Fascism Is as Fascism Does

[NYcarbineer]

She once claimed that science had proven the Genesis creation myth to be accurate. Calling her understanding of history 'superficial' is way too kind.

She has yet to show any kind of understanding of history that hasn't been completely distorted with political ideology.

So how does any of this have to do with her thread, you two? Your debate skills are superficial at best; full of ad hominem. You won't prove your point at all. Simply attacking her character and philosophies will not win any arguments.

Hey, bob (may I call you bob?) NYcarbineer here is the picture of what a revisionist historian looks like. Do you vet your friends and allies before joining with them?

Hey, when are you going to admit that PoliticalChic lost the argument in this thread when she engaged in namecalling?

 

[bripat9643]

Do you ever talk about history in anything but the most superficial terms possible?

She once claimed that science had proven the Genesis creation myth to be accurate. Calling her understanding of history 'superficial' is way too kind.

She has yet to show any kind of understanding of history that hasn't been completely distorted with political ideology.

And you have?

 

[bripat9643]

Rightwingers hate FDR for the same reasons they hate all liberals. Rightwingers hate FDR not because he once said something favorable about something about Mussolini;

they hate him because he irreversibly advanced liberalism. Rightwingers hate FDR because he won,

and they lost.

Constitutionalists/Conservatives don't like FDR because he expanded the scope and power of government thus reducing "The People's" power and scope of self-determination. It's the same reason that the Founding Fathers didn't like King George.

And what parts of FDR's legacy do the majority of 'the People' now object to, specifically?

This discussion about conservatives, not "the people," which includes all manner of ticks on the ass of society.

 

[NYcarbineer]

"She once claimed that science had proven the Genesis creation myth to be accurate."

Prove it or be recognized....again.....for the liar that you are.

You're making too easy:

In your own words, verbatim:

Modern scientific narrative and biblical narrative seem to agree here.
LIght....energy....but no sun...

But there’s more in the Genesis author’s narrative. There follows an order of events of the creation.
A pretty specific order of events.
And it’s surprisingly accurate.

Now who's the fucking liar? Who said it was accurate? Who said who said it was accurate?

lol

http://www.usmessageboard.com/science-and-technology/277042-genesis-correlates-with-science-6.html

I love making you go back and study my posts.....especially when the same shows you to be the despicable liar that you are.

You lied as follows:
"She once claimed that science had proven the Genesis creation myth to be accurate."

I made no claim that "science had proven the Genesis creation myth..."


As you posted, "here follows an order of events" that is accurate.



Nothing can be better than when you, all by yourself, indicate what a putrid example of humanity you are.




So, sleaze.....did I claim "... that science had proven the Genesis creation myth to be accurate"....or that the order of events in the Bible has been accepted in modern theory?





I'm always disappointed when a liar's pants don't actually catch on fire.

The best part about catching a poster like PC in a lie is when they then double down on the dishonesty and deny the irrefutable evidence that proves their lie.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

And what, precisely and specifically, did Roosevelt do that qualifies as uniquely fascist under any sane definition of fascism, and that was uniquely an FDR policy?

Uh . . . we've already explained that to you and included links for further information. Here's another: America's 'Fascist Moment' - The New York Sun.

Read.

Also, let me suggest that you read Friedrich von Hayek's The Road to Serfdom and Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning. Finish with those works and I'll give you some more titles.

Dude. The collectivist, national programs of the New Deal were classic progressive/liberal fascism! The history is not a secrete.

Your problem is that you don't know what classical liberalism is as opposed to the neo-/post-liberalism of Twentieth-Century American progressivism. Our nation was founded on the Anglo-American tradition of classical liberalism: individual liberty bottomed on the preservation of property, limited government and inalienable human rights, coupled with the pre-Rousseauian construct of laissez-faire.

And as I said in the above, both communism and fascism are formally bottomed on the decidedly leftist, ontological justification of the Hegelian historical dialectic, though communism harks back to the technocratic Utopianism of Plato's Republic, and the Jacobins of Rousseauian egalitarianism are the historical precursors of the Bolsheviks.


Further reading from my blog that should be helpful:

Prufrock's Lair: The "New Math" of American History and the Unobscured Truth

Prufrock's Lair: Abortion on Demand, Homosexual "Marriage": what will they think of next?

 

[PoliticalChic]

You're making too easy:

In your own words, verbatim:

Modern scientific narrative and biblical narrative seem to agree here.
LIght....energy....but no sun...

But there’s more in the Genesis author’s narrative. There follows an order of events of the creation.
A pretty specific order of events.
And it’s surprisingly accurate.

Now who's the fucking liar? Who said it was accurate? Who said who said it was accurate?

lol

http://www.usmessageboard.com/science-and-technology/277042-genesis-correlates-with-science-6.html

I love making you go back and study my posts.....especially when the same shows you to be the despicable liar that you are.

You lied as follows:
"She once claimed that science had proven the Genesis creation myth to be accurate."

I made no claim that "science had proven the Genesis creation myth..."


As you posted, "here follows an order of events" that is accurate.



Nothing can be better than when you, all by yourself, indicate what a putrid example of humanity you are.




So, sleaze.....did I claim "... that science had proven the Genesis creation myth to be accurate"....or that the order of events in the Bible has been accepted in modern theory?





I'm always disappointed when a liar's pants don't actually catch on fire.

The best part about catching a poster like PC in a lie is when they then double down on the dishonesty and deny the irrefutable evidence that proves their lie.

Great....I just proved you are the liar, sleaze.


I use words with a precision that tripped you up.


Now....step off.


And don't forget to have your auto seat belts changed to piano wire.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

And your point is...what?

That it was not resurrected as a modernRoman Empire by Mussolini and the Fascists, and has become a symbol of fascism?

Let's give you a bit of history that you seem to have missed.


1. Sometime after the First World War, the Babylon-Armageddon made its way into political theory. Each version had a people of God, under attack. There was the proletariat for the Bolsheviks and Stalinists; the children of the Roman wolf for Mussolini’s Fascists; the Warriors of Christ the King for Franco’s Phalange, and the Aryan race for the Nazis.


2. Mussolini incorporated the ideas of Georges Sorel’s syndicalism to create his brand of fascism.

a. Syndicalism is similar to socialism but included violent, direction action.

b. Syndicalists believed in rule by revolutionary trade unions, from the French word ‘syndicat.’ The Italian word ‘fascio’ means bundle, but was commonly used as a synonym for unions.

c. Syndicalism proposed that society could be divided by professional sectors of the economy; this idea influenced FDR’s New Deal.

Hold it there now Chica! I've been reading your pseudo intellectual claptrap all through this thread. You got sum splain' to do!

1. Syndicalism is an ECONOMIC system NOT a POLITICAL system.

2. FDR was not a syndicalist.

3. FDR was not a fascist.

4. FDR was a dyed in the wool socialist, your BS notwithstanding!

5. If you or others want an example of a President who had actual fascist leanings, look no further than Bush 43...examples follow!

6. Look up the theory of the "Unitary Presidency", read it and understand it!

7. Read Bush 43's signing statements and see how often he referenced and evoked his powers under the crackpot theory of a unitary presidency!

8. Read and understand the National Security Presidential Directive #51 (NSPD 51) Bush 43 signed in May 2007 giving the President the powers of a dictator!

9. #6, 7 & 8 should be enough to disclose the true political bent of the Bush 43 administrations when viewed through the prism of the surge of Nationalism cheered on with the prompts of the National Guv'ment post 9/11.

10. Your thinly veiled partisanship of this thread is nothing but an attempt to discredit the faction you and your ilk hold in unhealthy contempt, and trying to link the misguided FDR to fascism is beyond the pale.


Ya gonna Splain' or Refrain?

"... pseudo intellectual claptrap...."

"....fascist leanings, look no further than Bush 43.."

".... your BS...

".... Your thinly veiled partisanship.....zzzzzz'

The concept of irony has spent the entirety of its existence waiting for you to come along and give it meaning.




Did you vote for the failure in the White House?
So much for any possibility of political acumen on your part.

Here comes another speck of kryptonite at ya!

You have no response to your errors and logical fallacies. All you can do is substitute ad hominem instead. How very shallow. Perhaps someday you'll find what's lacking to fill that ugly void you let others glimpse.

Voting for the lesser of two evils would imply at least some partisanship toward one of the two factions. Why would I waste my precious franchise on either! Your binary abstract of reality is well suited for the small, narrow mind, Chica!

 

[Discombobulated]

She once claimed that science had proven the Genesis creation myth to be accurate. Calling her understanding of history 'superficial' is way too kind.

She has yet to show any kind of understanding of history that hasn't been completely distorted with political ideology.

And you have?

And you have what dummy?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Constitutionalists/Conservatives don't like FDR because he expanded the scope and power of government thus reducing "The People's" power and scope of self-determination. It's the same reason that the Founding Fathers didn't like King George.

And what parts of FDR's legacy do the majority of 'the People' now object to, specifically?

This discussion about conservatives, not "the people," which includes all manner of ticks on the ass of society.

So you envision an undemocratic oligarchical society run by a conservative elite with no power to the rest of the People?

Good luck with that asshole.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I love making you go back and study my posts.....especially when the same shows you to be the despicable liar that you are.

You lied as follows:
"She once claimed that science had proven the Genesis creation myth to be accurate."

I made no claim that "science had proven the Genesis creation myth..."


As you posted, "here follows an order of events" that is accurate.



Nothing can be better than when you, all by yourself, indicate what a putrid example of humanity you are.




So, sleaze.....did I claim "... that science had proven the Genesis creation myth to be accurate"....or that the order of events in the Bible has been accepted in modern theory?





I'm always disappointed when a liar's pants don't actually catch on fire.

The best part about catching a poster like PC in a lie is when they then double down on the dishonesty and deny the irrefutable evidence that proves their lie.

Great....I just proved you are the liar, sleaze.


I use words with a precision that tripped you up.


Now....step off.


And don't forget to have your auto seat belts changed to piano wire.

So you won't acknowledge that the creation myth in Genesis is scientifically wrong, which means you believe it is scientifically accurate,

and the latter is exactly what I pointed out about you.

And btw, here's one of the posts where I PROVE that Genesis didn't even get the timeline correct, which is more of what you keep lying about:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/6832645-post78.html

 

[NYcarbineer]

The best part about catching a poster like PC in a lie is when they then double down on the dishonesty and deny the irrefutable evidence that proves their lie.

Great....I just proved you are the liar, sleaze.


I use words with a precision that tripped you up.


Now....step off.


And don't forget to have your auto seat belts changed to piano wire.

So you won't acknowledge that the creation myth in Genesis is scientifically wrong, which means you believe it is scientifically accurate,

and the latter is exactly what I pointed out about you.

And btw, here's one of the posts where I PROVE that Genesis didn't even get the timeline correct, which is more of what you keep lying about:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/6832645-post78.html

And here's more proof PC is putting 2 pounds of horseshit in a 1 pound bag with her nonsense that Genesis follows the scientific timeline:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/6834465-post81.html

 

[NYcarbineer]

You're a damn fool. You don't know the first thing about the history of the Progressive Era. American Progressives, including FDR, unabashedly embraced the construct of so-called "liberal fascism/liberal national socialism." They actually believed it to be the future of America, and for the Marxist New Dealers in FDR's administration, the transitional phase of capitalist America in the historical dialectic toward true communism.

You're a friggin's know nothing making baby talk. Shut the hell up.

And what, precisely and specifically, did Roosevelt do that qualifies as uniquely fascist under any sane definition of fascism, and that was uniquely an FDR policy?

Uh . . . we've already explained that to you and included links for further information. Here's another: America's 'Fascist Moment' - The New York Sun.

Read.

Also, let me suggest that you read Friedrich von Hayek's The Road to Serfdom and Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning. Finish with those works and I'll give you some more titles.

Dude. The collectivist, national programs of the New Deal were classic progressive/liberal fascism! The history is not a secrete.

Your problem is that you don't know what classical liberalism is as opposed to the neo-/post-liberalism of Twentieth-Century American progressivism. Our nation was founded on the Anglo-American tradition of classical liberalism: individual liberty bottomed on the preservation of property, limited government and inalienable human rights, coupled with the pre-Rousseauian construct of laissez-faire.

And as I said in the above, both communism and fascism are formally bottomed on the decidedly leftist, ontological justification of the Hegelian historical dialectic, though communism harks back to the technocratic Utopianism of Plato's Republic, and the Jacobins of Rousseauian egalitarianism are the historical precursors of the Bolsheviks.


Further reading from my blog that should be helpful:

Prufrock's Lair: The "New Math" of American History and the Unobscured Truth

Prufrock's Lair: Abortion on Demand, Homosexual "Marriage": what will they think of next?

Why would I make the effort to read a rightwing idiot like Jonah Goldberg when I can read rightwing idiocy here all day? Are you saying that the rightwingers here are so inferior to an imbecile like Goldberg that you people aren't capable of articulating what he does?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

And what parts of FDR's legacy do the majority of 'the People' now object to, specifically?

This discussion about conservatives, not "the people," which includes all manner of ticks on the ass of society.

So you envision an undemocratic oligarchical society run by a conservative elite with no power to the rest of the People?

Good luck with that asshole.

Yeah. That's what classical liberalism is alright . . . "an undemocratic oligarchical society".

 

[Discombobulated]

And what, precisely and specifically, did Roosevelt do that qualifies as uniquely fascist under any sane definition of fascism, and that was uniquely an FDR policy?

Uh . . . we've already explained that to you and included links for further information. Here's another: America's 'Fascist Moment' - The New York Sun.

Read.

Also, let me suggest that you read Friedrich von Hayek's The Road to Serfdom and Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning. Finish with those works and I'll give you some more titles.

Dude. The collectivist, national programs of the New Deal were classic progressive/liberal fascism! The history is not a secrete.

Your problem is that you don't know what classical liberalism is as opposed to the neo-/post-liberalism of Twentieth-Century American progressivism. Our nation was founded on the Anglo-American tradition of classical liberalism: individual liberty bottomed on the preservation of property, limited government and inalienable human rights, coupled with the pre-Rousseauian construct of laissez-faire.

And as I said in the above, both communism and fascism are formally bottomed on the decidedly leftist, ontological justification of the Hegelian historical dialectic, though communism harks back to the technocratic Utopianism of Plato's Republic, and the Jacobins of Rousseauian egalitarianism are the historical precursors of the Bolsheviks.


Further reading from my blog that should be helpful:

Prufrock's Lair: The "New Math" of American History and the Unobscured Truth

Prufrock's Lair: Abortion on Demand, Homosexual "Marriage": what will they think of next?

History is not a secret.......it is if you rely on Jonah Goldberg for your information.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

And what, precisely and specifically, did Roosevelt do that qualifies as uniquely fascist under any sane definition of fascism, and that was uniquely an FDR policy?

Uh . . . we've already explained that to you and included links for further information. Here's another: America's 'Fascist Moment' - The New York Sun.

Read.

Also, let me suggest that you read Friedrich von Hayek's The Road to Serfdom and Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning. Finish with those works and I'll give you some more titles.

Dude. The collectivist, national programs of the New Deal were classic progressive/liberal fascism! The history is not a secrete.

Your problem is that you don't know what classical liberalism is as opposed to the neo-/post-liberalism of Twentieth-Century American progressivism. Our nation was founded on the Anglo-American tradition of classical liberalism: individual liberty bottomed on the preservation of property, limited government and inalienable human rights, coupled with the pre-Rousseauian construct of laissez-faire.

And as I said in the above, both communism and fascism are formally bottomed on the decidedly leftist, ontological justification of the Hegelian historical dialectic, though communism harks back to the technocratic Utopianism of Plato's Republic, and the Jacobins of Rousseauian egalitarianism are the historical precursors of the Bolsheviks.


Further reading from my blog that should be helpful:

Prufrock's Lair: The "New Math" of American History and the Unobscured Truth

Prufrock's Lair: Abortion on Demand, Homosexual "Marriage": what will they think of next?

History is not a secret.......it is if you rely on Jonah Goldberg for your information.

Rely on Goldberg? Goldberg's work is just one of the dozens written about the Progressive Era, you dope! Goldberg's observations are nothing new.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

And what, precisely and specifically, did Roosevelt do that qualifies as uniquely fascist under any sane definition of fascism, and that was uniquely an FDR policy?

Uh . . . we've already explained that to you and included links for further information. Here's another: America's 'Fascist Moment' - The New York Sun.

Read.

Also, let me suggest that you read Friedrich von Hayek's The Road to Serfdom and Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning. Finish with those works and I'll give you some more titles.

Dude. The collectivist, national programs of the New Deal were classic progressive/liberal fascism! The history is not a secrete.

Your problem is that you don't know what classical liberalism is as opposed to the neo-/post-liberalism of Twentieth-Century American progressivism. Our nation was founded on the Anglo-American tradition of classical liberalism: individual liberty bottomed on the preservation of property, limited government and inalienable human rights, coupled with the pre-Rousseauian construct of laissez-faire.

And as I said in the above, both communism and fascism are formally bottomed on the decidedly leftist, ontological justification of the Hegelian historical dialectic, though communism harks back to the technocratic Utopianism of Plato's Republic, and the Jacobins of Rousseauian egalitarianism are the historical precursors of the Bolsheviks.


Further reading from my blog that should be helpful:

Prufrock's Lair: The "New Math" of American History and the Unobscured Truth

Prufrock's Lair: Abortion on Demand, Homosexual "Marriage": what will they think of next?

Why would I make the effort to read a rightwing idiot like Jonah Goldberg when I can read rightwing idiocy here all day? Are you saying that the rightwingers here are so inferior to an imbecile like Goldberg that you people aren't capable of articulating what he does?

Exactly! You asked why FDR was a proponent of national socialism. You asked for specifics with regard to his policies. You were given that information, detailed, comprehensive information to read and think about for yourself. You were also given further reading and a promise for more.

Response: you attack the man and move the goalpost, as if we weren't talking about the well-established, objectively demonstrable history of the pre-WWII Progressive Era.

And so folks like PC and I verbally slap you silly-ass ignoramuses around. You don't read or think about anything that doesn't jell with the revisionism of cultural Marxism.

Take the blinders off, and stop pretending that you don't get the ramifications of this history.

Don't understand? I don't need Goldberg, you do. He didn't write his work for folks like me. He wrote it for folks like you, the historically illiterate hayseeds of cultural Marxism, the drones of popular culture. Hayek's work, beginning with the historical roots of fascism and communism from the Enlightenment, addresses this period of history and it's aftermath even more comprehensively. I've been reading and writing about America's Progressive Era, from Teddy Roosevelt to FDR, especially, for decades . . . years before Goldberg published his work.

Can't articulate? The helpful links at the bottom of my post in the above were provided that you might know the difference between the classical liberalism of this nation's founding and the neo-/post-liberalism of that Era. Those pieces are written by me.

I'm steeped in the theological and philosophical works of Western civilization, in the history of ideas and events from the classical era to the post-modern era, and in the formative history of the ancients.

Who the hell are you?

You have no idea how woefully ignorant and irrational you are.

Are you saying that you're a brainwashed, hear-no-evil cultist incapable of articulating an argument refuting the history of Hegel and Rousseau's sociopolitical legacy in Europe and America?

Let me help you: yes, that's what you're saying.

 

[Discombobulated]

Uh . . . we've already explained that to you and included links for further information. Here's another: America's 'Fascist Moment' - The New York Sun.

Read.

Also, let me suggest that you read Friedrich von Hayek's The Road to Serfdom and Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning. Finish with those works and I'll give you some more titles.

Dude. The collectivist, national programs of the New Deal were classic progressive/liberal fascism! The history is not a secrete.

Your problem is that you don't know what classical liberalism is as opposed to the neo-/post-liberalism of Twentieth-Century American progressivism. Our nation was founded on the Anglo-American tradition of classical liberalism: individual liberty bottomed on the preservation of property, limited government and inalienable human rights, coupled with the pre-Rousseauian construct of laissez-faire.

And as I said in the above, both communism and fascism are formally bottomed on the decidedly leftist, ontological justification of the Hegelian historical dialectic, though communism harks back to the technocratic Utopianism of Plato's Republic, and the Jacobins of Rousseauian egalitarianism are the historical precursors of the Bolsheviks.


Further reading from my blog that should be helpful:

Prufrock's Lair: The "New Math" of American History and the Unobscured Truth

Prufrock's Lair: Abortion on Demand, Homosexual "Marriage": what will they think of next?

History is not a secret.......it is if you rely on Jonah Goldberg for your information.

Rely on Goldberg? Goldberg's work is just one of the dozens written about the Progressive Era, you dope! Goldberg's observations are nothing new.

No you're wrong again, there are no legitimate historians who would support Goldberg's view.....just a lot of dummies on the internet.

 

[PoliticalChic]

History is not a secret.......it is if you rely on Jonah Goldberg for your information.

Rely on Goldberg? Goldberg's work is just one of the dozens written about the Progressive Era, you dope! Goldberg's observations are nothing new.

No you're wrong again, there are no legitimate historians who would support Goldberg's view.....just a lot of dummies on the internet.

"....legitimate historians...."

He means Leftist suck-ups who toe the party line.



Those 'legitimate historians' mouth FDR's excuses for the catastrope of his economic policies, supporting lies that it was the previous Republican Presidents who were the provenance of the recession that he turned into the great depression.

 

[PoliticalChic]

And what, precisely and specifically, did Roosevelt do that qualifies as uniquely fascist under any sane definition of fascism, and that was uniquely an FDR policy?

Uh . . . we've already explained that to you and included links for further information. Here's another: America's 'Fascist Moment' - The New York Sun.

Read.

Also, let me suggest that you read Friedrich von Hayek's The Road to Serfdom and Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning. Finish with those works and I'll give you some more titles.

Dude. The collectivist, national programs of the New Deal were classic progressive/liberal fascism! The history is not a secrete.

Your problem is that you don't know what classical liberalism is as opposed to the neo-/post-liberalism of Twentieth-Century American progressivism. Our nation was founded on the Anglo-American tradition of classical liberalism: individual liberty bottomed on the preservation of property, limited government and inalienable human rights, coupled with the pre-Rousseauian construct of laissez-faire.

And as I said in the above, both communism and fascism are formally bottomed on the decidedly leftist, ontological justification of the Hegelian historical dialectic, though communism harks back to the technocratic Utopianism of Plato's Republic, and the Jacobins of Rousseauian egalitarianism are the historical precursors of the Bolsheviks.


Further reading from my blog that should be helpful:

Prufrock's Lair: The "New Math" of American History and the Unobscured Truth

Prufrock's Lair: Abortion on Demand, Homosexual "Marriage": what will they think of next?

Why would I make the effort to read a rightwing idiot like Jonah Goldberg when I can read rightwing idiocy here all day? Are you saying that the rightwingers here are so inferior to an imbecile like Goldberg that you people aren't capable of articulating what he does?

And here we see the defense that the Leftist stooges rely on: "Why would I make the effort to read"


It explains so much of their postings.

No hesitation at lying explains the rest.

 

[NYcarbineer]

This discussion about conservatives, not "the people," which includes all manner of ticks on the ass of society.

So you envision an undemocratic oligarchical society run by a conservative elite with no power to the rest of the People?

Good luck with that asshole.

Yeah. That's what classical liberalism is alright . . . "an undemocratic oligarchical society".

Do you agree with the other poster's claim that anyone who is not a conservative is a tick on the ass of society?