeled) and propose possible compromises? But, no. The thread clearly is intended to demonize said groups, people and their affiliations and discredit their intentions. No one seems to want to event try to unite America. Just point fingers to push their agenda. I am not saying the thread's points are invalid. They are just naive and self defeating.

edit on 21-9-2010 by AzoriaCorp because: edit



You can't unite anyone. We can say whatever we want, be as nice as we can-there be no unity as there is a serious divide between the two approaches. Unity only works when there is agreement.between the parties.

The only group "attacked" happened to be the fringe-right and they can rightly be called Fascists. Just as there are elements of the left that can accurately be called Communist. Ducks are Ducks, that's not offensive to say. Either way, I don't see you out there when the left is being attacked telling people not to attack them. It's an old trick you are pulling, and frankly it's boring.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 08:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by antonia

Originally posted by AzoriaCorp
The thread specifically attacks certain groups. Why cant the OP try to post something that may HELP unite the groups? Come up with key points that these groups (thats been labeled) and propose possible compromises? But, no. The thread clearly is intended to demonize said groups, people and their affiliations and discredit their intentions. No one seems to want to event try to unite America. Just point fingers to push their agenda. I am not saying the thread's points are invalid. They are just naive and self defeating.

edit on 21-9-2010 by AzoriaCorp because: edit



You can't unite anyone. We can say whatever we want, be as nice as we can-there be no unity as there is a serious divide between the two approaches. Unity only works when there is agreement.between the parties.

The only group "attacked" happened to be the fringe-right and they can rightly be called Fascists. Just as there are elements of the left that can accurately be called Communist. Ducks are Ducks, that's not offensive to say. Either way, I don't see you out there when the left is being attacked telling people not to attack them. It's an old trick you are pulling, and frankly it's boring.
.

There can be unity. Groups may not agree on all the same issues but the constitution is pretty self explanatory. I will use HCR as an example. The "left" want it, the "right" does not. If we stay with the constitution, and we all should agree on that, we should be able to come to an agreement that the states can put it to a vote and decide if they want the federal health care or not as mandating healthcare is not constitutional. This way the left and right can have what they want without forcing anything on anyone. But no, this will not happen as there is an agenda behind it and propagandic rhetoric like the left or right (and the ensueing bashfest) is doing nothing but dividing the people and clouding key issues.


edit on 21-9-2010 by AzoriaCorp because: add to comment



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 08:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by AzoriaCorp
There can be unity. Groups may not agree on all the same issues but the constitution is pretty self explanatory.


There is not agreement between the parties on the Constution. You are also speaking to someone who thinks it's ludicrous to follow a 200+ year old document by the letter and think that's going to solve all of our problems. The world changes, that document doesn't. This may be of comfort to some people, but I find it illogical to hold on to concepts which have outlived their usefulness. I'm not saying the Constitution has outlived it's usefulness, rather I see it as a tool, not some kind of sacred text.



I will use HCR as an example. The "left" want it, the "right" does not. If we stay with the constitution, and we all should agree on that, we should be able to come to an agreement that the states can put it to a vote and decide if they want the federal health care or not as mandating healthcare is not constitutional.


Here is a perfect example of dated ideals. The "Founders" (or as I like to call them "American Deities") had no idea we would ever argue about health care. Most people in their day and age didn't even make it to 50. So why would this even be in the constitution. You can extrapolate all you want, but there is no mention of it. Now, sure we can go look at the Constitution, meanwhile people are still going broke (and in some cases-Dying) because they don't have enough money for health care. We happen to be in one of the only developed countries on the planet which does not believe free access to health care is an inalienable right. Do you see the problem here? The right side of the spectrum believes it's not a right. The left side believes it is a right. You cannot reconcile these two opinions. Go to the Constitution all you want.







edit on 21-9-2010 by antonia because: RAWR



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 09:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by antonia



This may be of comfort to some people, but I find it illogical to hold on to concepts which have outlived their usefulness. I'm not saying the Constitution has outlived it's usefulness





You obviously have a negative perception on the Constitution and the American concept that made this country great.

So I will respectfully bow out of the discussion and simply agree to disagree.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by AzoriaCorp

You obviously have a negative perception on the Constitution and the American concept that made this country great.

So I will respectfully bow out of the discussion and simply agree to disagree.


Negative is not the word. It's realistic. Society changes over time. Even that document has changed. Remember when only land-owning white males could vote? If we had just gone to original Constitution quite a few folks living today wouldn't have rights.

Of course if you are not literalistic when it comes to the document people say you hate it or something of that nature.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by antonia

Originally posted by AzoriaCorp

You obviously have a negative perception on the Constitution and the American concept that made this country great.

So I will respectfully bow out of the discussion and simply agree to disagree.


Negative is not the word. It's realistic. Society changes over time. Even that document has changed. Remember when only land-owning white males could vote? If we had just gone to original Constitution quite a few folks living today wouldn't have rights.

Of course if you are not literalistic when it comes to the document people say you hate it or something of that nature.


Yes it is a negative perception by the fact you simply stated the Constitution has outlived its usefulness. If you want to use labels, I would say you're quite the progressive thinker.

The Constitution is open to changes. Its called amendments. So yes, I do believe the Constitution is still relevant and should be as it is STILL law. Whether you agree with it or not or if its enforced or not.

I never said revert back to the "original" text. I implied to follow the Contitutional law of the United States and by that I mean dont bum rush unConstitutional nonsense through congress to meet the agenda of a few.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by AzoriaCorp

Yes it is a negative perception by the fact you simply stated the Constitution has outlived its usefulness. If you want to use labels, I would say you're quite the progressive thinker.


Why thank you, that's the best compliment I've heard in ages. However, I noticed you snipped part of the statement.



I'm not saying the Constitution has outlived it's usefulness, rather I see it as a tool, not some kind of sacred text.


If you'd like to play, you are going to have to be intellectually honest. Don't take what I say and splice it up to suit yourself. One day the Constitution will have outlived it's usefulness. Today is not that day, but maybe 300 years in the future it will have done that. Society changes, you can't expect them to use the same tool forever.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 10:45 AM
link   
The Constitution is not a left right thing, im sick and ******* tierd of having the constitution defined as radical, by the left and the right, the document is as pure as human thought can define. It isnt right, it isnt left, it is American, it has been scewed and redifined by people with motives other then Induvigual personal Liberty which is what the Constitution was all about, the reafermation of already endowed human rights givin by God, whichever God you choose to worship, not some corrupt government thousands of miles away, whether that Government is in London as then, or Washington as Now. I think both left and right agree on one thing, these people are as corrupt as the day is long, and have utter contempt for those they are supposed to represent, left and right are used to cloud the real issues we face, brought on by the same people who have created the situation to exploit it for their own gains, at our loss of Liberty ofcourse. To fall into the, tea party is this, or the unions are that, plays into the game, focus on Personal Liberty, Personal Resposablity, and by default your focus will become preservation of the Constitution and you will be lifted from the Left-V-Right game that gets us all nowhere but endentured servitude.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 10:46 AM
link   
This post was a nice read and all, but a bit overanalytical and unneccessary as we all know that the government has got to be reeled in and made to know who is in charge. Put whatever label on them you wish, I guess.

Why is there a Tea Party? Because the right AND left political camps are essentially the same from the perspective of the average Joe. Joe gets the #$*% end of the stick no matter who is in power because he has NO say anymore. This is just another right v. left debate and there needs to be some clarity on how BOTH sides of the aisle are reaming us a new one for their benefit.

Naturally, some asshat will post some parroted narrative on how the tea party is this and the tea party is that, but the truth is, the tea party is comprised of people with brains who want to make their own decisions and run their own life with as little interference form the government as possible. The rest of you are content with being told what to do and how to think, and your opinion holds no sway because it's not really your opinion now, is it?

Power to the people.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by antonia



Why thank you, that's the best compliment I've heard in ages. However, I noticed you snipped part of the statement.


Well you and Prez O will get along nicely wont you? Congratulations...



I'm not saying the Constitution has outlived it's usefulness, rather I see it as a tool, not some kind of sacred text.


I never said it was a "sacred text" either. If you want to call foul then stop fouling yourself. I simply pointed out you, in some ways, contradicted yourself.

Its not a tool. Its law. Laws are meant to be enforced for the best interests of society. They're not guidelines as you seem to imply.


One day the Constitution will have outlived it's usefulness. Today is not that day, but maybe 300 years in the future it will have done that. Society changes, you can't expect them to use the same tool forever.


well, Many, MANY, Americans DO expect it to last forever. Whether or not it does is up to them. Maybe its you who is not in touch with reality.


edit on 21-9-2010 by AzoriaCorp because: edit



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by AzoriaCorp

I never said it was a "sacred text" either. If you want to call foul then stop fouling yourself. I simply pointed out you, in some ways, contradicted yourself.

Its not a tool. Its law. Laws are meant to be enforced for the best interests of society. They're not guidelines as you seem to imply.

I called foul because you snipped by quote in such a way as to make it appear I said something I did not say. there was no contradiction.

Laws are tools. They are used to influence and guide behavior, enforced tools yes, but tools nonetheless. One defintion of the word tool is this:
instrument: the means whereby some act is accomplished; "my greed was the instrument of my destruction";
"science has given us new tools to fight disease"

Law is a tool used to maintain social order.


well, Many, MANY, Americans DO expect it to last forever. Whether or not is does is up to them. Maybe its you who is not in touch with reality.

edit on 21-9-2010 by AzoriaCorp because: edit



There are many Americans who also think the Sun revolves around the Earth and that humans and dinosaurs lived together. Some of the concepts may indeed stay with us, but history has shown again and again that human governments do not remain static. The odds are more in my favor at this point.


Well you and Prez O will get along nicely wont you? Congratulations...


Was that meant to be insulting? I should hope we get along. The last thing I need is an enemy who happens to run an entire country. I'm a generally easy going person though, so I don't see why we shouldn't. I'm sure you are taking a political shot though. The truth is we wouldn't get a long in that regard as my politics are more to the left than Obama's. Obama is not a "progressive".



edit on 21-9-2010 by antonia because: RAWR



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 11:08 AM
link   
reply to post by antonia
 


So, I'm trying to understand what you mean when you say outlive its usefulness. Are you insinuating that the general ideas and precepts that it is trying to establish are going to become outdated, possibly due to some grand enlightenment waiting around the corner? Since you're realistic, you can't really believe that. By what means is the constitution going to become outdated, and what do you believe will replace it?



new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join