Fascism

[2aguy]

Provide proof!

Jeff Rense is conspiracy theorist and antisemitic: Jeff Rense: In His Own Words

A definition of fascism can be found here: Fascism: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty

Sorry, your link is one more example of the dishonesty on the right.

"Political scientist Dr. Lawrence Britt recently wrote an article about fascism ("Fascism Anyone?," Free Inquiry, Spring 2003, page 20). Studying the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia), and Pinochet (Chile), Dr. Britt found they all had 14 elements in common. He calls these the identifying characteristics of fascism. The excerpt is in accordance with the magazine's policy."

• Powerful and Continuing Nationalism
  
• disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights
  
• Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause
• Supremacy of the Military
• Rampant Sexism
• Controlled Mass Media
• Obsession with National Security
• Religion and Government are Intertwined
• Corporate Power is Protected
• Labor Power is Suppressed
• Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts
• Obsession with Crime and Punishment
• Rampant Cronyism and Corruption
• Fraudulent Elections

It's clear that most of these elements are obvious to those who listened to Trump's stump speeches and read Trump's tweets. The choice of Pence as VP was a bone toss to the Bible Belt, his attacks on Hollywood and Journalists, on Muslims and Mexicans, and his cabinet appointments all fit nicely with most of these points.

If Britt is correct and these elements reflect accurately on the words an deeds of fascist regimes, it seems to follow logically that Trump's words and deeds mirror those of other fascist leaders.

Sorry..all of those points are meaningless since they can apply to all sorts of governments depending on the focus of those governments......since they describe every left wing socialist government that murdered 100 million innocent men, women and children.....so trying to put Trump in that box is just foolish....


The real definition of fascism....

Fascism: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty

As an economic system, fascism is socialism with a capitalist veneer. The word derives from fasces, the Roman symbol of collectivism and power: a tied bundle of rods with a protruding ax. In its day (the 1920s and 1930s), fascism was seen as the happy medium between boom-and-bust-prone liberal capitalism, with its alleged class conflict, wasteful competition, and profit-oriented egoism, and revolutionary Marxism, with its violent and socially divisive persecution of the bourgeoisie.
Fascism substituted the particularity of nationalism and racialism—“blood and soil”—for the internationalism of both classical liberalism and Marxism.
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.Entrepreneurship was abolished. State ministries, rather than consumers, determined what was produced and under what conditions.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

look to the ME, the Mandates after WW I, the State of Israel

Which is why you were at Rense in the first place.

>> RENSE IS IRRELEVANT HERE <<..

I cited four different books (post 40) that cite the exact same analysis, and I could cite more, and you can too. You're wimping out because you can't handle the topic.

Actually, I cited an article that exposed who the writer really was, I pointed out the etymology of the term fascism and I listed one very key element as to why Trump is not fascist.

This doesn't conform to your extreme leftist view of the situation, so this is really more a case of you exhibiting selective outrage than it is me wimping out.

As to the relevance of Rense, I realize logic is not your strong suit, but when posters infer that the creation of Israel is innately problematical, then the fact they have referenced an antisemitic hate site IS relevant. Now, I realize hatred of Jews is now pretty much hardwired into the leftist perspective on the world, but all your outrage directed against me for objecting to it is quite telling, especially inasmuch as you have indicated no objection whatsoever to its content.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

True, however............. going out on a limb here........ I'm not convinced Rump actually believes in Fascism. Not as a Hitler or Mussolini would -- although he's certainly got the Mussolini narcissistic body language but that's another matter.

I'm not sure Rump believes in anything --- anything but Rump and how many accolades he can get because he can never get enough. If fascism is the route to that he'll do it but if abolishing the Electoral College works, he'll do that too. When a head of state doesn't have any particular agenda to push it's not necessarily going to go in a given direction. In other words, anything can happen. He can probably be easily manipulated by well-timed tweets, which was not only Hillary's best line but doubtlessly why Putin wanted him in there.

So the whole direction of the country depends on who successfully manipulates his gigantic Ego.

It certainly cannot be said that we didn't try to warn people.

Wouldn't calling the President-elect "Rump" and claiming he can be manipulated a form of "poisoning the well"?

Fallacy: Poisoning the Well
Description of Poisoning the Well
This sort of "reasoning" involves trying to discredit what a person might later claim by presenting unfavorable information (be it true or false) about the person. This "argument" has the following form:

1. 
   
2. Unfavorable information (be it true or false) about person A is presented.
3. Therefore any claims person A makes will be false.

This sort of "reasoning" is obviously fallacious. The person making such an attack is hoping that the unfavorable information will bias listeners against the person in question and hence that they will reject any claims he might make. However, merely presenting unfavorable information about a person (even if it is true) hardly counts as evidence against the claims he/she might make. This is especially clear when Poisoning the Well is looked at as a form of ad Homimem in which the attack is made prior to the person even making the claim or claims. The following example clearly shows that this sort of "reasoning" is quite poor.

Before Class:
Bill: "Boy, that professor is a real jerk. I think he is some sort of eurocentric fascist."
Jill: "Yeah."

During Class:
Prof. Jones: "...and so we see that there was never any 'Golden Age of Matriarchy' in 1895 in America."

After Class:
Bill: "See what I mean?"
Jill: "Yeah. There must have been a Golden Age of Matriarchy, since that jerk said there wasn't."

You can see the depth of his commitment to the notion of poisoning the well here:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/16146408/

 

[Pogo]

look to the ME, the Mandates after WW I, the State of Israel

Which is why you were at Rense in the first place.

>> RENSE IS IRRELEVANT HERE <<..

I cited four different books (post 40) that cite the exact same analysis, and I could cite more, and you can too. You're wimping out because you can't handle the topic.

Actually, I cited an article that exposed who the writer really was, I pointed out the etymology of the term fascism and I listed one very key element as to why Trump is not fascist.

This doesn't conform to your extreme leftist view of the situation, so this is really more a case of you exhibiting selective outrage than it is me wimping out.

As to the relevance of Rense, I realize logic is not your strong suit, but when posters infer that the creation of Israel is innately problematical, then the fact they have referenced an antisemitic hate site IS relevant. Now, I realize hatred of Jews is now pretty much hardwired into the leftist perspective on the world, but all your outrage directed against me for objecting to it is quite telling, especially inasmuch as you have indicated no objection whatsoever to its content.

Oh fucking bullshit. Rense is not the writer. They simply reprinted something that's been reprinted many other places. You can't handle the topic so this is your way of deflecting it. Which is profoundly

 

[Pogo]

True, however............. going out on a limb here........ I'm not convinced Rump actually believes in Fascism. Not as a Hitler or Mussolini would -- although he's certainly got the Mussolini narcissistic body language but that's another matter.

I'm not sure Rump believes in anything --- anything but Rump and how many accolades he can get because he can never get enough. If fascism is the route to that he'll do it but if abolishing the Electoral College works, he'll do that too. When a head of state doesn't have any particular agenda to push it's not necessarily going to go in a given direction. In other words, anything can happen. He can probably be easily manipulated by well-timed tweets, which was not only Hillary's best line but doubtlessly why Putin wanted him in there.

So the whole direction of the country depends on who successfully manipulates his gigantic Ego.

It certainly cannot be said that we didn't try to warn people.

Wouldn't calling the President-elect "Rump" and claiming he can be manipulated a form of "poisoning the well"?

Fallacy: Poisoning the Well
Description of Poisoning the Well
This sort of "reasoning" involves trying to discredit what a person might later claim by presenting unfavorable information (be it true or false) about the person. This "argument" has the following form:

1. 
   
2. Unfavorable information (be it true or false) about person A is presented.
3. Therefore any claims person A makes will be false.

This sort of "reasoning" is obviously fallacious. The person making such an attack is hoping that the unfavorable information will bias listeners against the person in question and hence that they will reject any claims he might make. However, merely presenting unfavorable information about a person (even if it is true) hardly counts as evidence against the claims he/she might make. This is especially clear when Poisoning the Well is looked at as a form of ad Homimem in which the attack is made prior to the person even making the claim or claims. The following example clearly shows that this sort of "reasoning" is quite poor.

Before Class:
Bill: "Boy, that professor is a real jerk. I think he is some sort of eurocentric fascist."
Jill: "Yeah."

During Class:
Prof. Jones: "...and so we see that there was never any 'Golden Age of Matriarchy' in 1895 in America."

After Class:
Bill: "See what I mean?"
Jill: "Yeah. There must have been a Golden Age of Matriarchy, since that jerk said there wasn't."

You can see the depth of his commitment to the notion of poisoning the well here:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/16146408/

Busted! Touché.

However by citing that you've moved into a Tu Quoque fallacy.
So you're still in the lead, 2-1.

Indeed I knew that was a PtW when I wrote it, but I went for the jocularity. I also knew if anybody would be OCD enough to hunt for it, it would be you.

But here's the difference---
---- I didn't continue harping on that for the purpose of shutting the thread down.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

True, however............. going out on a limb here........ I'm not convinced Rump actually believes in Fascism. Not as a Hitler or Mussolini would -- although he's certainly got the Mussolini narcissistic body language but that's another matter.

I'm not sure Rump believes in anything --- anything but Rump and how many accolades he can get because he can never get enough. If fascism is the route to that he'll do it but if abolishing the Electoral College works, he'll do that too. When a head of state doesn't have any particular agenda to push it's not necessarily going to go in a given direction. In other words, anything can happen. He can probably be easily manipulated by well-timed tweets, which was not only Hillary's best line but doubtlessly why Putin wanted him in there.

So the whole direction of the country depends on who successfully manipulates his gigantic Ego.

It certainly cannot be said that we didn't try to warn people.

Wouldn't calling the President-elect "Rump" and claiming he can be manipulated a form of "poisoning the well"?

Fallacy: Poisoning the Well
Description of Poisoning the Well
This sort of "reasoning" involves trying to discredit what a person might later claim by presenting unfavorable information (be it true or false) about the person. This "argument" has the following form:

1. 
   
2. Unfavorable information (be it true or false) about person A is presented.
3. Therefore any claims person A makes will be false.

This sort of "reasoning" is obviously fallacious. The person making such an attack is hoping that the unfavorable information will bias listeners against the person in question and hence that they will reject any claims he might make. However, merely presenting unfavorable information about a person (even if it is true) hardly counts as evidence against the claims he/she might make. This is especially clear when Poisoning the Well is looked at as a form of ad Homimem in which the attack is made prior to the person even making the claim or claims. The following example clearly shows that this sort of "reasoning" is quite poor.

Before Class:
Bill: "Boy, that professor is a real jerk. I think he is some sort of eurocentric fascist."
Jill: "Yeah."

During Class:
Prof. Jones: "...and so we see that there was never any 'Golden Age of Matriarchy' in 1895 in America."

After Class:
Bill: "See what I mean?"
Jill: "Yeah. There must have been a Golden Age of Matriarchy, since that jerk said there wasn't."

You can see the depth of his commitment to the notion of poisoning the well here:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/16146408/

Busted! Touché.

However by citing that you've moved into a Tu Quoque fallacy.
So you're still in the lead, 2-1.

Indeed I knew that was a PtW when I wrote it, but I went for the jocularity. I also knew if anybody would be OCD enough to hunt for it, it would be you.

But here's the difference---
---- I didn't continue harping on that for the purpose of shutting the thread down.

The lesson here is that if it is an anti Islamic site listing what a Swedish politician ACTUALLY said, you question the veracity of the website in order to obfuscate the issue. If it is a website devoted to hatred of Jews that reprints a piece by a man WHO IS NOT a political science and has no credentials whatsoever, then it's shoot the messenger time for you.

Telling the truth when it concerns Islam and those who support it = bad. Lying about Jews and making up shit = good. Ah, what the left has become........

 

[Pogo]

True, however............. going out on a limb here........ I'm not convinced Rump actually believes in Fascism. Not as a Hitler or Mussolini would -- although he's certainly got the Mussolini narcissistic body language but that's another matter.

I'm not sure Rump believes in anything --- anything but Rump and how many accolades he can get because he can never get enough. If fascism is the route to that he'll do it but if abolishing the Electoral College works, he'll do that too. When a head of state doesn't have any particular agenda to push it's not necessarily going to go in a given direction. In other words, anything can happen. He can probably be easily manipulated by well-timed tweets, which was not only Hillary's best line but doubtlessly why Putin wanted him in there.

So the whole direction of the country depends on who successfully manipulates his gigantic Ego.

It certainly cannot be said that we didn't try to warn people.

Wouldn't calling the President-elect "Rump" and claiming he can be manipulated a form of "poisoning the well"?

Fallacy: Poisoning the Well
Description of Poisoning the Well
This sort of "reasoning" involves trying to discredit what a person might later claim by presenting unfavorable information (be it true or false) about the person. This "argument" has the following form:

1. 
   
2. Unfavorable information (be it true or false) about person A is presented.
3. Therefore any claims person A makes will be false.

This sort of "reasoning" is obviously fallacious. The person making such an attack is hoping that the unfavorable information will bias listeners against the person in question and hence that they will reject any claims he might make. However, merely presenting unfavorable information about a person (even if it is true) hardly counts as evidence against the claims he/she might make. This is especially clear when Poisoning the Well is looked at as a form of ad Homimem in which the attack is made prior to the person even making the claim or claims. The following example clearly shows that this sort of "reasoning" is quite poor.

Before Class:
Bill: "Boy, that professor is a real jerk. I think he is some sort of eurocentric fascist."
Jill: "Yeah."

During Class:
Prof. Jones: "...and so we see that there was never any 'Golden Age of Matriarchy' in 1895 in America."

After Class:
Bill: "See what I mean?"
Jill: "Yeah. There must have been a Golden Age of Matriarchy, since that jerk said there wasn't."

You can see the depth of his commitment to the notion of poisoning the well here:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/16146408/

Busted! Touché.

However by citing that you've moved into a Tu Quoque fallacy.
So you're still in the lead, 2-1.

Indeed I knew that was a PtW when I wrote it, but I went for the jocularity. I also knew if anybody would be OCD enough to hunt for it, it would be you.

But here's the difference---
---- I didn't continue harping on that for the purpose of shutting the thread down.

The lesson here is that if it is an anti Islamic site listing what a Swedish politician ACTUALLY said, you question the veracity of the website in order to obfuscate the issue. If it is a website devoted to hatred of Jews that reprints a piece by a man WHO IS NOT a political science and has no credentials whatsoever, then it's shoot the messenger time for you.

Telling the truth when it concerns Islam and those who support it = bad. Lying about Jews and making up shit = good. Ah, what the left has become........

Number one I am an individual, not "the left". There's yet another fallacy as you fall all over yourself.

Number two I didn't even read the content on that other thread's article. I simply commented on the OP's use of a known hack-hate site ---- WHICH UNLIKE HERE *DOES* ORIGINATE ITS OWN CONTENT --- as if it was supposed to be credible "news".

In other words, "show me a citation of any of this from a legitimate news source". Get it??

And number three, calling out blatant logical fallacies --- which is my main job around here --- has nothing to do with "left" or "right" or "center". Has to do with valid argument.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

True, however............. going out on a limb here........ I'm not convinced Rump actually believes in Fascism. Not as a Hitler or Mussolini would -- although he's certainly got the Mussolini narcissistic body language but that's another matter.

I'm not sure Rump believes in anything --- anything but Rump and how many accolades he can get because he can never get enough. If fascism is the route to that he'll do it but if abolishing the Electoral College works, he'll do that too. When a head of state doesn't have any particular agenda to push it's not necessarily going to go in a given direction. In other words, anything can happen. He can probably be easily manipulated by well-timed tweets, which was not only Hillary's best line but doubtlessly why Putin wanted him in there.

So the whole direction of the country depends on who successfully manipulates his gigantic Ego.

It certainly cannot be said that we didn't try to warn people.

Wouldn't calling the President-elect "Rump" and claiming he can be manipulated a form of "poisoning the well"?

Fallacy: Poisoning the Well
Description of Poisoning the Well
This sort of "reasoning" involves trying to discredit what a person might later claim by presenting unfavorable information (be it true or false) about the person. This "argument" has the following form:

1. 
   
2. Unfavorable information (be it true or false) about person A is presented.
3. Therefore any claims person A makes will be false.

This sort of "reasoning" is obviously fallacious. The person making such an attack is hoping that the unfavorable information will bias listeners against the person in question and hence that they will reject any claims he might make. However, merely presenting unfavorable information about a person (even if it is true) hardly counts as evidence against the claims he/she might make. This is especially clear when Poisoning the Well is looked at as a form of ad Homimem in which the attack is made prior to the person even making the claim or claims. The following example clearly shows that this sort of "reasoning" is quite poor.

Before Class:
Bill: "Boy, that professor is a real jerk. I think he is some sort of eurocentric fascist."
Jill: "Yeah."

During Class:
Prof. Jones: "...and so we see that there was never any 'Golden Age of Matriarchy' in 1895 in America."

After Class:
Bill: "See what I mean?"
Jill: "Yeah. There must have been a Golden Age of Matriarchy, since that jerk said there wasn't."

You can see the depth of his commitment to the notion of poisoning the well here:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/16146408/

Busted! Touché.

However by citing that you've moved into a Tu Quoque fallacy.
So you're still in the lead, 2-1.

Indeed I knew that was a PtW when I wrote it, but I went for the jocularity. I also knew if anybody would be OCD enough to hunt for it, it would be you.

But here's the difference---
---- I didn't continue harping on that for the purpose of shutting the thread down.

The lesson here is that if it is an anti Islamic site listing what a Swedish politician ACTUALLY said, you question the veracity of the website in order to obfuscate the issue. If it is a website devoted to hatred of Jews that reprints a piece by a man WHO IS NOT a political science and has no credentials whatsoever, then it's shoot the messenger time for you.

Telling the truth when it concerns Islam and those who support it = bad. Lying about Jews and making up shit = good. Ah, what the left has become........

Number one I am an individual, not "the left". There's yet another fallacy as you fall all over yourself.

Number two I didn't even read the content on that other thread's article. I simply commented on the OP's use of a known hack-hate site ---- WHICH UNLIKE HERE *DOES* ORIGINATE ITS OWN CONTENT --- as if it was supposed to be credible "news".

In other words, "show me a citation of any of this from a legitimate news source". Get it??

And number three, calling out blatant logical fallacies --- which is my main job around here --- has nothing to do with "left" or "right" or "center". Has to do with valid argument.

That's cute.

Have you ever considered blatant hypocrisy as an issue that concerns you?

 

[Coyote]

Topic has been moved to Politics - OP won't work in CDZ.

 

[Coyote]

Why is Rense a "hate site" while "Bare Naked Islam" is not? I don't see much difference between the two.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Like Vizzinis "inconceivable!" I find it ironic that supporters of a President who used the full power of the Federal government against citizens with different political philosophy are decrying "fascism"

 

[Coyote]

True, however............. going out on a limb here........ I'm not convinced Rump actually believes in Fascism. Not as a Hitler or Mussolini would -- although he's certainly got the Mussolini narcissistic body language but that's another matter.

I'm not sure Rump believes in anything --- anything but Rump and how many accolades he can get because he can never get enough. If fascism is the route to that he'll do it but if abolishing the Electoral College works, he'll do that too. When a head of state doesn't have any particular agenda to push it's not necessarily going to go in a given direction. In other words, anything can happen. He can probably be easily manipulated by well-timed tweets, which was not only Hillary's best line but doubtlessly why Putin wanted him in there.

So the whole direction of the country depends on who successfully manipulates his gigantic Ego.

It certainly cannot be said that we didn't try to warn people.

Wouldn't calling the President-elect "Rump" and claiming he can be manipulated a form of "poisoning the well"?

Fallacy: Poisoning the Well
Description of Poisoning the Well
This sort of "reasoning" involves trying to discredit what a person might later claim by presenting unfavorable information (be it true or false) about the person. This "argument" has the following form:

1. 
   
2. Unfavorable information (be it true or false) about person A is presented.
3. Therefore any claims person A makes will be false.

This sort of "reasoning" is obviously fallacious. The person making such an attack is hoping that the unfavorable information will bias listeners against the person in question and hence that they will reject any claims he might make. However, merely presenting unfavorable information about a person (even if it is true) hardly counts as evidence against the claims he/she might make. This is especially clear when Poisoning the Well is looked at as a form of ad Homimem in which the attack is made prior to the person even making the claim or claims. The following example clearly shows that this sort of "reasoning" is quite poor.

Before Class:
Bill: "Boy, that professor is a real jerk. I think he is some sort of eurocentric fascist."
Jill: "Yeah."

During Class:
Prof. Jones: "...and so we see that there was never any 'Golden Age of Matriarchy' in 1895 in America."

After Class:
Bill: "See what I mean?"
Jill: "Yeah. There must have been a Golden Age of Matriarchy, since that jerk said there wasn't."

You can see the depth of his commitment to the notion of poisoning the well here:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/16146408/

If that is poisoning the well, aren't you doing the same with Rense?

Both Rense and Bare Naked Islam are listed as hate sites by the SPLC.

 

[TemplarKormac]

If the only site/cite was the Rense Link, you might have a point.

The very fact you cited Rense at all invalidates the rest of your argument. My point stands.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Fuck you. You're a dishonest piece of shit.

Why did you start this thread in the CDZ if this is your manner of debate?

Suggesting I'm antisemitic kinda broke the ice, and I stand by my comment that Dogshit is a dishonest piece of shit. I posted three choices on members' feelings about Trump, Dogshit decided to derail the issue, for reasons I can't know but suspect. Those being he knows that Trump is a liar and made promises far beyond his Constitutional Authority, unless of course dogshit is ignorant of Art. II.

 

[NLT]

14 characteristics of fascism Flashcards | Quizlet

fascism | politics

fascism - Common characteristics of fascist movements | politics

 

[Wry Catcher]

If the only site/cite was the Rense Link, you might have a point.

The very fact you cited Rense at all invalidates the rest of your argument. My point stands.

I had no idea who or what Rense is, it was simply the first of many to appear when I posted on google "14 points of Fascism". Pogo has responded quite well on this issue, and if you continue to echo the same crap as dogshit, the evidence will support a conclusion that your are dumb, partisan and an asshole, i.e a clone of dogshit.

Is that clear enough for you to comprehend?

 

[Wry Catcher]

14 characteristics of fascism Flashcards | Quizlet

fascism | politics

fascism - Common characteristics of fascist movements | politics

Is "asshole you signature, or are you calling Trump an asshole? Syntax has always been problematic for you.

 

[whitehall]

"Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one " including Dr. Lawrence Britt. His " 14 characteristics of fascism" are full of ambiguous words like "tend to, "persuaded" and "rallied" and they can be attributed to any political movement including the Obama administration. The heart of "fascism" is .....government control of "the production and distribution of goods and services".

 

[sealybobo]

Owebo and correll here?

 

[owebo]

Please review the following two links on fascism and what we have observed since the election of Donald Trump to the office of POTUS.


Fourteen Defining Characteristics Of Fascism

Donald Trump and the 14 signs of Fascism • /r/politics

Consider the promises made by Mr. Trump during the time before he received the nomination of the Republican Party, his rhetoric before his election after being nominated, and his rhetoric since being elected to POTUS?

Fuck you democrat fascists...