NeoConservatism vs Fascism

[eots]

Alex Jones: What a bunch of garbage; liberal, democrat, conservative, republican. It's all there to control you! Two sides of the same coin. Two management teams bidding for control, the CEO job of Slavery, Incorporated! The truth is out there in front of you, but they lay out this buffet of lies. I'm sick of it, and I'm not going to take a bite out of it, do you got me?

 

[BrianH]

Alex Jones: What a bunch of garbage; liberal, democrat, conservative, republican. It's all there to control you! Two sides of the same coin. Two management teams bidding for control, the CEO job of Slavery, Incorporated! The truth is out there in front of you, but they lay out this buffet of lies. I'm sick of it, and I'm not going to take a bite out of it, do you got me?

whaaaa whaaaa whaaaa......what do you suggest....an armed revolution?? No one is even debating the whether or not they like the whole political system smartness, they're discussing it's definitions and what it is composed of. You think most Americans don't know what you're talking about.....well maybe not most Americans, but most of us know that it's certainly not representative of the people.

 

[AllieBaba]

Sometimes we hate what we can't understand. The workings of a republic are generally beyond the small, hate-filled, power-hungry liberal mind.

 

[Ravi]

Sometimes we hate what we can't understand. The workings of a republic are generally beyond the small, hate-filled, power-hungry liberal mind.

Yeh, those stupid liberal Founders, eh? They totally screwed up.

 

[eots]

whaaaa whaaaa whaaaa......what do you suggest....an armed revolution?? No one is even debating the whether or not they like the whole political system smartness, they're discussing it's definitions and what it is composed of. You think most Americans don't know what you're talking about.....well maybe not most Americans, but most of us know that it's certainly not representative of the people.

a armed revolution is not necessary . changes born of.violent revolutions don't really last ..but a revolution is indeed what is needed ...a new renaissance

 

[AllieBaba]

Yeh, those stupid liberal Founders, eh? They totally screwed up.

Like I said, plop them down in today's political climate and suddenly they aren't liberals anymore. They're far, far right wing conservatives.

Liberalism, like the truth to most liberals, is not a static or constant thing. The meaning changes with the times.

 

[BrianH]

a armed revolution is not necessary . changes born of.violent revolutions don't really last ..but a revolution is indeed what is needed ...a new renaissance

The problem with that, is that even though some people "open their eyes" how many of them will actually do anything about the situation? I agree with you to an extent, but we've got a long way for change.

 

[Ravi]

Like I said, plop them down in today's political climate and suddenly they aren't liberals anymore. They're far, far right wing conservatives.

Liberalism, like the truth to most liberals, is not a static or constant thing. The meaning changes with the times.

Nope, they are still liberals. Just because you believe the conservative spin doesn't make it true.

 

[Diuretic]

Geometry being compartable to Politics -

It's a metaphor, not geometry. And in terms of tendency towards totalitariansm it's an apt metaphor.

 

[Diuretic]

a armed revolution is not necessary . changes born of.violent revolutions don't really last ..but a revolution is indeed what is needed ...a new renaissance

The US was born from violent revolution and it's still trucking along.

 

[eots]

The US was born from violent revolution and it's still trucking along.

not really the true independence from the ruling elite was relatively short lived

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2002/cr091002b.htm

 

[Diuretic]

not really the true independence from the ruling elite was relatively short lived

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2002/cr091002b.htm

When did the rot set in? Or am I drifting the thread?

 

[AllieBaba]

It doesn't matter. The thread was deserted by any interesting input some time ago. Now it's like 2-person chat.

 

[eots]

When did the rot set in? Or am I drifting the thread?

sorry... feel free to return to your left/right delusions

 

[Diuretic]

sorry... feel free to return to your left/right delusions

No I wasn't having a go at you, I didn't make myself clear.

You pointed me to a speech by Ron Paul about abolishing the federal reserve. And that was after your point about the ruling class settling in after the revolution. I thought that was an apt comment in view of what tends to happen after violent revolutions.

France had one and look what happened shortly after, the Reign of Terror and then a series of alternate governments shifting from republican to monarchy (imperialist in Bonaparte's case) through another mini-revolution (the Paris Commune) and then to a series of republics (the last serious near-revolution was in 1968 during deGaulle's presidency).

The aftermath of the Great October Revolution in Russia was a struggle between revolutionary forces and after the death of Lenin the ascension by Stalin who became the new Tsar.

So, in the US, after the revolutionary war and the establishment of self-government, when did it go back to business as usual with the ruling elite?

 

[BrianH]

Historically speaking, how many countries, civilizations, do you know of that weren't run by "elites"? Every civilization on earth is run by "elites." If there's a revolution to over-throw elites, then the next people to gain power become elites and rule. It's an endless cycle.

 

[Diuretic]

Historically speaking, how many countries, civilizations, do you know of that weren't run by "elites"? Every civilization on earth is run by "elites." If there's a revolution to over-throw elites, then the next people to gain power become elites and rule. It's an endless cycle.

Theoretically it's not but given human nature it probably is. By theoretically I mean that Marx thought that there could be a state where there are not elites. In a sense that's reminscent for me anyway of the extreme libertarian and anarchist arguments. I don't know of humans will ever get over the tendency to oligarchy, but it may happen.

 

[BrianH]

Theoretically it's not but given human nature it probably is. By theoretically I mean that Marx thought that there could be a state where there are not elites. In a sense that's reminscent for me anyway of the extreme libertarian and anarchist arguments. I don't know of humans will ever get over the tendency to oligarchy, but it may happen.

Yeah, I agree...but it's very unlikely that we'll achieve a state where there are no elites. Our entire country and life is set up on the premise of achieving better, or making alot of money, getting to that "elite" status. Personally, I could care less as long as I'm eduacted and am making a good-living. But I hate to break it to the Marxists, a world without elitists is nowhere in the near future.

 

[AllieBaba]

Especially since the definition of elite is to be a little different, to have more of something, than most others.

THe people who run countries are by definition, elite. Of COURSE they are. The fact that they are running the country MAKES them elite.

 

[eots]

my definition of elite is not success or becoming a millionaire I'm speaking of a very small group of people and the organization's they front like the cfr ,the trilateral commission's, bilderbergs.. all with over lapping memberships and agendas and it is well within the power of the masses with awareness to eliminate the unwarranted influence of these people and organizations