Liberal groups angry with SC pols over order to teach Constitution

Hitler was neither a socialist or a progressive. He was specifically a facist who used his anti capital talk to dog whistle his jew banker baiting. Nothing much changes when some try to make up/down, and a fascist into a socialist.....you really have no conceptual grasp on political ideological spectrums. Hitler was a fascist.

Looks like most fascists start out espousing the belief to others that they are socialists or... democrats.

It must be a liberal thingee.

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZvM0Hd0DHA

  

2seaoat wrote:Hitler was neither a socialist or a progressive. He was specifically a facist who used his anti capital talk to dog whistle his jew banker baiting. Nothing much changes when some try to make up/down, and a fascist into a socialist.....you really have no conceptual grasp on political ideological spectrums. Hitler was a fascist.

I know you won't do it... but it's pretty simple to read the contemporary news accounts and the quotes from leaders.

I also know this is not what you or flatex were taught... or had reinforced by the constantly regurgitated revisions.

But the facts are that the intellectual and politically influential progressives greatly admired the fascists and considered it an improvement in many ways to the previously applauded socialism/communism. It's all just collectivist authoritarian crap.

If you were honest... the differences are just so much fringe details... the things that matter like results are the same...

eventually.

If you're referring to the wealthy industrialists and financiers of the day, like Henry Ford, John D Rockefeller, Prescott Bush and J P Morgan, yes, many of them backed Hitler, but they weren't progressives. They were uber-capitalists and elitists. "Commies" was often used to refer to workers who tried to organize for decent wages and working hours. Stop posturing and pretending that no one here has studied history beyond textbooks. I assure you I didn't stop with what I was taught in school. I'm half German. I don't take this stuff lightly and have read extensively on the subject.

the things that matter like results are the same...

eventually.

I know what you mean. God kicked Adam and Eve out of the garden, and look how that turned out.

Floridatexan wrote:
If you're referring to the wealthy industrialists and financiers of the day, like Henry Ford, John D Rockefeller, Prescott Bush and J P Morgan, yes, many of them backed Hitler, but they weren't progressives. They were uber-capitalists and elitists. "Commies" was often used to refer to workers who tried to organize for decent wages and working hours. Stop posturing and pretending that no one here has studied history beyond textbooks. I assure you I didn't stop with what I was taught in school. I'm half German. I don't take this stuff lightly and have read extensively on the subject.

Then why do we keep having the same conversation... maybe you should try some different books. If a scale were to measure govt from least authority to the most authority possible... how can you possibly assign fascism as less govt?

That just makes no sense... no matter how many times it's repeated or by who. These quotes are from that period:

H. G. Wells, one of the most influential progressives of the 20th century, said in 1932 that progressives must become “liberal fascists” and “enlightened Nazis.” Regarding totalitarianism, he stated: “I have never been able to escape altogether from its relentless logic.” Calling for a “‘Phoenix Rebirth’ of Liberalism” under the umbrella of “Liberal Fascism,” Wells said: “I am asking for a Liberal Fascisti, for enlightened Nazis.”

The poet Wallace Stevens pronounced himself “pro-Mussolini personally.”

The eminent historian Charles Beard wrote of Mussolini’s efforts: “Beyond question, an amazing experiment is being made [in Italy], an experiment in reconciling individualism and socialism.”

Muckraking journalists almost universally admired Mussolini. Lincoln Steffens,for one, said that Italian fascism made Western democracy, by comparison, look like a system run by “petty persons with petty purposes.” Mussolini, Steffens proclaimed reverently, had been “formed” by God “out of the rib of Italy.”

McClure’s Magazine founder Samuel McClure, an important figure in the muckraking movement,described Italian fascism as “a great step forward and the first new ideal in government since the founding of the American Republic.”

After having vistited Italy and interviewed Mussolini in 1926, the American humorist Will Rogers, who was informally dubbed “Ambassador-at-Large of the United States” by the National Press Club, said of the fascist dictator: “I’m pretty high on that bird.” “Dictator form of government is the greatest form of government,” Rogers wrote, “that is, if you have the right dictator.”

Reporter Ida Tarbell was deeply impressed by Mussolini's attitudes regarding labor, affectionately dubbing him “a despot with a dimple.”

NAACP co-founder W. E. B. DuBois saw National Socialism as a worthy model for economic organization. The establishment of the Nazi dictatorship in Germany, he wrote, had been “absolutely necessary to get the state in order.” In 1937 DuBois stated: “there is today, in some respects, more democracy in Germany than there has been in years past.”

FDR adviser Rexford Guy Tugwell said of Italian fascism: “It's the cleanest,neatest,most efficiently operating piece of social machinery I've ever seen. It makes me envious.” In late 1934 he noted: “I find Italy doing many of the things which seem to me necessary.... Mussolini certainly has the same people opposed to him as FDR has.”

New Republic editor George Soule, who avidly supported FDR, noted approvingly that the Roosevelt administration was “trying out the economics of fascism.”

Playwright George Bernard Shaw hailed Stalin, Hitler, and Mussolini as the world’s great “progressive” leaders because they “did things,” unlike the leaders of those “putrefying corpses” called parliamentary democracies.

The progressive financier George Perkins said the “great European war … is striking down individualism and building up collectivism.”

Mussolini in a 1921 speech: “Between us and the communists there are no political affinities but there are intellectual ones. Like you [communists], we consider necessary a centralized unitary state which imposes iron discipline and all persons, with this difference, that you reached this conclusion by way of the concept of class, and we by the way of the concept of nation.”

Political theories and political groups are quantifiable. Adolph Hitler was a fascist. He was not a socialist, any more than Fox News is fair and balanced. All your quotes are a feeble attempt to redefine the quantifiable and blur clear distinctions. For anybody to suggest the same is to operate in Orwellian doublethink. Sorry, a ninth grade student has better grasp of political theory than you do. You have attempted to blur clear distinctions before, and all it does is clearly show that you are a sophist who is good at smoke and mirrors.

2seaoat wrote:Political theories and political groups are quantifiable. Adolph Hitler was a fascist. He was not a socialist, any more than Fox News is fair and balanced. All your quotes are a feeble attempt to redefine the quantifiable and blur clear distinctions. For anybody to suggest the same is to operate in Orwellian doublethink. Sorry, a ninth grade student has better grasp of political theory than you do. You have attempted to blur clear distinctions before, and all it does is clearly show that you are a sophist who is good at smoke and mirrors.

I know it's hard for you to question what you learned in ninth grade and heard repeated your whole life.

Just ignore the results and even their own words... as usual.

I know it's hard for you to question what you learned in ninth grade and heard repeated your whole life.

Just ignore the results and even their own words... as usual.


No my friend, I have written papers you could no more grasp or understand as you have no historical or political philosophy education or understanding of the same. You bumble along in an ad hoc fashion spewing sophomoric blending of political philosophy which would make a ninth grader blush, but graduate students would be rendered unconscious from laughter that anyone could butcher concepts as well as you do. Please stick to something you understand......like how to score in tennis. If I was to suggest that there are 21 points required to win a tennis match, and I gave you some goofy quotes which further confused how tennis is scored, you may have empathy for me when I have to read your garbled political concepts.

Petty persons with petty purposes? Is that what liberals think of capitalists?

So forcing people to follow an agenda and think a certain way is better?

Sounds like indoctrination to me.

Hm.m..m...m... They must not be adding enough GMO's to my food intake.

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VR3Av9qfZc

 

2seaoat wrote:I know it's hard for you to question what you learned in ninth grade and heard repeated your whole life.

Just ignore the results and even their own words... as usual.


No my friend, I have written papers you could no more grasp or understand as you have no historical or political philosophy education or understanding of the same. You bumble along in an ad hoc fashion spewing sophomoric blending of political philosophy which would make a ninth grader blush, but graduate students would be rendered unconscious from laughter that anyone could butcher concepts as well as you do. Please stick to something you understand......like how to score in tennis. If I was to suggest that there are 21 points required to win a tennis match, and I gave you some goofy quotes which further confused how tennis is scored, you may have empathy for me when I have to read your garbled political concepts.

If that somehow comforts you... then feel free. What it really does is provide an escape route from critical thght.

Do you really think hitler had more in common with stalin or ron paul?

Nevermind... I'm not going to waste another second reading through you trying to insult me to protect your faith.

2seaoat wrote:I know it's hard for you to question what you learned in ninth grade and heard repeated your whole life.

Just ignore the results and even their own words... as usual.


No my friend, I have written papers you could no more grasp or understand as you have no historical or political philosophy education or understanding of the same.  You bumble along in an ad hoc fashion spewing sophomoric blending of political philosophy which would make a ninth grader blush, but graduate students would be rendered unconscious from laughter that anyone could butcher concepts as well as you do.   Please stick to something you understand......like how to score in tennis.   If I was to suggest that there are 21 points required to win a tennis match, and I gave you some goofy quotes which further confused how tennis is scored, you may have empathy for me when I have to read your garbled political concepts.

Like Hitler and Stalin were so different in how their governments operated in the end.

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=diOuUYcenW0

 

The book none dare call it conspiracy laid out the truth so clearly 30 years ago about government. The true scale of government runs from anarchy or no government to totalitarian rule dictators, fascisms, socialisms, and communism. Democratic representative government falls near the middle of the scale. You only have to look at the fruits of a government like you look at a tree to know what it is.  Absolute Freedom to to total control . Anarchy looks pretty darned good.

How Are Socialism, Communism and Fascism All the Same?


G. Edward Griffin does an excellent job in explaining a very important connection between socialism, communism and fascism — one that is routinely overlooked and misunderstood, in my humble opinion.

The often heard mantra from the left-side of the political spectrum, that fascism is a right-wing ideology, while communism-socialism is considered a left-wing philosophy, never made much sense to me.

Consider this article from 1925 that appeared in an edition of the New York Times from none other than Dr. Joseph Goebbels, the infamous propaganda minister of The Third Reich ( you will have to look at the article for the clipping)

Let’s just be sure we are clear on what the previous screen capture shows from The New York Times newspaper. Dr. Joseph Geobbel’s allegedly said:


“On the speaker’s assertion that Lenin was the greatest man, second only to Hitler, and that the difference between communism and the Hitler faith was very slight …”

Now, if we carefully read the last part of Goebbel’s quote, we read something that flies in the face of what most Marxist educators teach. So I’ll include the entire quote below, my emphasis:


“On the speaker’s assertion that Lenin was the greatest man, second only to Hitler, and that the difference between communism and the Hitler faith was very slight, a faction war opened with whizzing beer glasses.”

— Joseph Goebbels

The whole notion that there really isn’t a plug nickel’s worth of difference between fascism and communism is an assertion that will send your friendly, resident socialist into an apoplectic fit (at least in my experience). But what is the common link between socialism, fascism, communism, and every other ism known to mankind? Collectivism–the religion of the “common greater good,” the group over the individual, the state over the slave, the tyrant over the subjects. It is the wiping out of individualism, which is anathema to the collectivist.



And often times, this is the point where the collectivist attempts to divert the individualist into their swamp of isms, particularity if trained in some of our more prestigious institutes of higher leftist learning like Harvard, Yale, Columbia, etc.–The Eastern Establishment.

The “mission statement” of ideologies like socialism and communism — meaning: a borderless and classless world, where all will be one, living in perfect harmony, surrounded with endless abundance, where all wants and needs are provided for by the state (Nirvana, Heaven on Earth, Workers’ Paradise, Utopia, etc.) – exposes a rather glaring contradiction, when one considers the tactics and processes used in order to bring about a collectivist society.

Collectivism is riddled with factionalism. Ironically, creating factions and splitting apart their opponents is one of the tactics used by collectivists to bring about collectivism … for the alleged purpose of creating a classless society of “equality and perfect harmony.” The purposeful agitation and creation of conflict between groups of people forms the core political strategy for our radical leftist friends. Yet, I don’t think a proud collectivist can deny the existence of the many layers and flavors often attributed to socialist and communist ideologies, and systems

When discussing the philosophy and history of collectivism in the academic setting, I have often been led on an endless and circuitous journey into the magical world of Ism by some of my esteemed instructors and fellow students. For example, under the umbrella of collectivism, we have communism, socialism and fascism. But, like one devoted Marxist I met in college years ago, with spittle flying from his lips, gently admonished me by saying, “DO YOU KNOW HOW MANY FLAVORS OF COMMUNISM THERE ARE?!”

Obviously, he was very correct. There are so many flavors of communist ideology–like Maoism, Stalinism, Leninism, Marxist-Leninism, Eurocommunism, Trotskyism, Stalinism, Titoism, Humanism, Prachanda Path, Luxemburgism, Council Communism, etc. Within the seemingly infinite types of communism, you have numerous factions of individuals–like Stalinists, Marxists, Socialists, Lovestonites, Trotskyites, Browderites, etc.

http://www.trevorloudon.com/2014/02/how-are-socialism-communism-and-fascism-all-the-same/

long article worth the read. Everything is not black and white. There really are no PURE ideologies.

You can listen to it here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=005cahIsSXE

Thanks for trying to point out what should be obvious boys... but I think we're dealing with something very deeply ingrained. Something that protects that which can't be questioned. Perhaps we've struck upon the cornerstone of progressivism.

How else could something so blatantly obvious such as a cental govt authority be ignored or misconstrued?

prk, I think they know that they are using these methodologies. You have been very clear in trying to explain to them about "end results".

They are choosing this denial as a tactic.

Its like 3 people, one with a pencil, one with a pen and one with a crayon all drawing a circle and trying to claim that their circles are each very different. The end result is they will use what ever means necessary to draw that circle, a pen, pencil or crayon. Makes no difference, its still a circle.   

PkrBum wrote:Thanks for trying to point out what should be obvious boys... but I think we're dealing with something very deeply ingrained. Something that protects that which can't be questioned. Perhaps we've struck upon the cornerstone of progressivism.

How else could something so blatantly obvious such as a cental govt authority be ignored or misconstrued?

Of course. Some people need to have a king/dictator/emperor to tell them and everyone else what to do.

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fuqlRcmmyPw

  

"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire."
Robert A. Heinlein