Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
While I agree........it's a different story when you are the one continually attacked and demonized by politicians and Tea Partiers.......ask any gay person or other demonized minority...even teachers, policemen, firefighters, nurses, union workers.....
I had enough myself....so I composed this thread to try and expose some truths about what is happening to and in our country.
I've never seen so much scapegoating in my life...It's spooky. It makes me sick....Bullies try to heap shame and blame on others but yet they never question their behavior or feel any shame themselves.
and Obama signed an extension of it....so yeah he owns it now...but I am sure you knew that...
as for this thread...the amount of ignorance, spin, half-truths, lies and out-right stupidity that comes from the left is becoming more disturbing everyday....
a loose organization with no official leadership or elected heads that was considered "irrelevant" and "powerless" and "unimportant" a few months ago is now considered a threat greater then communism.....
It is amazing what large globs of money can do for a "leaderless organization". Has it ever occurred to you that is was planned that way?
the gross idiocy of this isn't what disturbs me....its to be expected of the left....but the embracing it, not recognizing it and considering themselves "enlighten" for it, is what disturbs me....to listen to the most disingenuous, incompetent people prance around as if they are smartest people in the world is what scares me..
What amazes me that the number of incredibly stupid poor/middleclass whites jumped on the tea bagger bandwagon which goes against their best interest. It's like a group of vampires selling crucifixes in the daylight
As an ardent admirer of Marx, Benito Mussolini (1883-1945) called his version of Marxist socialism "Fascism" Instead of nationalization--government ownership--of private business, Mussolini advocated government control of business via complete bureaucratic regulation.
Benito Mussolini promised a "social revolution" that would "remake" the Italian people. According to Patricia Knight, this was only achieved in part. The people who primarily benefited from Italian fascist social policies were members of the midde and lower-middle classes, who filled jobs in the vastly expanded government workforce, which grew from about 500,000 to 1,000,000 jobs in 1930 alone. Health and welfare spending grew dramatically under Italian fascism, with welfare rising from 7% of the budget in 1930 to 20% in 1940
""Fascism is a system in which the government leaves nominal ownership of the means of production in the hands of private individuals but exercises control by means of regulatory legislation and reaps most of the profit by means of heavy taxation. In effect, fascism is simply a more subtle form of government ownership than is socialism."" Mussolini ......((((but exercises control by means of regulatory legislation and reaps most of the profit by means of heavy taxation......liberals to a tee)))))
“Fascism recognizes the real needs which gave rise to socialism and trade-unionism, giving them due weight in the guild or corporative system in which diverent interests are coordinated and harmonised in the unity of the State.” - Benito Mussolini
Corporatism aka fascism owing to the corporatist structures created by Mussolini's regime as well as in the latter years of the Third Reich under Albert Speer's direction. Corporatism was viewed by some as an appropriate strategy to prevent worker unrest, as well as a potentially and effective economic strategy. Franklin D. Roosevelt was one such proponent. While Roosevelt was not dictator- he declared a loathing for authoritarianism - his liberal corporatism was part of his vision for a "third way", reflected in the New Deal.
In a laudatory review of Roosevelt's 1933 book Looking Forward, Mussolini wrote, "Reminiscent of Fascism is the principle that the state no longer leaves the economy to its own devices.… Without question, the mood accompanying this sea change resembles that of Fascism"
Zbigniew Brzezinski advisor to carter, clinton and obama.....""This is a form of Socialism known as fascism, and it will be the type of world government the power elite plans ultimately to bring about and control. In this government, the power elite will control politicians who will become government leaders who will promulgate laws, rules and regulations favorable to certain transnational corporations"""
The aim of socialism is not only to abolish the present division of mankind into smaller states and all-national isolation, not only to bring the nations closer to each other, but also to merge them." Lennin
H.G. Wells was of the greatest influences on the progressive mind in the twentieth century (and, it turns out, the inspiration for Huxley's Brave New World). Wells didn't coin the phrase as an indictment, but as a badge of honor. Progressives must become "liberal fascists" and "enlightened Nazis," he told the Young Liberals at Oxford in a speech in July 1932.
Where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society’s economic processes through direct state operation of the means of production, fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners. Where socialism nationalized property explicitly, fascism did so implicitly, by requiring owners to use their property in the “national interest”—that is, as the autocratic authority conceived it. (Nevertheless, a few industries were operated by the state.) Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities. Where socialism abolished money and prices, fascism controlled the monetary system and set all prices and wages politically. In doing all this, fascism denatured the marketplace. State ministries, rather than consumers, determined what was produced and under what conditions.
Adolf Hitler, whose National Socialist (Nazi) Party adapted fascism to Germany beginning in 1933, said: “The state should retain supervision and each property owner should consider himself appointed by the state. It is his duty not to use his property against the interests of others among his own people. This is the crucial matter. The Third Reich will always retain its right to control the owners of property.” (Barkai 1990, pp. 26–27).....(think about that when you pay your property taxes)
"A Marxist begins with his prime truth that all evils are caused by the exploitation of the proletariat by the capitalists. From this he logically proceeds to the revolution to end capitalism, then into the third stage of reorganization into a new social order of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and finally the last stage -- the political paradise of communism." Saul alinsky
the "salesman" of hitler, like any politician (right or left) may say or sell one thing, but what it TURNS OUT to be could be different
our own system has plenty of examples of 'good/nice' ideas...but poor plans or follow thru
example 1993 Nafta will create jobs.....nope it cost 40 million jobs over the last 17 years
1995 revamping and easing the CRA will allow more people to own homes......it did in the short term...but it also created a bubble were prices (ie values) increase dramaticly, that most middleclass are now priced(and the corrosponding taxes that go with it) out of thier homes. to a housing bust that brought everything else down
hilter was in the beginning the candidate of hope and change..to bring "the marxist/socialist' "nicities" to the country..like his antismokeing,,national health care///wealth distrobution.....the problem,, hilter was a pyscopath and his vision of UTOPIA turned into a dictatorship from hades
most AMERICAN liberals dont see( or dont want to admit) that their overregulation, and limiting of freedoms is exactly the description of fascism
The Fascists were completely against individualism in general and especially against individualism in a free-market economy. Their agenda included minimum-wage laws, government restrictions on profit-making, progressive taxation of capital, and “rigidly secular” schools.Unlike the Communists, the Fascists did not seek government ownership of the means of production. They just wanted the government to call the shots as to how businesses would be run.They were for “industrial policy,” long before liberals coined that phrase in the United States.
Indeed, the whole Fascist economic agenda bears a remarkable resemblance to what liberals would later advocate.
Moreover, during the 1920s “progressives” in the United States and Britain recognized the kinship of their ideas with those of Mussolini, who was widely lionized by the Left.
Famed British novelist and prominent Fabian socialist H. G. Wells called for “Liberal Fascism,” saying “the world is sick of parliamentary politics.”
Another literary giant and Fabian socialist, George Bernard Shaw, also expressed his admiration for Mussolini — as well as for Hitler and Stalin, because they “did things,” instead of just talk.
In Germany, the Nazis followed in the wake of the Italian Fascists, adding racism in general and anti-Semitism in particular, neither of which was part of Fascism in Italy or in Franco’s Spain.
Even the Nazi variant of Fascism found favor on the Left when it was only a movement seeking power in the 1920s.
W. E. B. DuBois was so taken with the Nazi movement that he put swastikas on the cover of a magazine he edited, despite complaints from Jewish readers.
Even after Hitler achieved dictatorial power in Germany in 1933, DuBois declared that the Nazi dictatorship was “absolutely necessary in order to get the state in order.”
As late as 1937 he said in a speech in Harlem that “there is today, in some respects, more democracy in Germany than there has been in years past.”
In short, during the 1920s and the early 1930s, Fascism was not only looked on favorably by the Left but recognized as having kindred ideas, agendas, and assumptions.
Only after Hitler and Mussolini disgraced themselves, mainly by their brutal military aggressions in the 1930s, did the Left distance itself from these international pariahs.
Fascism, initially recognized as a kindred ideology of the Left, has since come down to us defined as being on “the Right” — indeed, as representing the farthest Right, supposedly further extensions of conservatism. If by conservatism you mean belief in free markets, limited government, and traditional morality, including religious influences, then these are all things that the Fascists opposed just as much as the Left does today. The Left may say that they are not racists or anti-Semites, like Hitler, but neither was Mussolini or Franco. Hitler, incidentally, got some of his racist ideology from the writings of American “
Roosevelt himself called Mussolini “admirable” and professed that he was “deeply impressed by what he has accomplished.” The admiration was mutual. In a laudatory review of Roosevelt’s 1933 book Looking Forward, Mussolini wrote, “Reminiscent of Fascism is the principle that the state no longer leaves the economy to its own devices.…Without question, the mood accompanying this sea change resembles that of Fascism.” The chief Nazi newspaper, Volkischer Beobachter, repeatedly praised “Roosevelt’s adoption of National Socialist strains of thought in his economic and social policies” and “the development toward an authoritarian state” based on the “demand that collective good be put before individual self-interest.”
In 1935 former President Herbert Hoover was using phrases like “Fascist regimentation” in discussing the New Deal. A decade later, he wrote in his memoirs that “the New Deal introduced to Americans the spectacle of Fascist dictation to business, labor and agriculture,” and that measures such as the Agricultural Adjustment Act, “in their consequences of control of products and markets, set up an uncanny Americanized parallel with the agricultural regime of Mussolini and Hitler.”
In 1973 one of the most distinguished American historians, John A. Garraty of Columbia University, created a stir with his article “The New Deal, National Socialism, and the Great Depression.” Garraty was an admirer of Roosevelt but couldn’t help noticing, for instance, the parallels between the Civilian Conservation Corps and similar programs in Germany. Both, he wrote, “were essentially designed to keep young men out of the labor market. Roosevelt described work camps as a means for getting youth ‘off the city street corners,’ Hitler as a way of keeping them from ‘rotting helplessly in the streets.’ In both countries much was made of the beneficial social results of mixing thousands of young people from different walks of life in the camps. Furthermore, both were organized on semimilitary lines with the subsidiary purposes of improving the physical fitness of potential soldiers and stimulating public commitment to national service in an emergency.”
And in 1976, presidential candidate Ronald Reagan incurred the ire of Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), pro-Roosevelt historian Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., and The New York Times when he told reporters that “fascism was really the basis of the New Deal.”
To compare is not to equate, as Schivelbusch says. It’s sobering to note the real parallels among these systems. But it’s even more important to remember that the U.S. did not succumb to dictatorship. Roosevelt may have stretched the Constitution beyond recognition, and he had a taste for planning and power previously unknown in the White House. But he was not a murderous thug. And despite a population that “literally waited for orders,” as McCormick put it, American institutions did not collapse. The Supreme Court declared some New Deal measures unconstitutional. Some business leaders resisted it. Intellectuals on both the right and the left, some of whom ended up in the early libertarian movement, railed against Roosevelt. Republican politicians (those were the days!) tended to oppose both the flow of power to Washington and the shift to executive authority.
Germany had a parliament and political parties and business leaders, and they collapsed in the face of Hitler’s movement. Something was different in the United States. Perhaps it was the fact that the country was formed by people who had left the despots of the Old World to find freedom in the new, and who then made a libertarian revolution. Americans tend to think of themselves as individuals, with equal rights and equal freedom. A nation whose fundamental ideology is, in the words of the recently deceased sociologist Seymour Martin Lipset, “antistatism, laissez-faire, individualism, populism, and egalitarianism” will be far more resistant to illiberal ideologies
IMHO......The Tea Party was and is NOT a grass roots organization. It is the exposed nerve of the Republican Base funded by the likes of the Koch Brothers and groups like A.L.E.C.
You mean I used to be in favor of our government looting the treasury and giving it away to their corporate and Wall Street cronies, and then the Koch brothers convinced me otherwise? Who knew?
You are deranged if you think cobbling together these 14 parameters, and then claiming they prove every American who agrees with the TEA party, which is against an out of control government, is somehow in favor of a fascism.
I did not, and do not need the TEA party, the GOP or whoever these Koch brothers are, to influence my opinions on runaway government spending, the creation of irresponsible regulations that allowed investment and commercial banks to merge, Nor do I need outside influences to color my opinion of banks who lose all our investments, and our government repaying these same banks, corporations, GSEs and insurance companies with my taxes.
When are you lefties going to realize that every American should oppose over reaching and out of control federal government policies!!! Our government is looting the treasury ,for TRILLIONS of dollars, and the only ones who are benefiting are the corporate and political cronies of the politicians in Washington.
Whatever presidential administration preceded this one, the 0bama admin is looting, regulating, mandating and spending on a scale that has utterly shocked a nation, and you think we are only ignorant pawns, who would have actually supported this insanity, if not for the Koch brothers????
Of course it is, and the only reason why the left wants to pretend it's right-wing is because history has proven how unjust and terrible it was.
The left loves tyranny, the more power that the central government has over how we are allowed to live our lives, the more enthusiastic the left will be to vote in favor of it.
Whats funny is TP started as good idea-people angry at govt.
NOW however, its been hijacked by billionaires, and is a vehicle for the Bank of England and GLOBALISM.
Kepp your friends close but your enemies closer
~ Machiavelli
The poor masses are the enemy of billionaires, they coddle them to manipulate them.....
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
