Trust, But Verify

[PoliticalChic]

Forcing citizens to buy a federal product...ending the concept of federalism...telling private companies where they can open factories...imposing controls on the internet...


“Each advance in the powers of government, each surrender of an additional quantum of our freedom, represents a corruption of our basic character, yet there are times when it is the lesser of ineluctable evils. …Once in place, the big government follows its preordained path, and sought to expand.

If we were ever faced with a choice between individualism and the kind of coddling mama-state Tocqueville dreads, we would draw a line and fight for our freedoms, but we never had the luxury of such a “moment of truth.” The biggest changes were taken in highly charged moments, and presented by national heroes who stigmatized their critics as greedy and uncaring people. Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s famous campaign address in Madison Square Garden in 1936, when he spoke of the boom of the 1920’s and the 1929 crash that led to his election in 1932, is a classic example. “Nine wild years of the golden calf, and three long years of the scourge. Nine frantic years at the ticker, and three hard years in the breadlines…” The New Deal wasn’t merely a rescue operation for the broke, the hungry, and the unemployed; like all our great national enterprises, it was presented as a crusade against evil itself. When Lyndon Johnson proposed the Great Society legislation of the mid 1960’s he evoked similar themes, presenting is program as a moral necessity. Each change was viewed as a single decision, not part of a pattern, and as Tocqueville predicted, we grew accustomed to it.” Ledeen, “Tocqueville on American Character,” p.179-180.

1) One thing that jumps out is Ledeen’s thinking that “If we were ever faced with a choice between individualism and the kind of coddling mama-state… we would draw a line and fight for our freedoms,…” Of course, that presupposes that we would all recognize the position, see the loss and what it represents. Do we? Will we? 2012 will tell the tale.

2) In his book, Ledeen points, many times, to Tocqueville’s contention that Americans are a moral people. Moreso than others. And the selection above shows that as well, in that once our leaders frame a question in terms of morality, of good vs. evil, of right vs. wrong, Americans vote for it…even though it costs blood or it costs treasure. The New Deal, World Wars, the Great Society,… …but our elected leaders don’t always tell the truth. And, sadly, many are unable to recognize that.

3) Our great first-Republican President sagely told us “You may fool all the people some of the time, you can even fool some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all the time.”

Of course, you only have to fool 51% of the people.

2012 will tell the tale.

Will Americans accepted the 'change' imposed on us, or will we remind politicians that they rule at our whim?

 

[percysunshine]

Fascism sucks. Especially when liberals do it.

 

[Wiseacre]

It's damn hard to take something away from people after you've told them they're entitled to it. I think we're fucked, it's going to take a major shock like a big depression for people to realize there's no free lunch, and no free healthcare either.

 

[PoliticalChic]

It's damn hard to take something away from people after you've told them they're entitled to it. I think we're fucked, it's going to take a major shock like a big depression for people to realize there's no free lunch, and no free healthcare either.

"It's damn hard to take something away from people after you've told them they're entitled to it."

True, but have faith in the American people. I believe that an understanding of the difference between a right and an entitlement would help.

1. "But these new so-called “rights” are about the government — who the Founders saw as the enemy — giving us things: food, health care, education... And when we have a right to be given stuff that previously we had to work for, then there is no reason — none — to go and work for them. The goody bag has no bottom, except bankruptcy and ruin." What Is a Right and How Do We Know? - Bill Whittle - National Review Online

2. “True” rights are inalienable. They exist whether or not they are recognized, and whether or not the ability or the will to defend them exists.

True rights do not impose an implicit obligation upon any other person to provide them to us. In fact, rights exist in greatest measure when we are each simply “left alone”.
If something must be provided to us at the expense of someone else in order for us to have it, then it may be an entitlement, a privilage, or an act of charity – but it is not a “right”.

The American founders (Jefferson, Mason, et al) arguably devised the best system to date – although it has clearly suffered at the hands of many of it’s caretakers over the years.
“To secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed.”
Rights vs entitlement and privilege | Breckshire … World with a View

3. Moreover, entitlements are always financed by compelling others to pay. Thus, they lead to more and more interference with individual freedom as government grows in size to administer its programs, seizing the fruits of individuals’ actions both to support itself and to fulfill its entitlement guarantees.
Rights Versus Entitlements | The Freeman | Ideas On Liberty

4. The human right to affordable restaurant-quality food:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRaIsqb3DqA]YouTube - Unidine[/ame]

 

[The T]

It's damn hard to take something away from people after you've told them they're entitled to it. I think we're fucked, it's going to take a major shock like a big depression for people to realize there's no free lunch, and no free healthcare either.

And then that would portend the death knell of Liberty itself.

I'll have NO part of it.

 

[The T]

It's damn hard to take something away from people after you've told them they're entitled to it. I think we're fucked, it's going to take a major shock like a big depression for people to realize there's no free lunch, and no free healthcare either.

"It's damn hard to take something away from people after you've told them they're entitled to it."

True, but have faith in the American people. I believe that an understanding of the difference between a right and an entitlement would help.

1. "But these new so-called “rights” are about the government — who the Founders saw as the enemy — giving us things: food, health care, education... And when we have a right to be given stuff that previously we had to work for, then there is no reason — none — to go and work for them. The goody bag has no bottom, except bankruptcy and ruin." What Is a Right and How Do We Know? - Bill Whittle - National Review Online

2. “True” rights are inalienable. They exist whether or not they are recognized, and whether or not the ability or the will to defend them exists.

True rights do not impose an implicit obligation upon any other person to provide them to us. In fact, rights exist in greatest measure when we are each simply “left alone”.
If something must be provided to us at the expense of someone else in order for us to have it, then it may be an entitlement, a privilage, or an act of charity – but it is not a “right”.

The American founders (Jefferson, Mason, et al) arguably devised the best system to date – although it has clearly suffered at the hands of many of it’s caretakers over the years.
“To secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed.”
Rights vs entitlement and privilege | Breckshire … World with a View

3. Moreover, entitlements are always financed by compelling others to pay. Thus, they lead to more and more interference with individual freedom as government grows in size to administer its programs, seizing the fruits of individuals’ actions both to support itself and to fulfill its entitlement guarantees.
Rights Versus Entitlements | The Freeman | Ideas On Liberty

4. The human right to affordable restaurant-quality food:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRaIsqb3DqA"]YouTube - Unidine[/ame]

True rights do not impose an implicit obligation upon any other person to provide them to us. In fact, rights exist in greatest measure when we are each simply “left alone”.
If something must be provided to us at the expense of someone else in order for us to have it, then it may be an entitlement, a privilage, or an act of charity – but it is not a “right

”.

All that need be done is Exercising...and defending when government imperils the exercise...

 

[zzzz]

“To secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed.”

Consent of the governed ...

All it takes in this country is less than 20% of the governed to select a president!
Bush 2000: 50,456,002 votes, population of US: 281,421,906
So who do they represent? 1 out of every 5 people?

The majority of the PEOPLE of the United States have in effect forfeited their right to elect people to represent them, why? Are they so comfortable or wrapped up in their lives that they just ignore politics? Or do they think that their vote does not really count? Or are we just a bunch of losers who complain and complain but are so lazy or indifferent that we will not do anything but complain? Or is life too busy with work, family and making a living that getting involved is something they just do not have time for.

 

[dilloduck]

“To secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed.”

Consent of the governed ...

All it takes in this country is less than 20% of the governed to select a president!
Bush 2000: 50,456,002 votes, population of US: 281,421,906
So who do they represent? 1 out of every 5 people?

The majority of the PEOPLE of the United States have in effect forfeited their right to elect people to represent them, why? Are they so comfortable or wrapped up in their lives that they just ignore politics? Or do they think that their vote does not really count? Or are we just a bunch of losers who complain and complain but are so lazy or indifferent that we will not do anything but complain? Or is life too busy with work, family and making a living that getting involved is something they just do not have time for.

Simple----our election system is rigged and once someone is elected it's too hard for the people to get them out of there.

 

[NYcarbineer]

“To secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed.”

Consent of the governed ...

All it takes in this country is less than 20% of the governed to select a president!
Bush 2000: 50,456,002 votes, population of US: 281,421,906
So who do they represent? 1 out of every 5 people?

The majority of the PEOPLE of the United States have in effect forfeited their right to elect people to represent them, why? Are they so comfortable or wrapped up in their lives that they just ignore politics? Or do they think that their vote does not really count? Or are we just a bunch of losers who complain and complain but are so lazy or indifferent that we will not do anything but complain? Or is life too busy with work, family and making a living that getting involved is something they just do not have time for.

Maybe you should start a movement to lower the voting age to zero.

 

[PoliticalChic]

“To secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed.”

Consent of the governed ...

All it takes in this country is less than 20% of the governed to select a president!
Bush 2000: 50,456,002 votes, population of US: 281,421,906
So who do they represent? 1 out of every 5 people?

The majority of the PEOPLE of the United States have in effect forfeited their right to elect people to represent them, why? Are they so comfortable or wrapped up in their lives that they just ignore politics? Or do they think that their vote does not really count? Or are we just a bunch of losers who complain and complain but are so lazy or indifferent that we will not do anything but complain? Or is life too busy with work, family and making a living that getting involved is something they just do not have time for.

"Or is life too busy with work, family and making a living that getting involved is something they just do not have time for."
I think you hit the nail on the head, Z's.

And of course, the sought-after ‘American Dream’ is easier to capture if the government does it for us…even though we know that doing it for ourselves is the right course. So, we feel guilty with each concession of our liberty. That’s where the rationalization for our inactions comes in!

1. First, we claim what can one single vote or protest do. Cynicism. Yet, isn’t it always a small determined group, or even one courageous individual, that transforms?

2. Then, there is the belief in some big theory, because that saves us the trouble of actually checking the facts, research, analysis…but requires us to ignore the realization that there is data that doesn’t fit….So the MSM does the thinking for vast swaths of Americans.
But that's changing, too....there's a new media. And the old media has proven to many how disreputable it is.

3. Lest this sounds too pessimistic...we may be in a very special place....the perfect storm created by an administration that believes it's own hype....
...and a public that is actually paying attention.
That is never a good thing for the Left!

It may be that the recession, the hardships that so many face, gas prices, meaningless intercessions, broken promises, and the arrogance of this amateur President will be the perfect storm...


But...there is a warning in the words of Oscar Wilde- "There are only two tragedies in life: one is not getting what one wants, and the other is getting it."

What will we do with the United States after we take it back?

 

[zzzz]

We have been having a similar discussion in regards to public participation in local politics in the local paper. We had several people in the primary race for local offices but several backed out in the weeks leading up to the primary leaving only uncontested candidates. But by law an election had to held and it cost several thousand dollars for a useless exercise. Local government is where it all starts and it is here that we as citizens are failing in our civic duty. It is here that future presidents and Representatives learn the process and how to connect to the people and to govern. But peoples lives are too full to join into the process. Some do but a lot of them drop out after one term because of the time pressure.

I propositioned that maybe it is time to take capitalism to a higher level. Lets start taking parts of the local government, like the Treasurer, Recorder, Sanitation, highway, and other areas and privatize them. Hire an outside company to run the local government and eliminate all the offices but Mayor who will still be at the whim of the public but he would oversee the issuing of contracts and such. He would be the CEO of the local governmental entity. That is a simplified concept but it would give us a steady and over time experienced cadre of people. There would no longer be a public pension, except for the Mayors office, medical and everything would be handled by the contracting companies.

Now take that to the National and State levels. Why not privatize the Army, the FBI, the CIA? In reality the major companies are already heavily involved in what they spend, why not privatize and let the pressures of the "God of Profit" take over and eliminate all that government waste. We could keep some resemblance of an elected government as oversight and contracting agent.

I think this concept can work but will it ever come about? It is happening now but in small steps. Prisons are being privatized, Daniels privatized several things in Indiana including the Toll road. Will the US look that way in 2100? Only time will tell but the system is breaking down and something needs to be done before we have complete and total breakdown. Maybe thats what we need.

 

[Bfgrn]

Fascism sucks. Especially when liberals do it.

PC's author is a fascist.

Neocon Neo-Fascist Theorist Michael Ledeen

On the antiwar Right, it has been customary to attack the warmongering neoconservative clique for its Trotskyite origins. Certainly, the founding father of neoconservatism, Irving Kristol, wrote in 1983 that he was “proud” to have been a member of the Fourth International in 1940. Other future leading lights of the neocon movement were also initially Trotskyites, like James Burnham and Max Kampelman—the latter a conscientious objector during the war against Hitler, a status that Evron Kirkpatrick, husband of Jeane, used his influence to obtain for him. But there is at least one neoconservative commentator whose personal political odyssey began with a fascination not with Trotskyism, but instead with another famous political movement that grew up in the early decades of the 20th century: fascism. I refer to Michael Ledeen, leading neocon theoretician, expert on Machiavelli, holder of the Freedom Chair at the American Enterprise Institute, regular columnist for National Review—and the principal cheerleader today for an extension of the war on terror to include regime change in Iran.

Ledeen has gained notoriety in recent months for the following paragraph in his latest book, The War Against the Terror Masters. In what reads like a prophetic approval of the policy of chaos now being visited on Iraq, Ledeen wrote,

Creative destruction is our middle name, both within our own society and abroad. We tear down the old order every day, from business to science, literature, art, architecture, and cinema to politics and the law. Our enemies have always hated this whirlwind of energy and creativity, which menaces their traditions (whatever they may be) and shames them for their inability to keep pace. Seeing America undo traditional societies, they fear us, for they do not wish to be undone. They cannot feel secure so long as we are there, for our very existence—our existence, not our politics—threatens their legitimacy. They must attack us in order to survive, just as we must destroy them to advance our historic mission.

Ledeen’s conviction that the Right is as revolutionary as the Left derives from his youthful interest in Italian fascism. In 1975, Ledeen published an interview, in book form, with the Italian historian Renzo de Felice, a man he greatly admires. It caused a great controversy in Italy. Ledeen later made clear that he relished the ire of the left-wing establishment precisely because “De Felice was challenging the conventional wisdom of Italian Marxist historiography, which had always insisted that fascism was a reactionary movement.” What de Felice showed, by contrast, was that Italian fascism was both right-wing and revolutionary.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Fascism sucks. Especially when liberals do it.

PC's author is a fascist.

Neocon Neo-Fascist Theorist Michael Ledeen

On the antiwar Right, it has been customary to attack the warmongering neoconservative clique for its Trotskyite origins. Certainly, the founding father of neoconservatism, Irving Kristol, wrote in 1983 that he was “proud” to have been a member of the Fourth International in 1940. Other future leading lights of the neocon movement were also initially Trotskyites, like James Burnham and Max Kampelman—the latter a conscientious objector during the war against Hitler, a status that Evron Kirkpatrick, husband of Jeane, used his influence to obtain for him. But there is at least one neoconservative commentator whose personal political odyssey began with a fascination not with Trotskyism, but instead with another famous political movement that grew up in the early decades of the 20th century: fascism. I refer to Michael Ledeen, leading neocon theoretician, expert on Machiavelli, holder of the Freedom Chair at the American Enterprise Institute, regular columnist for National Review—and the principal cheerleader today for an extension of the war on terror to include regime change in Iran.

Ledeen has gained notoriety in recent months for the following paragraph in his latest book, The War Against the Terror Masters. In what reads like a prophetic approval of the policy of chaos now being visited on Iraq, Ledeen wrote,

Creative destruction is our middle name, both within our own society and abroad. We tear down the old order every day, from business to science, literature, art, architecture, and cinema to politics and the law. Our enemies have always hated this whirlwind of energy and creativity, which menaces their traditions (whatever they may be) and shames them for their inability to keep pace. Seeing America undo traditional societies, they fear us, for they do not wish to be undone. They cannot feel secure so long as we are there, for our very existence—our existence, not our politics—threatens their legitimacy. They must attack us in order to survive, just as we must destroy them to advance our historic mission.

Ledeen’s conviction that the Right is as revolutionary as the Left derives from his youthful interest in Italian fascism. In 1975, Ledeen published an interview, in book form, with the Italian historian Renzo de Felice, a man he greatly admires. It caused a great controversy in Italy. Ledeen later made clear that he relished the ire of the left-wing establishment precisely because “De Felice was challenging the conventional wisdom of Italian Marxist historiography, which had always insisted that fascism was a reactionary movement.” What de Felice showed, by contrast, was that Italian fascism was both right-wing and revolutionary.

Boring, you are always good for a laugh! thomhartmann????

As usual, both the ignorant, and the Left, (unless I'm being redundant) throw around the term 'fascist' simply as the translation 'I don't like you.'

So, a teachable moment. One can be a fascist only if one subscrbes to totalitarian thinking, i.e., socialism, communism, progressivism, liberalism...etc.

Here is your remedial course for the week:

1. Benito Amilcare Andrea Mussolini. Named for Amilcare Cipriani, who formed the Socialist Revolutionary Anarchist Party in 1891, and Andrea Costa (1851–1910), an Italian socialist activist’

2. “Mussolini had become a member of the Socialist Party in 1900…Mussolini held several posts as editor and labor leader until he emerged in the 1912 Socialist Party Congress.” Benito Mussolini Biography - life, family, story, death, school, mother, old, information, born, time, year

3. “He became the secretary of the local socialist party in Forli and became the editor of the socialist newspaper "The Class Struggle" (La Lotta di Classe)….After he left the ‘L’Avanti, Mussolini still claimed to be a socialist but his colleagues disagreed. At a meeting in Milan they decided to expel him from the Socialist Party. He told them ‘You cannot get rid of me because I am and always will be a socialist. You hate me because you still love me." ” Benito Mussolini

4. “He was a staunch proponent of revolutionary rather than reformist socialism, and actually received Lenin's endorsement and support for expelling reformists from the Socialist Party. He was in fact first dubbed "Il Duce" (the Leader) when he was a member of Italy's (Marxist) Socialist Party.” Roman Salute & Benito Mussolini -The raised one arm salute is a myth re: Roman Salute: Cinema, History, Ideology & myths debunked by Dr. Rex Curry along with Gladiator: Film and History. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE & SOCIALIST SALUTES & SOCIALISM: The socia

5. “Between 1912 and 1914, Mussolini was the editor of the Socialist Party newspaper, "L'Avanti. In 1914 he started his own socialist newspaper "Il Popolo d'Italia" ("The people of Italy")." Ibid.

And intellectuals and elites in America, read 'FDR', they saw the evil right away, didn’t they?

a. The 1934 Cole Porter hit ‘You’re the Top” had the perfectly acceptable line “You are Mussolini.”

b. The Chicago Tribune supported his invasion of Ethiopia (Change of Subject: Streetworthy? The case for and against Italo Balbo)

c. Will Rogers: “I’m pretty high on that bird….Dictator form of government is the greatest form of government: that is if you have the right Dictator.” https://journals.ku.edu/index.php/amerstud/article/viewFile/2059/2018

d. “At a time when many young intellectuals were rejecting the "dogma" of classical liberalism, Mussolini seemed a leader at the forefront of the movement to reject the old ways of thinking. This was the dawn of the "fascistic century." after all.” NW Republican: The Father of Fascism, (pt. 2)

e. Columbia University established the Casa Italiano, in 1926. “The center of this propaganda is the Casa Italiana….one of the most important sources of fascist propaganda in the U.S. No liberal can quarrel with the principle that Columbia University must permit all varieties of political opinion, including fascism, to be freely expressed there.” http://live.thenation.com/archive/detail/13544357

f. Hollywood actually had Mussolini appear with Lionel Barrymore in “The Eternal City.” 1923, playing himself. The Eternal City (1923) - IMDb
And in 1933, Columbia pictures produced “Mussolini Speaks.” ‘Everything he does---all he says---is vibrant with force’ (original poster) and ‘He thunders like a storm. He glows like Vesuvius. He acts with amazing speed’. (original poster) Mussolin Speaks! (1933) - Taglines

g. New Deal bureaucrats studied Mussolini’s corporatism closely. From “Fortune” magazine: ‘The Corporate state is to Mussolini what the New Deal is to Roosevelt.’(July 1934)

It is Sorel’s syndicalism that makes Mussolini’s socialism into fascism. The connection is even more clear when one recalls that syndicalists believed in rule by revolutionary trade unions: the word is from the French ‘syndicat,’ meaning ‘trade union,’ while the Italian ‘fascio,’ which means bundle, was often used for trade unions.


So, it appears that Socialist, Fascist, Progressive, Communist, Marxist, all are fruit of the very same poisonous tree.

(Did you see the connection between Lenin and Mussolin in #4?)
(and "e"...liberalism and fascism? pretty good, eh?)


So, knowing that accuity is not your strong suit, BoingFriendlessGuy, let's review: the 'birds of a feather' include every Left-wing variation: socialism, sydicalism, progressivism, Nazism, fascism, and liberalism.

Now, a short quiz, fold your paper, number one to five, no erasing and no crossing out...

...looks like summer school again, huh?

 

[NYcarbineer]

“To secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed.”

Consent of the governed ...

All it takes in this country is less than 20% of the governed to select a president!
Bush 2000: 50,456,002 votes, population of US: 281,421,906
So who do they represent? 1 out of every 5 people?

.

Since conservatives currently have a higher participation rate in voting than do liberals,

an overall increase in voting, if it accomplished anything measurable, would move the country to the left.

Liberals are under-represented politically because they under-represent themselves at the ballot box.

Careful what you wish for.

 

[Wiseacre]

It's damn hard to take something away from people after you've told them they're entitled to it. I think we're fucked, it's going to take a major shock like a big depression for people to realize there's no free lunch, and no free healthcare either.

And then that would portend the death knell of Liberty itself.

I'll have NO part of it.

I don't agree, a big shock like a depression would be might cause a paradigm shift in thinking and values in this country back to what it was, such as more personal responsibility and less dependence on gov't. Liberty is not going to die so easily as that.

 

[Wiseacre]

It's damn hard to take something away from people after you've told them they're entitled to it. I think we're fucked, it's going to take a major shock like a big depression for people to realize there's no free lunch, and no free healthcare either.

"It's damn hard to take something away from people after you've told them they're entitled to it."

True, but have faith in the American people. I believe that an understanding of the difference between a right and an entitlement would help.


Healthcare was sold by the Dems as a right AND an entitlement. Americans donot give up their rights and entitlements easily, usually a major war is required.


1. "But these new so-called “rights” are about the government — who the Founders saw as the enemy — giving us things: food, health care, education... And when we have a right to be given stuff that previously we had to work for, then there is no reason — none — to go and work for them. The goody bag has no bottom, except bankruptcy and ruin." What Is a Right and How Do We Know? - Bill Whittle - National Review Online

2. “True” rights are inalienable. They exist whether or not they are recognized, and whether or not the ability or the will to defend them exists.

True rights do not impose an implicit obligation upon any other person to provide them to us. In fact, rights exist in greatest measure when we are each simply “left alone”.
If something must be provided to us at the expense of someone else in order for us to have it, then it may be an entitlement, a privilage, or an act of charity – but it is not a “right”.


Nancy Pelosi and the Dems might not agree with that. I know you couldn't care less what they think, but if they have convinced enough Americans that HC is in fact a right then it'll be a hard sell to get rid of ObamaCare.


The American founders (Jefferson, Mason, et al) arguably devised the best system to date – although it has clearly suffered at the hands of many of it’s caretakers over the years.
“To secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed.”
Rights vs entitlement and privilege | Breckshire … World with a View

3. Moreover, entitlements are always financed by compelling others to pay. Thus, they lead to more and more interference with individual freedom as government grows in size to administer its programs, seizing the fruits of individuals’ actions both to support itself and to fulfill its entitlement guarantees.
Rights Versus Entitlements | The Freeman | Ideas On Liberty


No question about that. But when someone else is paying and it's a rich guy, well there's a lot of people who are okay with that.


4. The human right to affordable restaurant-quality food:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRaIsqb3DqA]YouTube - Unidine[/ame]

Thanks for the links. Maybe I am too jaded, It is very positive that we have had a grass roots movement in this country who are concerned enough about the situation we find ourselves in to show up at townhall meetings and speak up. Now THAT makes me proud to be an Amercian.

 

[Bfgrn]

Fascism sucks. Especially when liberals do it.

PC's author is a fascist.

Neocon Neo-Fascist Theorist Michael Ledeen

On the antiwar Right, it has been customary to attack the warmongering neoconservative clique for its Trotskyite origins. Certainly, the founding father of neoconservatism, Irving Kristol, wrote in 1983 that he was “proud” to have been a member of the Fourth International in 1940. Other future leading lights of the neocon movement were also initially Trotskyites, like James Burnham and Max Kampelman—the latter a conscientious objector during the war against Hitler, a status that Evron Kirkpatrick, husband of Jeane, used his influence to obtain for him. But there is at least one neoconservative commentator whose personal political odyssey began with a fascination not with Trotskyism, but instead with another famous political movement that grew up in the early decades of the 20th century: fascism. I refer to Michael Ledeen, leading neocon theoretician, expert on Machiavelli, holder of the Freedom Chair at the American Enterprise Institute, regular columnist for National Review—and the principal cheerleader today for an extension of the war on terror to include regime change in Iran.

Ledeen has gained notoriety in recent months for the following paragraph in his latest book, The War Against the Terror Masters. In what reads like a prophetic approval of the policy of chaos now being visited on Iraq, Ledeen wrote,

Creative destruction is our middle name, both within our own society and abroad. We tear down the old order every day, from business to science, literature, art, architecture, and cinema to politics and the law. Our enemies have always hated this whirlwind of energy and creativity, which menaces their traditions (whatever they may be) and shames them for their inability to keep pace. Seeing America undo traditional societies, they fear us, for they do not wish to be undone. They cannot feel secure so long as we are there, for our very existence—our existence, not our politics—threatens their legitimacy. They must attack us in order to survive, just as we must destroy them to advance our historic mission.

Ledeen’s conviction that the Right is as revolutionary as the Left derives from his youthful interest in Italian fascism. In 1975, Ledeen published an interview, in book form, with the Italian historian Renzo de Felice, a man he greatly admires. It caused a great controversy in Italy. Ledeen later made clear that he relished the ire of the left-wing establishment precisely because “De Felice was challenging the conventional wisdom of Italian Marxist historiography, which had always insisted that fascism was a reactionary movement.” What de Felice showed, by contrast, was that Italian fascism was both right-wing and revolutionary.

Boring, you are always good for a laugh! thomhartmann????

As usual, both the ignorant, and the Left, (unless I'm being redundant) throw around the term 'fascist' simply as the translation 'I don't like you.'

So, a teachable moment. One can be a fascist only if one subscrbes to totalitarian thinking, i.e., socialism, communism, progressivism, liberalism...etc.

Here is your remedial course for the week:

1. Benito Amilcare Andrea Mussolini. Named for Amilcare Cipriani, who formed the Socialist Revolutionary Anarchist Party in 1891, and Andrea Costa (1851–1910), an Italian socialist activist’

2. “Mussolini had become a member of the Socialist Party in 1900…Mussolini held several posts as editor and labor leader until he emerged in the 1912 Socialist Party Congress.” Benito Mussolini Biography - life, family, story, death, school, mother, old, information, born, time, year

3. “He became the secretary of the local socialist party in Forli and became the editor of the socialist newspaper "The Class Struggle" (La Lotta di Classe)….After he left the ‘L’Avanti, Mussolini still claimed to be a socialist but his colleagues disagreed. At a meeting in Milan they decided to expel him from the Socialist Party. He told them ‘You cannot get rid of me because I am and always will be a socialist. You hate me because you still love me." ” Benito Mussolini

4. “He was a staunch proponent of revolutionary rather than reformist socialism, and actually received Lenin's endorsement and support for expelling reformists from the Socialist Party. He was in fact first dubbed "Il Duce" (the Leader) when he was a member of Italy's (Marxist) Socialist Party.” Roman Salute & Benito Mussolini -The raised one arm salute is a myth re: Roman Salute: Cinema, History, Ideology & myths debunked by Dr. Rex Curry along with Gladiator: Film and History. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE & SOCIALIST SALUTES & SOCIALISM: The socia

5. “Between 1912 and 1914, Mussolini was the editor of the Socialist Party newspaper, "L'Avanti. In 1914 he started his own socialist newspaper "Il Popolo d'Italia" ("The people of Italy")." Ibid.

And intellectuals and elites in America, read 'FDR', they saw the evil right away, didn’t they?

a. The 1934 Cole Porter hit ‘You’re the Top” had the perfectly acceptable line “You are Mussolini.”

b. The Chicago Tribune supported his invasion of Ethiopia (Change of Subject: Streetworthy? The case for and against Italo Balbo)

c. Will Rogers: “I’m pretty high on that bird….Dictator form of government is the greatest form of government: that is if you have the right Dictator.” https://journals.ku.edu/index.php/amerstud/article/viewFile/2059/2018

d. “At a time when many young intellectuals were rejecting the "dogma" of classical liberalism, Mussolini seemed a leader at the forefront of the movement to reject the old ways of thinking. This was the dawn of the "fascistic century." after all.” NW Republican: The Father of Fascism, (pt. 2)

e. Columbia University established the Casa Italiano, in 1926. “The center of this propaganda is the Casa Italiana….one of the most important sources of fascist propaganda in the U.S. No liberal can quarrel with the principle that Columbia University must permit all varieties of political opinion, including fascism, to be freely expressed there.” http://live.thenation.com/archive/detail/13544357

f. Hollywood actually had Mussolini appear with Lionel Barrymore in “The Eternal City.” 1923, playing himself. The Eternal City (1923) - IMDb
And in 1933, Columbia pictures produced “Mussolini Speaks.” ‘Everything he does---all he says---is vibrant with force’ (original poster) and ‘He thunders like a storm. He glows like Vesuvius. He acts with amazing speed’. (original poster) Mussolin Speaks! (1933) - Taglines

g. New Deal bureaucrats studied Mussolini’s corporatism closely. From “Fortune” magazine: ‘The Corporate state is to Mussolini what the New Deal is to Roosevelt.’(July 1934)

It is Sorel’s syndicalism that makes Mussolini’s socialism into fascism. The connection is even more clear when one recalls that syndicalists believed in rule by revolutionary trade unions: the word is from the French ‘syndicat,’ meaning ‘trade union,’ while the Italian ‘fascio,’ which means bundle, was often used for trade unions.


So, it appears that Socialist, Fascist, Progressive, Communist, Marxist, all are fruit of the very same poisonous tree.

(Did you see the connection between Lenin and Mussolin in #4?)
(and "e"...liberalism and fascism? pretty good, eh?)


So, knowing that accuity is not your strong suit, BoingFriendlessGuy, let's review: the 'birds of a feather' include every Left-wing variation: socialism, sydicalism, progressivism, Nazism, fascism, and liberalism.

Now, a short quiz, fold your paper, number one to five, no erasing and no crossing out...

...looks like summer school again, huh?

Summer school PC? OK, let's start HERE...

The article you dismissed with 'you are always good for a laugh! thomhartmann????'

HERE is the actual source: The American Conservative -- Flirting with Fascism

NOW, let's move to the dictionary:

Main Entry: authoritarian
Part of Speech: adjective
Definition: domineering
Synonyms: absolute, authoritative, autocratic, despotic, dictatorial, disciplinarian, doctrinaire, dogmatic, harsh, imperious, magisterial, rigid, severe, strict, totalitarian, tyrannical, unyielding
Notes: authoritarian is tyrannical while authoritative commands respect
Antonyms: democratic, liberal

Besides the fact authoritarianism is the antithesis of liberalism, every study done over the last 60 years on authoritarianism points to the right, not the left. But what I've observed is a big part of right wing dogma is being word bound. Hitler hated Marxists and socialists and he murdered them, BUT, because his party had the WORD Socialist in the name, it must be so. Also, it is interesting that the right so firmly embraces every little authoritarian despot that comes along like Scott Walker. And in your case, when it's fits your particular rant, liberals are wimps, and weak. That is hardly the personality markers of an authoritarian personality.

I will leave you with the words of an authoritarian...

What Mao Zedong said about liberalism

"Liberalism is extremely harmful in a revolutionary collective. It is a corrosive which eats away unity, undermines cohesion, causes apathy and creates dissension.

It robs the revolutionary ranks of compact organization and strict discipline, prevents policies from being carried through and alienates the Party organizations from the masses which the Party leads. It is an extremely bad tendency." Combat Liberalism

While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives.
Robert Altmeyer - The Authoritarians

 

[Care4all]

so the Military and our Defense is not a "right" either then????

It is not part of the bill of Rights? yes, our constitution mentions the military and the limited power congress has.....but under the definition of "right", is a military force for our nation truly a "right"?

 

[PoliticalChic]

so the Military and our Defense is not a "right" either then????

It is not part of the bill of Rights? yes, our constitution mentions the military and the limited power congress has.....but under the definition of "right", is a military force for our nation truly a "right"?

Since we have gone over the terms 'right' and 'entitlement,' this is an opportunity to discuss 'obligation.'

The item that you bring up is the very reason for the creation of the federal government, the protection of the nation. And this is reflected in Article I, section 8, item 11: The Congress shall have the power to declare war.

And item 12: to raise and support armies.

It is interesting that rather than 'raise' a navy, it is to provide and support same...nor is there the necessity to raise a militia is unnecessary, since one always exists.

Thus, defense is an obligation of the government, not a right nor entitlement.
It is also of interest that mutual defense is the example that Tocquevile uses in criticizing too strong a belief in American's love of individualism.

 

[PoliticalChic]

PC's author is a fascist.

Neocon Neo-Fascist Theorist Michael Ledeen

On the antiwar Right, it has been customary to attack the warmongering neoconservative clique for its Trotskyite origins. Certainly, the founding father of neoconservatism, Irving Kristol, wrote in 1983 that he was “proud” to have been a member of the Fourth International in 1940. Other future leading lights of the neocon movement were also initially Trotskyites, like James Burnham and Max Kampelman—the latter a conscientious objector during the war against Hitler, a status that Evron Kirkpatrick, husband of Jeane, used his influence to obtain for him. But there is at least one neoconservative commentator whose personal political odyssey began with a fascination not with Trotskyism, but instead with another famous political movement that grew up in the early decades of the 20th century: fascism. I refer to Michael Ledeen, leading neocon theoretician, expert on Machiavelli, holder of the Freedom Chair at the American Enterprise Institute, regular columnist for National Review—and the principal cheerleader today for an extension of the war on terror to include regime change in Iran.

Ledeen has gained notoriety in recent months for the following paragraph in his latest book, The War Against the Terror Masters. In what reads like a prophetic approval of the policy of chaos now being visited on Iraq, Ledeen wrote,

Creative destruction is our middle name, both within our own society and abroad. We tear down the old order every day, from business to science, literature, art, architecture, and cinema to politics and the law. Our enemies have always hated this whirlwind of energy and creativity, which menaces their traditions (whatever they may be) and shames them for their inability to keep pace. Seeing America undo traditional societies, they fear us, for they do not wish to be undone. They cannot feel secure so long as we are there, for our very existence—our existence, not our politics—threatens their legitimacy. They must attack us in order to survive, just as we must destroy them to advance our historic mission.

Ledeen’s conviction that the Right is as revolutionary as the Left derives from his youthful interest in Italian fascism. In 1975, Ledeen published an interview, in book form, with the Italian historian Renzo de Felice, a man he greatly admires. It caused a great controversy in Italy. Ledeen later made clear that he relished the ire of the left-wing establishment precisely because “De Felice was challenging the conventional wisdom of Italian Marxist historiography, which had always insisted that fascism was a reactionary movement.” What de Felice showed, by contrast, was that Italian fascism was both right-wing and revolutionary.

Boring, you are always good for a laugh! thomhartmann????

As usual, both the ignorant, and the Left, (unless I'm being redundant) throw around the term 'fascist' simply as the translation 'I don't like you.'

So, a teachable moment. One can be a fascist only if one subscrbes to totalitarian thinking, i.e., socialism, communism, progressivism, liberalism...etc.

Here is your remedial course for the week:

1. Benito Amilcare Andrea Mussolini. Named for Amilcare Cipriani, who formed the Socialist Revolutionary Anarchist Party in 1891, and Andrea Costa (1851–1910), an Italian socialist activist’

2. “Mussolini had become a member of the Socialist Party in 1900…Mussolini held several posts as editor and labor leader until he emerged in the 1912 Socialist Party Congress.” Benito Mussolini Biography - life, family, story, death, school, mother, old, information, born, time, year

3. “He became the secretary of the local socialist party in Forli and became the editor of the socialist newspaper "The Class Struggle" (La Lotta di Classe)….After he left the ‘L’Avanti, Mussolini still claimed to be a socialist but his colleagues disagreed. At a meeting in Milan they decided to expel him from the Socialist Party. He told them ‘You cannot get rid of me because I am and always will be a socialist. You hate me because you still love me." ” Benito Mussolini

4. “He was a staunch proponent of revolutionary rather than reformist socialism, and actually received Lenin's endorsement and support for expelling reformists from the Socialist Party. He was in fact first dubbed "Il Duce" (the Leader) when he was a member of Italy's (Marxist) Socialist Party.” Roman Salute & Benito Mussolini -The raised one arm salute is a myth re: Roman Salute: Cinema, History, Ideology & myths debunked by Dr. Rex Curry along with Gladiator: Film and History. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE & SOCIALIST SALUTES & SOCIALISM: The socia

5. “Between 1912 and 1914, Mussolini was the editor of the Socialist Party newspaper, "L'Avanti. In 1914 he started his own socialist newspaper "Il Popolo d'Italia" ("The people of Italy")." Ibid.

And intellectuals and elites in America, read 'FDR', they saw the evil right away, didn’t they?

a. The 1934 Cole Porter hit ‘You’re the Top” had the perfectly acceptable line “You are Mussolini.”

b. The Chicago Tribune supported his invasion of Ethiopia (Change of Subject: Streetworthy? The case for and against Italo Balbo)

c. Will Rogers: “I’m pretty high on that bird….Dictator form of government is the greatest form of government: that is if you have the right Dictator.” https://journals.ku.edu/index.php/amerstud/article/viewFile/2059/2018

d. “At a time when many young intellectuals were rejecting the "dogma" of classical liberalism, Mussolini seemed a leader at the forefront of the movement to reject the old ways of thinking. This was the dawn of the "fascistic century." after all.” NW Republican: The Father of Fascism, (pt. 2)

e. Columbia University established the Casa Italiano, in 1926. “The center of this propaganda is the Casa Italiana….one of the most important sources of fascist propaganda in the U.S. No liberal can quarrel with the principle that Columbia University must permit all varieties of political opinion, including fascism, to be freely expressed there.” http://live.thenation.com/archive/detail/13544357

f. Hollywood actually had Mussolini appear with Lionel Barrymore in “The Eternal City.” 1923, playing himself. The Eternal City (1923) - IMDb
And in 1933, Columbia pictures produced “Mussolini Speaks.” ‘Everything he does---all he says---is vibrant with force’ (original poster) and ‘He thunders like a storm. He glows like Vesuvius. He acts with amazing speed’. (original poster) Mussolin Speaks! (1933) - Taglines

g. New Deal bureaucrats studied Mussolini’s corporatism closely. From “Fortune” magazine: ‘The Corporate state is to Mussolini what the New Deal is to Roosevelt.’(July 1934)

It is Sorel’s syndicalism that makes Mussolini’s socialism into fascism. The connection is even more clear when one recalls that syndicalists believed in rule by revolutionary trade unions: the word is from the French ‘syndicat,’ meaning ‘trade union,’ while the Italian ‘fascio,’ which means bundle, was often used for trade unions.


So, it appears that Socialist, Fascist, Progressive, Communist, Marxist, all are fruit of the very same poisonous tree.

(Did you see the connection between Lenin and Mussolin in #4?)
(and "e"...liberalism and fascism? pretty good, eh?)


So, knowing that accuity is not your strong suit, BoingFriendlessGuy, let's review: the 'birds of a feather' include every Left-wing variation: socialism, sydicalism, progressivism, Nazism, fascism, and liberalism.

Now, a short quiz, fold your paper, number one to five, no erasing and no crossing out...

...looks like summer school again, huh?

Summer school PC? OK, let's start HERE...

The article you dismissed with 'you are always good for a laugh! thomhartmann????'

HERE is the actual source: The American Conservative -- Flirting with Fascism

NOW, let's move to the dictionary:

Main Entry: authoritarian
Part of Speech: adjective
Definition: domineering
Synonyms: absolute, authoritative, autocratic, despotic, dictatorial, disciplinarian, doctrinaire, dogmatic, harsh, imperious, magisterial, rigid, severe, strict, totalitarian, tyrannical, unyielding
Notes: authoritarian is tyrannical while authoritative commands respect
Antonyms: democratic, liberal

Besides the fact authoritarianism is the antithesis of liberalism, every study done over the last 60 years on authoritarianism points to the right, not the left. But what I've observed is a big part of right wing dogma is being word bound. Hitler hated Marxists and socialists and he murdered them, BUT, because his party had the WORD Socialist in the name, it must be so. Also, it is interesting that the right so firmly embraces every little authoritarian despot that comes along like Scott Walker. And in your case, when it's fits your particular rant, liberals are wimps, and weak. That is hardly the personality markers of an authoritarian personality.

I will leave you with the words of an authoritarian...

What Mao Zedong said about liberalism

"Liberalism is extremely harmful in a revolutionary collective. It is a corrosive which eats away unity, undermines cohesion, causes apathy and creates dissension.

It robs the revolutionary ranks of compact organization and strict discipline, prevents policies from being carried through and alienates the Party organizations from the masses which the Party leads. It is an extremely bad tendency." Combat Liberalism

While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives.
Robert Altmeyer - The Authoritarians

1. What I dismissed was the acceptance of the far-Left Hartmann as your authority.
"You will hear Thom Hartman accuse Beck and Palin of “stochastic terrorism.“ He defines this as using the media to activate ”lone wolves.“ ”Activating the crazies,” he calls it. Question to contemplate: By accusing Beck and Palin of such terrorism, isn’t Hartman himself attempting to active leftist lone wolves into acts of violence against Beck and Palin?"
#1 Lib Talker Thom Hartmann: Beck Is Like Bin Laden
(I don't mind if you find 'the blaze' too right-wing, but how about the quote?)


2. I then went on to school you in your understanding of 'fascism.'
Telling, isn't it, that out of the dozen or so items that I provided you were able to find fault with......
....none?
Especially the summary: So, it appears that Socialist, Fascist, Progressive, Communist, Marxist, all are fruit of the very same poisonous tree.

Pretty good, eh?

3. "...authoritarianism is the antithesis of liberalism..."
Of course, that makes no sense at all when the political philosophies that I have documented are all central command-and-control doctrines....

4. "...every study done over the last 60 years on authoritarianism points to the right, not the left."
That would be every one that finds it's source in the neo-Marxist Frankfurt School, especially Adorno,...


a. Herbert Marcuse explained that freedom was actually tyranny in the form of ‘repressive tolerance, and ‘liberating’ tolerance apparently meant tolerating only left wing thinking.

b. The wave of vilification of bourgeois culture received impetus from “The Authoritarian Personality,” by Adorno, et. al. which identified antidemocratic indicia such as obedience and respect for authority. Conservatism, of course, was another name for fascism, and represented personal pathology. In another work, they blame the Enlightenment itself and reason for the rise of fascism, but fail to see the repudiation of religion as a major factor.
From chapter 13 of "The World Turned Upside Down," by Melanie Philips.

I'm sure that these are the studies you reference.

5. "... liberalism..."
Let's be clear, the term liberalism as you use it is the re-branding of Wilsonian Progressivism by John Dewey, and has no relationship to the classical liberalism of the Founders, which would be called conservativism, today.

a. “The American intellectual class from the mid 19th century onward has disliked liberalism (which originally referred to individualism, private property, and limits on power) precisely because the liberal society has no overarching goal.” War Is the Health of the State

b. Wilson and the Progressives tried to make war socialism permanent, but the voters didn’t agree. They (Progressives) began to agree more and more with Bismarckian top-down socialism, and looked to Russia and Italy where ‘men of action’ were creating utopias. Also, John Dewey renamed Progressivism as ‘liberalism,’ which had referred to political and economic liberty, along the lines of John Locke and Adam Smith: maximum individual freedom under a minimalist state. Dewey changed the meaning to the Prussian meaning: alleviation of material and educational poverty, and the removal of old ideas and faiths. Classical liberals were more like what we call Conservatives.

c. “Finally, Dewey arguably did more than any other reformer to repackage progressive social theory in a way that obscured just how radically its principles departed from those of the American founding. Like Ely and many of his fellow progressive academics, Dewey initially embraced the term "socialism" to describe his social theory. Only after realizing how damaging the name was to the socialist cause did he, like other progressives, begin to avoid it. In the early 1930s, accordingly, Dewey begged the Socialist party, of which he was a longtime member, to change its name. "The greatest handicap from which special measures favored by the Socialists suffer," Dewey declared, "is that they are advanced by the Socialist party as Socialism.”
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m.../ai_n45566374/