The View From 1776

Liberals, Progressives, Socialists, and Fascists

These are just different names all referring to the atheistic, secular collectivism that the laboratory of history has devastatingly repudiated.  American liberals (again calling themselves progressives) nonetheless cling to their secular religious faith, urging the nation once more to risk plunging over Niagara Falls in a rotten barrel.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 01/22 at 12:58 AM
  1. Right. Once you're done with the ad hominem attacks, you might try some real arguments next time... although I won't hold my breath.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  01/22  at  05:44 AM
  2. Here's something from a military Training Manual (TH 2000-25) that was outlawed by FDR:

    Democracy:
    .A government of the masses.
    Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of
    "direct " expression.
    Results in mobocracy.
    Attitude toward property is communistic-negating property
    rights.
    Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate,
    whether it be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, preju-
    dice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences..
    Results in demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.

    Republic:
    Authority is derived through the election by the people of public
    officials best fitted to represent them.
    Attitude toward property is respect for laws and individual rights,
    and a sensible economic procedure.
    Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with
    fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to
    consequences.
    A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be
    brought within its compass.
    Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or: mobocracy.
    Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment, and
    progress.

    You also might look at the conclusion to "America's Path to Socialism. It contains definitions from the Encyclopeadia Brittainica, often referred to by the Supreme Court.
    Posted by Ronarl  on  01/22  at  12:54 PM
  3. I think conservatives are the real fascists. Conservatives want to cling to an old world order and in doing so resort to fascist tactics of smear, propaganda and warping of the truth, just like the Bush administration.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  01/22  at  04:36 PM
  4. It seems to me the endless dispute between collectivists and conservatives boils down to one issue: legal rights. Conservatives believe that fundamental rights should be vested in individuals. Collectivists believe that group rights trump everything. Collectivists say it is okay to sacrifice individuals for the greater good of society. If society opines that an individual should forfit his property, or even his life, and if it is couched in terms of increasing the public good, so be it. Unfortunately, collectivist theory and collectivist practice have been two different things. The long history of collectivist states is evidence that while decisions to sacrifice an individual are made in the name of some overarching group (society), they are always decided, in fact, by individuals who have climbed to a position of greater equality among their fellow equals. Some die-hard collectivists have defended their views by asserting that there is nothing wrong with collectivism provided the "right" people are in charge of it. This is like saying there is nothing wrong with the Mafia except for its leadership. The fact is, the "right" people can never get to the top of either system, because only those whose main virtue is brutality are able to survive the climb. Those who make it have the power to totally destroy anyone who might try to climb up after them. The power to destroy must be regularly exercised in order to stay on top.

    And I must ask, how can anyone who truly values individual rights be labeled a fascist? Furthermore, it seems to me that too many of my own countrymen (God bless them) and others "hate" George Bush with great ferocity and passion, but cannot tell us why, exactly. Many cannot even name the Secretary of State or the candidate who ran against Bush in 2004 (Steve something-or-other?). To them I say, you are living proof that Orwellian mind-control really works. Historic and economic fact is out there for all to see, and I will never understand people who remain willfully blind to it.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  01/22  at  06:12 PM
  5. Rick,

    I really thing you went over the top when you made that reference connecting the collective to the mafia. Such a remark is not worthy of a person of logic or reason.

    If you were logical and reasonable you could and would realize that neither the individual or the collective can exist without the other. Those two states have a mutual relationship and it is a constant but necessary balancing act to keep them that way.

    As for hating Bush, I can think of lots of reasons why one might. But this is not the forum to list them.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  01/22  at  07:16 PM
  6. Now I know what Goethe meant when he said "None are so hopelessly enslaved as those that falsely believe they are free
    Posted by Ronarl  on  01/23  at  11:17 AM
  7. Posted for Mark Van Noy:

    Well, Motormind, it seems to me that I DID offer a reasoned exposition of the term "liberal-progressive" and why it is oxymoronic, hence incorrect and confusing to those who hear and read it. It achieves its intended purpose by misleading the easily duped into associating liberals with progress, when the opposite is actually true. Liberalism is regressive by nature. That's plain, demonstrable fact and I offered a few examples.

    I clearly and rationally demonstrated, even PROVED, that socialism is synonymous with fascism. They are the same political philosophy, regardless of liberal (socialist) propaganda to the contrary. Mr. Brewton's erudite history of the term "liberal" notwithstanding, in the political vernacular of today's America, "liberal" is synonymous with "socialist." Why? Because that is the political philosophy liberals espouse. Conservatives did not choose this for them. They chose it for themsleves.

    Liberals run away from their association with socialism during elections, which can be seen regularly on TV as Hillary Clinton desperately tries to deceive American voters into believing that she is to the right of President Bush. I imagine that there are many who will believe her. Their pictures can be found in the dictionary next to the definition of "dunce."

    Once in office, liberals legislate or rule (in the case of judges) like members of the Supreme Soviet. They even have the temerity to ridicule the very Constitution that they are SWORN to uphold and protect. Very interesting stuff. Democrats have a smug, hypocritical phrase for this: "Run from the right and govern from the left." Don't YOU think that politicians, both Democrat and Republican, should govern by the same philosophy that they espouse during their campaigns? I do.

    I then demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that the terms "socialist" and "fascist" are synonymous. I went directly to the source for this. Adolf Hitler, himself, named his fascist "Nazi" Party the "National Socialist Worker's Party." That's as close the "horses mouth" as it is possible to get. Please don't believe me. Look it up for yourself. The difference between fascism and communism (another socialist political philosophy) is that fascism is rabidly nationalistic and communism is vehemently internationalistic. That's a substantial disagreement, one that led to WW2, but doesn't alter the fact that both are socialistic.

    Therefore, it should be obvious to anyone with an IQ that exceeds single-digits that the terms "liberal" and "fascist" are synonymous. We learned in Math 101 that if A=B and B=C, then A=C. Such rudimentary logical reasoning is the cornerstone of higher education and is not arguable by anyone who chooses to be taken seriously. You may want to consider that it then follows that it is not arguable that liberals are technically and undeniably fascists. Thus, conservatives are not, regardless of liberal propaganda that attempts to vilify conservatives with the bright "red" brush that they should rationally be using to paint themselves.

    If you consider yourself a liberal and you do not like this association with fascism, you may want to examine your political beliefs a bit more carefully. Perhaps you are actually a conservative. Do you believe in the Bill of Rights? Do you believe in the Constitution? Do you believe that certain individual rights do and should trump majority opinion? Do you believe in the inherent right of free men to own property and that his property should not be subject to appropriation by the government unless it is for a valid and necessary public use project, such as highways (i.e., not for commercial projects, such as a new Wal-Mart)? Do you believe that government is best when firmly controlled by the people and is not effective or efficient when attempting to operate a commercial enterprise? Do you believe that taxes should be limited to the amounts necessary to pay for vital government functions that are allowed it in the Constitution, such as the national defense, and that politicians should not raise taxes to pay for pork-barrel projects designed to buy them votes? Do you believe that it is the job of Congress to legislate and the job of the judiciary to determine whether that legislation or its administration remains clearly within the limits prescribed by the Constitution? If so, you are a conservative and probably a natural Republican.

    If you reached that conclusion, we would like to say that we have a "big tent" and there is room for intelligent people who don't need to read their party's "talking points" before they know what to think. Join us. We would love to have you.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  01/24  at  01:50 AM
  8. YES, Mr. Brewton! You have made the View from 1776 very clear and plain to the unbiased mind and the responsible thoughtful grown-up Choicemaker!

    Further emphasis deserves to be made between the use of Collective and Individual as human value measuring systems.

    All humans live and work in association with their fellow humans. That is not a Collective way of defining human value. The Collectivist system of human value says individuals have no value - unless they are part of a specified group, such as pure Aryan, white KKK, Nazi, Fascist, or Communist. It is foundational to their value of numbers and power.

    Collectivists see no power advantage in the Individual: seen as weak, uncontrollable, and 'a danger' to their authority in their elitist ruling of the dumb 'masses.'

    Judeo-Christian ideology is truly a danger to the rulers of collectivist nations as in China, North Korea, Muslim, etc., because it is a value system validating each individual. (Individual value has no other source.) Groups they can control; varied individuals they cannot.

    Americans who favor collectivism are blind to reality, misled, and mislead their fellow- citizens. It is not intelligent. It is not desireable. It is not consistent with a successful human nature. It shuts down human creativity and progress. (The creative process is an individual choice-making process.)

    Collectivism is Stupid: designed & defended by and for Buffoons.
    Posted by Choicemaker  on  01/24  at  10:24 AM
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.

Next entry: John Adams and John Jay

Previous entry: Teaching to the Test