Dog Brothers Public Forum

HOME | PUBLIC FORUM | MEMBERS FORUM | INSTRUCTORS FORUM | TRIBE FORUM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
August 25, 2016, 11:39:38 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
96650 Posts in 2320 Topics by 1081 Members
Latest Member: Concerned Citizen
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  Fascism, liberal fascism, progressivism, socialism, crony capitalism, SJW:
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13] Print
Author Topic: Fascism, liberal fascism, progressivism, socialism, crony capitalism, SJW:  (Read 122784 times)
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 37503


« Reply #600 on: May 10, 2016, 11:02:33 AM »

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/05/10/harvard-prof-urges-liberals-treat-evangelical-christians-like-nazis/
« Last Edit: May 10, 2016, 05:14:51 PM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 5871


« Reply #601 on: May 10, 2016, 02:25:48 PM »

Yes i saw this . Did you see his bio on Wikipedia. 

He is half Jewish , hates orthodox Jews (conservatives) probably hates Israel, is gay , his daughter is lesbian, his wife an ACLU lawyer, and him an Ivy league professor.  Can't fit the profile of a leftist/statist too much more than that sadly.

From Wikipedia: 

"he is identified with the 'critical legal studies' movement and once stated in an article that, were he asked to decide actual cases as a judge, he would seek to reach results that would "advance the cause of socialism".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Tushnet

If my fellow communist Jews and other liberals hate this country so much why don't they move to China or Russia or better yet Cooooba ?

How did these fuckers gain so much power in the media and in out educational system and now our political system?
I guess i can answer that ;  identity politics, redistribution of wealth and opening up the flood gates to the envious of the world.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 13813


« Reply #602 on: May 10, 2016, 04:56:42 PM »


This is why the left wants to disarm the public.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 37503


« Reply #603 on: May 19, 2016, 10:52:41 PM »

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/05/20/college-boots-ex-delta-force-hero-after-complaint-from-lgbt-activists.html
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 37503


« Reply #604 on: May 20, 2016, 08:05:26 PM »

http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/19/security-guard-arrested-for-removing-man-from-womens-bathroom/?AID=7236
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 37503


« Reply #605 on: May 22, 2016, 01:50:18 PM »

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/22/business/how-freddie-and-fannie-are-held-captive.html?emc=edit_th_20160522&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=49641193
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 13813


« Reply #606 on: May 22, 2016, 01:54:16 PM »


This is a perfect example of why the government should never be involved in anything like this, ever.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 13813


« Reply #607 on: May 22, 2016, 03:19:24 PM »

https://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2016/05/21/greetings-slaves/?singlepage=true

Greetings, Slaves
 BY RICHARD FERNANDEZ MAY 21, 2016

Thomas Lifson argues that Bernie Sanders presents "a mortal danger to not only the presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton, but the continued viability of the party’s strategy of mouthing populist rhetoric while practicing crony capitalism. Too late, they now realize he actually means what he says."

In an age where truth is the worst policy, socialism -- like Santa Claus -- is something no adult should believe in. That Sanders might actually have illusions lies at the heart of his appeal. To a cynical public a politician who doesn't calculate in explicit monetary terms is the nearest thing to secular sainthood. Hans Gruber, the villain in Die Hard, disappointed the industrialist he kidnapped by confessing: "Mr Takagi, ... I am far more interested in the 100 million dollars in negotiable bearer bonds hidden in your vault."

Takagi: You want money? What kind of terrorist are you?


 
We expect revolutionaries to be indifferent to money. Yet in reality the Left thinks about nothing but money as the Venezuelan socialists who have stolen $350 billion from the treasury, according to the Basel Institute on Governance, should have proved to the world. If it's any consolation to the Democratic Party, Bernie Sanders is not as indifferent to lucre as he seems. Sanders' filings show he's received money from Super PACs and donors with links to Wall Street -- so he may be normal after all.

Perhaps the first major 20th century writer to realize that the ambition of all true Communists should be to become billionaire revolutionaries was Hilaire Belloc. In his 1912 book, The Servile State, Belloc argued the then-burgeoning Communist movement would find more success ditching Leninism in favor of an alliance with Crony Capitalists to reinstate Slavery. "Slavery, or a Servile State in which those who do not own the means of production shall be legally compelled to work for those who do, and shall receive in exchange a security of livelihood."

This modern form of slavery would address not only the concerns of the revolutionaries by fixing job insecurity and guaranteeing retirement on a plantation basis, but also assuage the monopolists, who stay up nights worrying about preserving market share in the face of competition. An alliance between socialists and crony capitalists would solve both problems at once. The only price to pay for this convenience is the loss of public freedom and that is readily paid.

As for the rest, it would be sustainable. The crony capitalists would underwrite the projects of the collectivists. The ant-heaps of each would be so similar to the other that only a few changes in signage would be needed to turn regulated capitalism into the workers' paradise. It was a tremendous insight. Belloc realized Bolshevism was was too obviously destructive to last and anticipated the rise of what we would now call the Blue Model. F.A. Hayek paid tribute: "Hilaire Belloc ... explained that the effects of Socialist doctrine on Capitalist society is to produce a third thing different from either of its two begetters - to wit, the Servile State." Regarding the Servile State, George Orwell realized whatever name it gave itself, such an unholy alliance would be much the same quantity.


Many earlier writers have foreseen the emergence of a new kind of society, neither capitalist nor Socialist, and probably based upon slavery ... A good example is Hilaire Belloc's book, The Servile State ...  Jack London, in The Iron Heel ... Wells's The Sleeper Awakes (1900) ... Aldous Huxley's Brave New World (1930), all described imaginary worlds in which the special problems of capitalism had been solved without bringing liberty, equality, or true happiness any nearer. More recently, writers like Peter Drucker and F.A. Voigt have argued that Fascism and Communism are substantially the same thing. And indeed, it has always been obvious that a planned and centralized society is liable to develop into an oligarchy or a dictatorship.
The crucial point would be that this proposed Third Way would be more secure than the traditional Leninsim which rested upon the unholy Troika of Party, Army and Cheka. Paychecks would actually be met, courtesy of the crony capitalists. It's not surprising that after the collapse of the Soviets, the next collectivist social project was the much more "responsible" EU. But Larry Elliott, arguing in the Guardian for a British exit from Brussels, realized that distinction was more a matter of degree than substance. He characterized the EU not as "the US without the electric chair; it is the USSR without the gulag."  The correspondence with Belloc's 1912 prediction is eerie.

Belloc argued that the only two exits from the evils of crony capitalism were an expansion of property holdings to the great majority of the people (the classic conservative program) or collectivism. Of the two alternatives, the elites would find collectivism far the easier path. He wrote, "if you are suffering because property is restricted to a few, you can alter that factor in the problem either by putting property in the hands of many or the hands of none ... a trust or monopoly is welcomed because it 'furnishes a mode of transition from private to public ownership.'" Crony capitalism furnishes collectivism so well that the Servile State becomes indistinguishable from the Workers' Paradise and its leaders equally interchangeable. Thus we have billionaires who become men of the people and men of the people who become billionaires. Who could have foreseen this in 1912?



 
The so-called Socialist ... has not fallen into the Servile State by a miscalculation ... he welcomes its birth, he foresees his power over its future ... it is orderly in the extreme ... and the prospect of a vast bureaucracy wherein the whole of life shall be scheduled and appointed to certain simple schemes deriving from the co-ordinate work of public clerks and marshaled by powerful heads of departments gives his small stomach a final satisfaction.
Best of all, the socialist agitator was free under the arrangement to engage in his favorite project of remaking mankind to free him from "the ravages of drink: more fatal still the dreadful habit of mankind of forming families and breeding children." Belloc's Servile State anticipated the carnival at Davos with its weird hodgepodge of moralism, pseudo-scientific causes and economic diktat precisely because it understood what the power coalition of the future would look like.

Where both Belloc and Orwell may have erred was in assuming the Servile State could fix the sustainability problems that doomed Leninism. The hope of finding a lasting formula for collectivism lies at the heart of the USSR's reboot and the EU and Hillary's socialism in words but crony capitalism in deeds strategy, in contrast to Bernie Sanders' hair-on-fire socialism. Nobody argues with the collectivist goals, just about how to pay for them.  Both the EU and its American imitations are attempts at finding a socialism which can pay the bills. Unfortunately the present political crisis raises the  possibility that the Servile State itself is inherently unsustainable.

The issue which dogs Hillary and which no cosmetic distancing from Sanders will solve is that the middle class is losing faith in the platform. The political turmoil threatening to break apart the EU and the American Blue Model is rooted in the fact that both are broke and have no prospect of meeting obligations as manifested in the stagnation of wages in the West and also in the collapse of the "security" safety nets for which the present-day slaves have traded away their freedom. The progressive campaign is essentially predicated on the assumption that a sufficiently resolute government can defy the laws of financial gravity. There is now some doubt on that point.

Collectivism cannot even pay its pensions. "The present value of unfunded obligations under Social Security as of August 2010 was approximately $5.4 trillion. In other words, this amount would have to be set aside today such that the principal and interest would cover the program's shortfall between tax revenues and payouts over the next 75 years."  One of the culprits, ironically, is that the socialists have succeeded all too well in changing mankind's dreadful habit of forming families and breeding children.

It's not just the Government that's broke but also its political partners. Recently the Teamsters' Central States Pension Fund announced that it was bust. Unless it gets an infusion of taxpayer money, pension benefits for about 407,000 people could be reduced to "virtually nothing." Orwell famously said that "if you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever." What he and Belloc failed to anticipate was that the boot might rot to pieces and fail to fulfill its function to oppress.

What Belloc left out of his model, very oddly for him especially, was God. (Those who object to the word can substitute one of their choosing: reality, consequences or arithmetic, it makes no difference.) God can't be fixed and shows up at the most inconvenient moments. Teamsters who are able to intimidate everything find they are finally helpless against addition and subtraction. At the end of it all they, like everyone else who has mismanaged their pensions, can pay their retirees "virtually nothing."

In the face of this failure perhaps it is time to revisit Belloc's alternatives. If the only remaining path is to encourage a return to the popular ownership of property and making markets freer as opposed to cutting deals with monopolists -- then so be it. Technology may be working in favor of the path not taken. As intellectual property becomes the dominant means of production, every human is automatically born with a certain amount of capital, provided Planned Parenthood doesn't get to him first.

Lincoln Steffens thought he saw a future that worked but it was cruel fraud. Why not try property this time instead of slavery? We've tried being slaves. Let's try being free. Belloc points out this idea is so revolutionary that anyone who espouses it will almost certainly be suspected of mental incapacity.

You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one

I hope someday you'll join us

Then we can really have some fun.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 37503


« Reply #608 on: May 22, 2016, 04:36:57 PM »

Very interesting read.  Please post on Rants thread as well.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 5871


« Reply #609 on: May 28, 2016, 03:12:30 PM »

Reposting here:
   
social justice wars , SJ warriors, gender warriors , victimhood
« on: May 26, 2016, 07:33:27 PM »
Let me know if the new subject fits:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/435854/campus-activists-crazy-radicals-rule-roost
« Last Edit: May 29, 2016, 09:05:38 AM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
objectivist1
Power User
***
Posts: 987


« Reply #610 on: June 01, 2016, 12:46:45 PM »

How the Democratic Party Ruined Atlanta

Corruption, tax-&-spend, and racial demagoguery: The familiar Democratic trinity claims another city.


June 1, 2016
John Perazzo

Atlanta, Georgia has not been governed by a Republican mayor since 1879. Most significant is the fact that the city has been led exclusively by Democrats since the 1960s and early '70s, the period when the Democratic Party emphatically broke away from centrist liberals and fell predominantly under the sway of its far left wing, a course which it still follows to this day.

One of Atlanta's more important political figures during this Democratic era was its first African American mayor, Maynard Jackson, who held office for three (non-consecutive) four-year terms: 1974-78, 1978–82, and 1990–94. In May 1974, the newly elected Jackson stoked racial tensions in Atlanta when he undermined the authority of the incumbent (white) police chief, John Inman, by making him subservient to the newly appointed “Public Safety Commissioner,” the black activist Reginald Eaves. Eaves was a longtime friend of Jackson's and had no law-enforcement experience whatsoever. Corrupt to his core and possessing an unparalleled sense of shameless entitlement, Eaves openly and defiantly used public money to purchase extra options on his fully loaded city vehicle, stating: “If I can’t ride in a little bit of comfort, to hell with it.” He sparked further controversy when he appointed an ex-convict as his personal secretary and instituted a quota system that gave preference to African Americans for hirings and promotions within the police department. Eventually, in 1978, Mayor Jackson was forced to fire Eaves for the role the latter had played in a scandal where he had helped police officers cheat on promotions exams.

In public works projects and municipal contracts, the race-obsessed Mayor Jackson pressed for vigorous affirmative-action programs and set-asides favoring black-owned enterprises. Numerous local businessmen were distressed by Jackson's very obvious race preferences.

By the late '70s, the Atlanta business community had become increasingly concerned about the city's rapidly rising crime rate. Between 1978 and 1979 alone, Atlanta experienced a 69% increase in homicides. It now had the highest murder rate—and the highest overall crime rate—of any city in the United States. The police force, meanwhile, dwindled in size by 25% between 1975 and 1979, causing the officers to be generally overextended and demoralized.

In January 1994, as Jackson's third and final term as mayor was winding down, one of the most politically explosive trials in Atlanta history centered on an affirmative-action program by which Jackson's administration had tried to increase the presence of black-owned shops and businesses at Atlanta's Hartsfield International Airport. A federal court jury convicted a former airport commissioner and councilman on 83 counts of mail fraud, 4 counts of tax evasion, and 43 counts of accepting bribes from an airport concessionaire in return for favorable treatment, like reduced rent at the airport.

In 2002, an investigation by The Atlanta Journal Constitution found that friends of Jackson and another former Atlanta mayor, Bill Campbell (1994-2002), for years had received “the vast majority” of contracts awarded by the Atlanta airport which were supposed to go to members of the black community generally. In at least 80 of the 100 contracts reviewed during the probe, one or more of the business partners involved had cultivated a relationship with either Jackson, Campbell, or both. Further, most of those partners had contributed money to the Jackson and/or Campbell mayoral campaigns.

As for Mayor Campbell, by no means was this his only brush with political scandal. A seven-year federal corruption probe resulted, in 2006, in the convictions of no fewer than ten city officials tied to his administration. Campbell, for his part, was convicted of three counts of federal tax evasion.

Where political corruption runs rampant, it is often closely accompanied by gross financial mismanagement—Atlanta being a case in point. For many years the city's political leaders—in exchange for the slavish political support of unionized public-sector workers—promised an unending array of unsustainably exorbitant healthcare and pension benefits to those employees. Consequently, by 2011 Atlanta's city government owed no less than $1.5 billion in unfunded liabilities on the pensions of its public-sector workers. That ominous figure was expected to triple within ten years if left unchecked. Recognizing the gravity of the situation, the Atlanta City Council in 2011 approved a long-overdue restructuring of the city's pension system.

The mismanagement of Atlanta's finances is reflected also in the economic condition of city residents as a whole. Today, some 29.5% of those residents live in poverty. And according to a recent study by the Brookings Institution, Atlanta has a greater disparity between rich and poor than any other urban area in America.

As in so many Democrat-run U.S. cities, Atlanta's public-school system has grown, over time, into a bureaucratic monstrosity of waste and ineptitude—exhibiting efficiency only in its ability to separate taxpayers from their hard-earned money. Every year the Atlanta Public Schools (APS) system gobbles up some $15,000 in taxpayer funds—about 50% more than the national average—for the education-related expenses of each K-12 pupil in its jurisdiction. Notwithstanding these massive investments, APS students perform abysmally on achievement tests designed to measure their academic competence. In 2013, for example, proficiency rates for APS eighth-graders were a meager 22% in reading and 17% in math. Moreover, the high-school graduation rates of APS students in recent years have ranged between 51% and 59%, far below the national average of 78%.

No profile of Atlanta would be complete without a mention of the crime rates that have long plagued the city. To name just a few, Atlanta's rates of murder, robbery, and auto theft exceed the corresponding national averages by 355%, 405%, and 320%, respectively. In 2013, Atlanta ranked, statistically, as the twelfth most dangerous city in the United States. From a global perspective, the incidence of gun murders in Atlanta is about the same as in South Africa, a nation infamous for its exceedingly high homicide rate.

Atlanta is merely one of many Democrat-run cities whose economies, school systems, and quality-of-life indicators have been run into the ground by their political leadership. And yet, for decade upon decade, Atlanta voters have never questioned their blind devotion to the Democratic Party. If nothing else, they are living proof that, to many Americans, party loyalty is quite literally the emotional equivalent of religious faith. False gods are almost never recognized for being the frauds and imposters that they are.
Logged

"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 37503


« Reply #611 on: June 03, 2016, 10:15:50 AM »

http://journalofamericangreatness.blogspot.com/
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 5871


« Reply #612 on: June 05, 2016, 08:13:47 AM »

voted down.   Some day we will have so many robots the only jobs will be designing and maintaining them.  Then we can make robots to do even that.  And we can all sit back and enjoy life without work if we choose. 

****USWorldPoliticsConventionsTechScienceOdd NewsABC NewsYahoo OriginalsKatie Couric
Swiss set to reject basic income for all

AFP
•June 5, 2016

A giant poster reading: "What would you do if your income was taken care of?" is laid out on May 14, 2016 in Plainpalais Place in GenevaView photos
A giant poster reading: "What would you do if your income was taken care of?" is laid out on May 14, 2016 in Plainpalais Place in Geneva (AFP Photo/Fabrice Coffrini)
More
Geneva (AFP) - Swiss voters were on course Sunday to flatly reject a radical proposal to provide the entire population with a basic income, with no work required, initial results and projections showed.

National projections showed 78 percent of Swiss voters had opposed the initiative, according to numbers provided by the gfs.bern polling institute to public broadcaster RTS an hour after polls closed at noon (1000 GMT).

The result comes as no surprise: Opinion polls ahead of the vote had indicated more than 70 percent of Swiss voters opposed the measure.

The projections showed that 66 percent of voters had embraced a government proposal to speed up the country's asylum process.

Sixty-one percent also said "yes" to a call to allow genetic testing of embryos before they are inserted in the uterus in cases of in vitro fertilisation, according to the projections.

In a global first, the Swiss were asked whether they wanted all Swiss citizens, along with foreigners who have been legal residents for at least five years, to receive an unconditional basic income, or UBI.

The group behind the initiative has suggested paying 2,500 Swiss francs ($2,500/2,300 euros) a month to each adult, and 625 francs for each child.

The referendum came after reformers mustered more than the 100,000 signatures required to hold a popular vote, a regular feature of Swiss direct democracy.

But the idea was controversial from the start in Switzerland -- a country that values hard work -- and the government and nearly all political parties had urged voters to reject the scheme.

Andreas Ladner, a political scientist at Lausanne University, told RTS the Swiss were "realistic" in their assessment of the UBI plan.

Accepting that people can "be paid without having to work would have been a very big step" for the Swiss, he said, adding that the initiative appeared mainly to have been put forward to "spur debate".

"Just getting a broad public debate started on this important issue is a victory," Ralph Kundig, one of the lead campaigners, told AFP before the vote.

Supporters of the initiative argued that an unconditional income would help fight poverty and inequality in a world where good jobs with steady salaries are becoming harder to find.

"We need to find a new redistribution model," Kundig said.

Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 5871


« Reply #613 on: June 27, 2016, 08:25:46 PM »

I was trying to figure out exactly when it was that I saw and heard Jeffrey Sach's commencement speech at Lehigh some years ago

That  is the day when I realized exactly what Obamster meant by his commitment to  transforming the country.   He meant by getting rid of it as a sovereign entity and move towards the progressive's dream of one world government ruled by a few and Obama at top.

I found this.  A list of commencement speakers at Lehigh University.  Sachs spoke in 2009.  What I am shocked to see is another  name on the list from the year 1988 .  I would be curious to hear what HE had to say:

https://honorary.lehigh.edu/commencement
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 13813


« Reply #614 on: June 27, 2016, 08:46:22 PM »

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/364358.php

Revolting, indeed.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8185


« Reply #615 on: July 11, 2016, 10:44:01 AM »

This should be called, famous people reading the forum, where we already have a thread on this theme!

Nobody expains it better than Thomas Sowell:

http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2012/06/12/socialist_or_fascist

It bothers me a little when conservatives call Barack Obama a "socialist." He certainly is an enemy of the free market, and wants politicians and bureaucrats to make the fundamental decisions about the economy. But that does not mean that he wants government ownership of the means of production, which has long been a standard definition of socialism.

What President Obama has been pushing for, and moving toward, is more insidious: government control of the economy, while leaving ownership in private hands. That way, politicians get to call the shots but, when their bright ideas lead to disaster, they can always blame those who own businesses in the private sector.

Politically, it is heads-I-win when things go right, and tails-you-lose when things go wrong. This is far preferable, from Obama's point of view, since it gives him a variety of scapegoats for all his failed policies, without having to use President Bush as a scapegoat all the time.

Government ownership of the means of production means that politicians also own the consequences of their policies, and have to face responsibility when those consequences are disastrous -- something that Barack Obama avoids like the plague.

Thus the Obama administration can arbitrarily force insurance companies to cover the children of their customers until the children are 26 years old. Obviously, this creates favorable publicity for President Obama. But if this and other government edicts cause insurance premiums to rise, then that is something that can be blamed on the "greed" of the insurance companies.

The same principle, or lack of principle, applies to many other privately owned businesses. It is a very successful political ploy that can be adapted to all sorts of situations.

One of the reasons why both pro-Obama and anti-Obama observers may be reluctant to see him as fascist is that both tend to accept the prevailing notion that fascism is on the political right, while it is obvious that Obama is on the political left.

Back in the 1920s, however, when fascism was a new political development, it was widely -- and correctly -- regarded as being on the political left. Jonah Goldberg's great book "Liberal Fascism" cites overwhelming evidence of the fascists' consistent pursuit of the goals of the left, and of the left's embrace of the fascists as one of their own during the 1920s.

Mussolini, the originator of fascism, was lionized by the left, both in Europe and in America, during the 1920s. Even Hitler, who adopted fascist ideas in the 1920s, was seen by some, including W.E.B. Du Bois, as a man of the left.

It was in the 1930s, when ugly internal and international actions by Hitler and Mussolini repelled the world, that the left distanced themselves from fascism and its Nazi offshoot -- and verbally transferred these totalitarian dictatorships to the right, saddling their opponents with these pariahs.

What socialism, fascism and other ideologies of the left have in common is an assumption that some very wise people -- like themselves -- need to take decisions out of the hands of lesser people, like the rest of us, and impose those decisions by government fiat.

The left's vision is not only a vision of the world, but also a vision of themselves, as superior beings pursuing superior ends. In the United States, however, this vision conflicts with a Constitution that begins, "We the People..."

That is why the left has for more than a century been trying to get the Constitution's limitations on government loosened or evaded by judges' new interpretations, based on notions of "a living Constitution" that will take decisions out of the hands of "We the People," and transfer those decisions to our betters.

The self-flattery of the vision of the left also gives its true believers a huge ego stake in that vision, which means that mere facts are unlikely to make them reconsider, regardless of what evidence piles up against the vision of the left, and regardless of its disastrous consequences.

Only our own awareness of the huge stakes involved can save us from the rampaging presumptions of our betters, whether they are called socialists or fascists. So long as we buy their heady rhetoric, we are selling our birthright of freedom.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 13813


« Reply #616 on: July 11, 2016, 10:54:16 AM »

It's more of a national socialism.



This should be called, famous people reading the forum, where we already have a thread on this theme!

Nobody expains it better than Thomas Sowell:

http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2012/06/12/socialist_or_fascist

It bothers me a little when conservatives call Barack Obama a "socialist." He certainly is an enemy of the free market, and wants politicians and bureaucrats to make the fundamental decisions about the economy. But that does not mean that he wants government ownership of the means of production, which has long been a standard definition of socialism.

What President Obama has been pushing for, and moving toward, is more insidious: government control of the economy, while leaving ownership in private hands. That way, politicians get to call the shots but, when their bright ideas lead to disaster, they can always blame those who own businesses in the private sector.

Politically, it is heads-I-win when things go right, and tails-you-lose when things go wrong. This is far preferable, from Obama's point of view, since it gives him a variety of scapegoats for all his failed policies, without having to use President Bush as a scapegoat all the time.

Government ownership of the means of production means that politicians also own the consequences of their policies, and have to face responsibility when those consequences are disastrous -- something that Barack Obama avoids like the plague.

Thus the Obama administration can arbitrarily force insurance companies to cover the children of their customers until the children are 26 years old. Obviously, this creates favorable publicity for President Obama. But if this and other government edicts cause insurance premiums to rise, then that is something that can be blamed on the "greed" of the insurance companies.

The same principle, or lack of principle, applies to many other privately owned businesses. It is a very successful political ploy that can be adapted to all sorts of situations.

One of the reasons why both pro-Obama and anti-Obama observers may be reluctant to see him as fascist is that both tend to accept the prevailing notion that fascism is on the political right, while it is obvious that Obama is on the political left.

Back in the 1920s, however, when fascism was a new political development, it was widely -- and correctly -- regarded as being on the political left. Jonah Goldberg's great book "Liberal Fascism" cites overwhelming evidence of the fascists' consistent pursuit of the goals of the left, and of the left's embrace of the fascists as one of their own during the 1920s.

Mussolini, the originator of fascism, was lionized by the left, both in Europe and in America, during the 1920s. Even Hitler, who adopted fascist ideas in the 1920s, was seen by some, including W.E.B. Du Bois, as a man of the left.

It was in the 1930s, when ugly internal and international actions by Hitler and Mussolini repelled the world, that the left distanced themselves from fascism and its Nazi offshoot -- and verbally transferred these totalitarian dictatorships to the right, saddling their opponents with these pariahs.

What socialism, fascism and other ideologies of the left have in common is an assumption that some very wise people -- like themselves -- need to take decisions out of the hands of lesser people, like the rest of us, and impose those decisions by government fiat.

The left's vision is not only a vision of the world, but also a vision of themselves, as superior beings pursuing superior ends. In the United States, however, this vision conflicts with a Constitution that begins, "We the People..."

That is why the left has for more than a century been trying to get the Constitution's limitations on government loosened or evaded by judges' new interpretations, based on notions of "a living Constitution" that will take decisions out of the hands of "We the People," and transfer those decisions to our betters.

The self-flattery of the vision of the left also gives its true believers a huge ego stake in that vision, which means that mere facts are unlikely to make them reconsider, regardless of what evidence piles up against the vision of the left, and regardless of its disastrous consequences.

Only our own awareness of the huge stakes involved can save us from the rampaging presumptions of our betters, whether they are called socialists or fascists. So long as we buy their heady rhetoric, we are selling our birthright of freedom.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 37503


« Reply #617 on: July 11, 2016, 11:17:10 AM »

As usual Sowell nails it. 

In a related vein, , ,

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/07/10/sonnie-johnson-progressivism/
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 13813


« Reply #618 on: July 11, 2016, 11:20:52 AM »


I prefer to call progressives what they really are. Oppressives.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!