Fascism Is as Fascism Does

[Discombobulated]

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.

Unfortunate that you don't know the difference between legitimate historic scholarship and politically inspired internet nonsense.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

I read a multitude of your posts. Are you implying that I'm depriving myself of more intelligent conservative writings?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

I asked what are the components of FDR's legacy that most Americans today object to?

So far no one has been able to name ONE.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Liberal Dictionary:
================================================
Legitimate Historian - propagandist on the government payroll

 

[bripat9643]

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?

No one ever said that. However, ticks on the ass of society are almost always liberal. They make up the vast bulk of the Democrat party

 

[Discombobulated]

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.

Liberal Dictionary:
================================================
Legitimate Historian - propagandist on the government payroll

This guy is apparently the unfortunate result of an internet based education.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

I asked what are the components of FDR's legacy that most Americans today object to?

So far no one has been able to name ONE.

Whether Americans support them isn't being discussed, numskull.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

No one ever said that. However, ticks on the ass of society are almost always liberal. They make up the vast bulk of the Democrat party

You did.

Conservatives do not and will not ever run this country. The sooner you get used to that, the sooner you can begin your journey back in the direction of common sense.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

I asked what are the components of FDR's legacy that most Americans today object to?

So far no one has been able to name ONE.

Whether Americans support them isn't being discussed, numskull.

Only because you people cannot name ONE SINGLE ENDURING COMPONENT OF THE FDR LEGACY that most Americans object to.

That is why you always lose, RWnuts. Because Progress always wins, sooner or later.

 

[bripat9643]

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

Liberal Dictionary:
================================================
Legitimate Historian - propagandist on the government payroll

This guy is apparently the unfortunate result of an internet based education.

Apparently, you're the result of a brainectomy.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The fascist Roosevelt's number one most significant action was the creation of Social Security,

and Social Security today has overwhelming support from the American People.

Is Social Security fascist? Are the American people fascist for supporting it in numbers that swamp any crackpot conservative plans for ending it?

 

[bripat9643]

I asked what are the components of FDR's legacy that most Americans today object to?

So far no one has been able to name ONE.

Whether Americans support them isn't being discussed, numskull.

Only because you people cannot name ONE SINGLE ENDURING COMPONENT OF THE FDR LEGACY that most Americans object to.

That is why you always lose, RWnuts. Because Progress always wins, sooner or later.

Again, whether Americans support FDR's legacy isn't being discussed. Furthermore, plenty of Americans object to the program of farm subsidies he created. Aside from that, he Securities and Exchange Commission, the FDIC and Social Security it has all been repealed.

 

[bripat9643]

The fascist Roosevelt's number one most significant action was the creation of Social Security,

and Social Security today has overwhelming support from the American People.

Is Social Security fascist? Are the American people fascist for supporting it in numbers that swamp any crackpot conservative plans for ending it?

Yes. Fascism has always been popular with the vast mass of numskulls who are allowed to vote.

 

[bripat9643]

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

No one ever said that. However, ticks on the ass of society are almost always liberal. They make up the vast bulk of the Democrat party

You did.

Conservatives do not and will not ever run this country. The sooner you get used to that, the sooner you can begin your journey back in the direction of common sense.

That may well be true. In fact, we appear to be circling the socialist toilet bowl faster and faster. However, that doesn't make liberalism right.

 

[Discombobulated]

The fascist Roosevelt's number one most significant action was the creation of Social Security,

and Social Security today has overwhelming support from the American People.

Is Social Security fascist? Are the American people fascist for supporting it in numbers that swamp any crackpot conservative plans for ending it?

Yes. Fascism has always been popular with the vast mass of numskulls who are allowed to vote.

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqcWy6y2SJE"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqcWy6y2SJE[/ame]

 

[bripat9643]

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.

NYcarbineer is a tick who receives a government paycheck. I hesitate to use the phrase "working for the government" because that would imply he produces something of value.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The fascist Roosevelt's number one most significant action was the creation of Social Security,

and Social Security today has overwhelming support from the American People.

Is Social Security fascist? Are the American people fascist for supporting it in numbers that swamp any crackpot conservative plans for ending it?

Yes. Fascism has always been popular with the vast mass of numskulls who are allowed to vote.

So again, you reject the idea of democratic government and would prefer some sort of authoritarian systerm that would somehow deny the right to vote to most Americans.

I don't doubt that a great number of conservatives would at least secretly agree with you.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Whether Americans support them isn't being discussed, numskull.

Only because you people cannot name ONE SINGLE ENDURING COMPONENT OF THE FDR LEGACY that most Americans object to.

That is why you always lose, RWnuts. Because Progress always wins, sooner or later.

Again, whether Americans support FDR's legacy isn't being discussed. Furthermore, plenty of Americans object to the program of farm subsidies he created. Aside from that, he Securities and Exchange Commission, the FDIC and Social Security it has all been repealed.

Why is this thread in politics then if it's just some sort of rant on a historical topic?

Is that because the author of the thread is too fucking dimwitted to know where threads are supposed to be posted?

There's a history forum.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

In other words, you refuse to read anything that doesn't agree with your biases. The facts of the progressive era are well documented, and even your government propagandists don't dispute them. It's simple a fact that the head of the NRA was an ardent admirer of Mussolini, as was FDR before Mussolini invaded Ethiopia.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Unfortunate that you don't know the difference between legitimate historic scholarship and politically inspired internet nonsense.

"Legitimate," meaning "you agree with it."