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: 3
26
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Western Sage
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 Are you insinuating that the general ideas and precepts that it is trying to establish are going to become outdated, possibly due to some grand enlightenment waiting around the corner?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 By what means is the constitution going to become outdated, and what do you believe will replace it?


You have to remember that something is only useful as long as it's used. We use parts of the document today, but do we really use it? Think about it, we have had an imperial presidency for at least the last 15 years, a spineless Congress and a court that takes no action when it should. So what use is that document? Now, many will say "That's why we need to go back to it"! The problem here is you can't go back. Once you've let the cat out it's impossible to make it stay inside you know. The idea of the Representative Republic works in an educated, thoughtful society. You aren't living in one. See the problem? It's as if there is a new constitution without ever having a convention. They just disregarded what was written (even the populace, not simply the politicians). There is also the problem that the Constitution did not address many of the issues plaguing American society today. For those problems that document had never has any use.

As for the future, I don't know. I see a very different system coming. No, I don't see grand enlightenment. I see regression. If we don't end up blowing this rock out of the solar system it is likely we will be living in a more authoritarian system of government. Or perhaps due to economic stagnation the empire will dismantle leaving serious problems with entitlement program funding. There is also the very real prospect of artificial human enhancement-such as genetic manipulation, implants etc. It's unlikely the same style of government we use today would work for them. Would it be entirely unrecognizable to us? Not in 100 years, but in 300? Most likely. With new discoveries come new ways of being. It's very difficult for people to accept that, but it's just a part of life.

Concepts in and of themselves do not become useless, but the whole document? I have a hard time believing we will still cling to it like the Bible in the future.

Also, I think the biggest issue at hand is people really don't want what they have. They want some parts of it yes, but many people still want Medicare, Social Security, etc. There will be no maintaining these programs without the use of departments and such that truly are not Constitutional. I am willing to admit the statement I made was heretical in this country though. Thinking is a dangerous business, especially when those thoughts don't conform.



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




edit on 21-9-2010 by antonia because: I can't type




posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 11:46 AM
link   
I have a simple question for the OP.

In order to be right-winged, you believe in a small centralized government. The Federal government should essentially be minimized. In order for a government to effectively be fascist, it has to be large enough to overwhelm nearly every aspect of a citizen's life and powerful enough to basically lock them in a prison within the walls of their country. So, my question is as follows:

How can a true right-winger be fascist when the very definition of a right-winger is to want a government that is too small and lacks the power to oppress?

Every example of government oppression occurs on the left. Only when the government is large and powerful can it oppress the people. That's the idea behind conservatism: there is always liberty when the government fears the people.

The OP is clueless.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by ChocoTaco369
In order to be right-winged, you believe in a small centralized government. The Federal government should essentially be minimized. In order for a government to effectively be fascist, it has to be large enough to overwhelm nearly every aspect of a citizen's life and powerful enough to basically lock them in a prison within the walls of their country. So, my question is as follows:
How can a true right-winger be fascist when the very definition of a right-winger is to want a government that is too small and lacks the power to oppress?

Your argument fails on the account that despite all the promises no conservative President has ever brought America smaller government.

The Democrats are just as bad, but this notion that conservative Presidents will make the Government smaller is a joke and one would think people would have recognized this by now having seen it so recently during 8 years of Bush.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
and there are many people on the right who are not fascist.
and your title of this right is THROWING the assertion that every one on the right is a fascist

Look who suddenly has a problem with generalizations -- it's the master of generalizations, partisan hackery, fact distortion and outright lies.

This indignation coming from someone who has said things like:

Originally posted by neo96
the anger that is out there from the left is the people who are pizzed off that everything in their lives isnt free

Originally posted by neo96
its pretty clear on this site that the only people who have any problems with any white,republican or woman ARE LEFTISTS.

Originally posted by neo96
everthing he has done and every single leftist of this country has been designed to do what it has done
bring us to the brink of annhilation.

Originally posted by neo96
please you leftists have done more harm than anyone ever could including islamic radicals. [...]
ever since the leftists and the socialists interference has led to every single problem we face today.

Originally posted by neo96
there is not one leftist in this country that will even say anything nice about god or a christian [...]
from the leftist viewpoint simply being a christian is evil [...]
another way of putting this the left wants to kill god so the government becomes god

Originally posted by neo96
i guess thats why liberals wanted to be in control of the educational system in america to white wash and revise our real history so they can do it all over again and again without people being none the wiser.

Originally posted by neo96
liberals and democrats have killed god with the secular bs so they can themselves become gods and impose their wills on every single individual in this country

Someone give this man the title of Glenn Beck of ATS.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by ChocoTaco369
 


That is not the definition of "Right Wing".
en.wikipedia.org...

You can't just say what it means to you and argue from that definition. In classical terms, the OP is correct. Notice he said "Marxist" definition as well. He also put Right in quotation marks. This indicates the OP does not believe all of those on the right fit the definition.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by ChocoTaco369
very definition of a right-winger

Actually, the definition of right and left are completely relative to the culture at that time.

Next time, when you want to be an asshole, be correct okay?Else, you just look pathetic.

The OP may or may not be clueless, but you're clueless that you're clueless. And that amounts to stupidity.


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



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Misoir
 


I consider myself a conservative when it comes to government. The main principles of conservatism are very simple.

1) Smaller Goverment, less involvement in public affairs, less taxation

2) Strong Defense for our country, secure our borders etc.

3) Individual accountability/responsibility for ones self. (less people allowed to be on welfare etc)

4) A respect for the constitution and the vision of the founding fathers.

I do tend to have more liberal sentiments when it comes to issues such as drugs, but I guess that all relates back to conservative principle number 1 (less govt involvement in the publics personal affairs)

So, you see the left likes to bash conservative principles as far as religion etc, but the true principles are very simple. And, there IS a huge difference between a staunch conservative and a staunch republican.

Et al I consider myself a conservative when it comes to policy, but Im not a registered republican, and really dont see the reason to put all of my eggs in ones basket. In my eyes both parties are no longer working for the people. Its just a shame we have to choose. I for one hope to god that a new independent party rises up. Tea Party anyone?

And people on ATS really need to stop throwing around the term "neocon." I see the liberals on these boards refer to neocons as skinheads, white supremacists, war mongers, old rich white dudes who care not for their constituents. This is simply ignorance at its best.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 12:23 PM
link   
Yes, of course it does, and it's not even "friendly fascism" any more but just the plain old-fashioned kind.

The American Right is a combination of elite, corporate/big business interests and a lower-class populist base motivated (and manipulated) by various religious, racial and cultural resentments, very much like the Nazi Party in Germany or fascist movements in many other countries from teh 1920s and 1930s onward.

This is the distinctive identifying feature of fascism: elitist economic interests combined with a Right-wing pseudo-populsim to drum up mass support--although many of the "populists" are later disappointed that the promises to them have not been kept.


In Nazi Germany, it was the Right-wing "populist" elements that were actually driving the system to ever more "radical" measures against the Jews, Slavs, Gypsies and others that they wanted to exterminate. Elite economic interests wanted to exploit these conquered and enslaved peoples for profit, but the "radicals" wanted them destroyed--although they also took every opportunity to line their pockets along the way.

In this case, Hitler and Himmler agreed with the Right-wing "populist" element more than the elitists.

Something like this is happening with the Republicans in that the elite interests are concerned that the Right-wing populist elements might slip out of their control and go hog wild. They have been using race and religion to frighten, manage and manipulate these voters for 40 years, trying to drum up support in every election, but now it seems they really have flipped out in this depression and have gone rabid, even turning on their creators.

Depressions are very dangerous in that way, which is why I keep thinking that the elitist, country club Republicans are starting to get very nervous in private. Anything could happen in an economy like this.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 12:28 PM
link   
The Democrats also represent the same elite economic interests and are not a true labor or social democratic party--never have been. In every election, though, they try to drum up votes by pretending to be Left-wing populists. Bill and Hillary Clinton were very good at that, as was Obama, although I think the voters are finally starting to get wise to this by now.

Of course, once in a while, the Dems also have to throw their supporters a bone, lest they become too resentful, cynical or apathetic.

In the same way, the Republicans toss their Right-wing populist supporters a bone once in a while.



edit on 21-9-2010 by witness63 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 12:51 PM
link   
More Leftist Class Warfare against the working class

The ugly truth is that the left doesn't genuinely represent the "working class" which they claim to champion. The leadership of the left has always been (in the US) the college-educated East Coast Elite. Try to find an Evangelist of the Left who isn't a trust fund baby, who paid his/her way through college. Good Luck.

Look at their criticism of the Tea Party, in particular the rhetoric with which the tea party is excoriated. They are uneducated people from the south and midwest, who are secretly racists and ... omg... FAT! How is it again that the Tea Party represents the giant corporations? Maybe it is the connection between NASCAR and big oil???? The fact that the Tea Party occasionally rejects the leadership of the GOP elite ought to give the left an opening; but the liberal elite is so busy hating that they cannot even imagine that the Tea Partiers are not wealthy plutocrats. Oh well.

The whole problem is that the "Hard Right" actually represents the attitudes and beliefs of the people that the Left wishes they could represent--working-class people who just want to do their jobs and go home to their families.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 01:04 PM
link   
i like to think of the left and the right as ears on the same head. the head belongs to a retard, i guess this is symbolic of politics in general, which are stupid. our vote doesn't count, and our freedom isn't real. we don't run this SHHH anymore, the corporate government does.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by antonia
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.


Forgive the intrusion.

I see your back and forth with another poster and came across this. I would gather your understanding of how and what the Constitution is, can be explained that you see it as just what you wrote. The concepts presented within the Constitution were not designed to regulate and dictate American's lives but rather establish the framework for the Government. Hence the reason you do not see such gems as health care, education, social security (or any other type of pension plan), FDA, FCC, and on and on.

There goal was not to establish a document that would serve to guide governance between the Federal Government and the People but rather lay the foundation in which the Government is structured and its limited role in the lives of individuals.

So you are correct that both sides do not agree upon it, because they are looking at the document in a way that you, and myself, find illogical.


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.


The foresight in which those that created this country did not see the specific issue of health care, but understood that such larger, social issues could not be handled at the Federal level. They differed such arguments and debates to the States and the People. With an understanding that having a blanket, one size fits all will never serve good to n (I use n, because they knew the original 13 would expand) number of states.

As it is today, the consolidation of power and regulation into Washington serves nothing good except the retention of that power. What the other poster was getting at was that if we follow the structure of how this Government should operate, each State would be free to choose if they wanted to provide a type of 'public' health care system. Then, using a term that is quickly dying, those that wished not to have such a plan, could 'vote with their feet' or tough it out until they can get the plan changed.

Ultimately when something becomes policy in Washington, it remains so. Sure, small little policies change here and there, but nothing of great magnitude. From there they continue to grow and demand more money. They become such a staple that politicians use them as weapons during election years and will cry that it would be the end of civilized society if we were to ever get rid of any of them.

With that, I conclude. I went on a bit of a tangent, so forgive me. I do not hold the document to be sacred text, but I do hold it to be the most important legal document for this nation. One in which all laws must be based off of and which the Federal Government is to operate from. Since both sides never really follow it, they have diminished the 'law of the land'. On another note....you stated 'that document doesn't change', in which there are specific procedures to change it. Yet the politicians would never dream of actually legalizing their policies because they know they would never pass that test to become part of the Constitution.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 01:28 PM
link   
Here's what I think of the Right/Tea Partiers:

Overthrow the government?
They are the real patriots?
Propaganda?


Sounds like Hitler's fun time before he got full power of Germany.

Glenn Beck is Goebbels..

but who's Hitler?



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 01:30 PM
link   
Far too much BS for me to cope with here. Hitler, was a progressive, he progressed away from the policies of the Weimar Republic. He was not a progressive as a right wing pundit would describe today (Obama is a progressive, but not a facsist) but was a progressive none the less. Hitler constantly talked about how Christianity was meak and flabby and he would have liked nothing more than to do away with it, because that was where he was meeting alot of opposition. Even though the Pope did not condemn the holocaust, the Catholic church in Germany was among the most outspoken opponents to the "Life unworthy of life" policy. There is a major difference between nationalism and patriotism. Patriotism: devoted love, support, and defense of one's country; national loyalty. Nationalism: the policy or doctrine of asserting the interests of one's own nation, viewed as separate from the interests of other nations or the common interests of all nations. The progressive liberals are promoting self hatred in order to further their agenda whereas the "facsist" right is promoting patriotism. I think I'll take the positive outlook over the negative one. That being said, I'm not here to support the neo-conservatives. They expanded the government, took away our civil liberties and lied about being "conservative". However, what the liberals are offering is much worse. I do not want, forced economic "equality", I want to take chances, succeed or fail and try again. Marxism does not work as an economic model, Castro himself admitted to it. There is no argument that the liberal progressives are marching towards socialism, the argument is whether you want that or not. PLEASE vote third party this November, Republicans and Democrats are equally reprehensible and I personally would love to see a Libertarian house and senate.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by ownbestenemy


There goal was not to establish a document that would serve to guide governance between the Federal Government and the People but rather lay the foundation in which the Government is structured and its limited role in the lives of individuals.

So you are correct that both sides do not agree upon it, because they are looking at the document in a way that you, and myself, find illogical.


I agree with most of what you are saying in theory, but the problem is the Civil War changed the way this works. If that war had not happened, I'd certainly agree the states have the power to set up their own health care system. That war squashed that idea and set up Federal Supremacy, for better or worse. People talk constantly about the need to get back to that, but it's not going to happen. Both the Roosevelt Eras also went a long way toward establishing that Supremacy. I think this is what the public has accepted at this point.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 02:04 PM
link   
One good example of American-style fascism was Henry Ford, who obviously represented elite industrialist interests, but also resented the finance capitalists of Wall Street--which he assumed (quite wrongly) were all Jews. In this respect, the was like the German industrialists of the Ruhr, the coal and iron barons, who swung behind Hitler. We now know that Henry Ford financed Hitler and the Nazi Party secretly starting about 1920 and paid large amounts of money to circulate racist and anti-Semitic propaganda around the world.

He also funded the KKK, the German-American Bund and various Nazi and fascist organizations in the US--there's that Right-wing populist element again. He was one of the original backers of Father Coughlin, the Nazi "Radio Priest" who also popped up in Detroit in the 1920s and 1930s when Ford was running the city. In that respect, Henry Ford is indeed one of the founders of Right-wing hate radio in America. He also funded the Nazi Charles Lindbergh and the America First Committee, whose main goal was to keep the US neutral in the Second World War for as long as possible, in line with Hitler's own foreign policy.

His chief assitant, Ernest Liebold, was a German spy in BOTH world wars and ardent Nazi, as Ford knew perfectly well since their views were identical. Liebold was the money man and main connection to the Nazis in Germany and other countries being financed by Ford. The US government finally forced Ford to fire him during World War II, and later pressured to take the company out of Ford's hands and turn it over to his grandson, Henry Ford II.

Edsel Ford, Henry's son, had died by that time, although during World War II he was being seriously investigated for espionage and sedition because of contacts with the Germans he was engaged in, through Switzerland. In fact, when he died in 1943 he was about to be arrested for treason and espionage.


So this is just one example of how fascism took root in the US, although the KKK is the original American fascist movement. It also fit the classic pattern of being financed by elite interests, including planters, bankers and industrialists who wanted to keep both blacks and lower class whites in line, but also had this racist, fundamentalist, Right-wing populist element as foot soldiers. Literally so, since it was organized along classic fascist, paramilitary lines.


In this respect, the Southern planters are also like the aristocratic Junkers of Germany, who controlled the country in an alliance with the Rhineland industrialists--the League of Rye and Iron, as it was called. They also controlled the Germany Army, and as we know, they swung by Hitler as well, and liked his ideas of Lebensraum in the East and also keeping the lower classes under control.


edit on 21-9-2010 by witness63 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by witness63
 


Can I get some actual proof here about Ford?

I am a car guy, so I know a lot about him and Edsel. But, I've never heard nor read any of this.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
and to get to the last point decades of social programs or entitlements that have led to the destruction of this country take a good look at where this country is today.


Destruction of this country happened not because of entitlements, but because of calculated and deliberate betrayal by the capitalist elite. Look at the manufacturing sector that collapsed not because of government intervention, but exactly because lack of action that led to mass exodus of jobs from the States to Asia and South America.

I looked at the US export statistics starting in 1990 and onward and it almost made me cry. We used to export so much and now we import even more. Next time you dial some Dell or whatever support center you'll talk to a person in Bangalore. What on earth do "entitlements" have to do with that simple fact?

All the hype you hear about "service economy" is just that, a hype. So the problem is not that entitlements are robbing us of money, but because we can no longer produce enough to support any social programs.

It could have been prevented by correct governance, but nobody cared.


last time i checked hitler was fascist and hitler grew to power by that rampant beleif in "social justice" and we saw where that led to.


This is a typical demagoguery trick known as Reductio ad Hitlerum. By far, most of the harm that Hitler did had nothing to do with social justice but by militaristic racist conquest and ethnic cleansing. By public works program, he created the Autobahn which is still the pride of Germany and which we poorly tried to emulate in our Interstate system.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by AdAbsurdum
reply to post by witness63
 


Can I get some actual proof here about Ford?

I am a car guy, so I know a lot about him and Edsel. But, I've never heard nor read any of this.



All that information comes from the book "American Axis", by Max Wallace. This is the link to it on Google Books:





new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join