Investigating Political Knowleddge: The Litmus Test.

[G.T.]

If you've succumbed to one particular lie.... your misunderstanding of all of history, politics and economics is explained.
We'll investigate....



1. Over 65 million well-intentioned Americans voted for an utter incompetent ideologue, one with a personal history of anti-American views and actions.

How is this possible?

The answer is suggested in the title of the thread: indoctrination....so very many have been trained to allow others to do their thinking for them.



2. The Leftists, the statists, collectivists have worked tirelessly for over a century to turn Americans into unquestioning drones, and have been immensely successful! It has been accomplished by wresting control of the schools, the media and the political apparatus of the major political party.

a. “The radicals were not likely to go into business or the conventional practice of the professions. They were part of the chattering class, talkers interested in policy, politics, culture. They went into politics, print and electronic journalism, church bureaucracies, foundation staffs, Hollywood careers, public interest organizations, anywhere attitudes and opinions could be influenced. And they are exerting influence.”
Robert H. Bork, “Slouching Toward Gomorrah,” p. 51


b Entire areas of academia have been co-opted:

82% of Liberal social psychologists surveyed said they would be prejudiced against a conservative applicant. [https://journals.cambridge.org/images/fileUpload/documents/Duarte-Haidt_BBS-D-14-00108_preprint.pdf]


c. "...an alarming level of intolerance emanates from the left side of the political spectrum toward people who express views that don't hew to the 'settled' liberal worldview..... . I'm now embarrassed that I ever thought such a thing, let alone said it aloud.Such a prejudiced viewwas only able to take root because of the lack of ideological, political, and religious diversity in my world."
Kirsten Powers, "The Silencing: How The Left Is Killing Free Speech,"


d. O'Sullivan's First Law (a.k.a. O'Sullivan's Law), paraphrased by George Will as stating that any institution that is not libertarian and classically liberal will, over time, become collectivist and statist.

O'Sullivan's First Law: All organizations that are not actually right-wing will over time become left-wing. I cite as supporting evidence the ACLU, the Ford Foundation, and the Episcopal Church. The reason is, of course, that people who staff such bodies tend to be the sort who don't like private profit, business, making money, the current organization of society, and, by extension, the Western world. At which point Michels's Iron Law of Oligarchy takes over — and the rest follows. http://old.nationalreview.com/flashback/flashback-jos062603.asp





3. Now....the key question in this one-question test...what is the Litmus Test of Indoctrination? Simply accepting this lie:

"While communism and socialism are on the Left side of the political spectrum, the really horrid doctrines of Nazism and Fascism are on the right! And the folks we hate in American political landscape are iterations of those 'Rightwing' beliefs!"


Admit it, Liberals, Progressives, Democrats....you bought that lie like it was on sale!

The above from the 'woman' who thinks Winston Churchill was a Bolshevik.

Do you dislike mostly: her views, her attitude, herself, her responses or her existence?

Seems you're 'over' the attempts at substantive rebuttals is why I ask. Merely curious, not a trick.

Ask her what her personal view is on Medicaid, i.e., what should be done with it. See what you get.

I'm not very interested, to be quite honest. I am just trying to get at why you "bother," and to a seemingly obsessive degree, to just come and take a shit on every OP she creates whether you use substance or a simple drive-by.

If you don't like the way she chats I can't see why you're a "staple" in every single thread she creates and withou fail.

I could be wrong, I'd have to do a search because, admittedly, I'm not reading all o her threads.......but from my sample-set, you're velcroed to someone you don't seem to really want to engage.

"....I'm not reading all o her threads......."


WHAT??????

Bitch, could you aloow(sic) for typos on a frivolous message board for a fuckin' minute, gawl damn.

 

[PoliticalChic]

6. How can we prove that Liberalism and Progressivism are iterations of the other Leftist ideologies....Communism, Socialism, Fascism, and Nazism?

Simple:

"The excesses of the European versions of fascism were mitigated by the specific history and culture of America, Jeffersonian individualism, heterogeneity of the population, but the central theme is still an all-encompassing state that centralizes power to perfect human nature by controlling every aspect of life., albeit at the loss of what had hitherfore been accepted as ‘inalienable human rights.’"
Goldberg, "Liberal Fascism."




Which of these, Liberalism and Progressivism, Communism, Socialism, Fascism, and Nazism, ....
...conform to this?

"... the central theme is still an all-encompassing state that centralizes power to perfect human nature by controlling every aspect of life., albeit at the loss of what had hitherfore been accepted as ‘inalienable human rights.’"

All six of them.

All six Leftist doctrines.



Time to compare and contrast?
How about pointing out which of them are defenders of religious, political, and economic freedom, and recognize the individual as the most important element of society?

Right....none of 'em.
Only right wing philosophies...i.e., conservatism.



Pretty simple Litmus Test, huh?

 

[G.T.]

If you've succumbed to one particular lie.... your misunderstanding of all of history, politics and economics is explained.
We'll investigate....



1. Over 65 million well-intentioned Americans voted for an utter incompetent ideologue, one with a personal history of anti-American views and actions.

How is this possible?

The answer is suggested in the title of the thread: indoctrination....so very many have been trained to allow others to do their thinking for them.



2. The Leftists, the statists, collectivists have worked tirelessly for over a century to turn Americans into unquestioning drones, and have been immensely successful! It has been accomplished by wresting control of the schools, the media and the political apparatus of the major political party.

a. “The radicals were not likely to go into business or the conventional practice of the professions. They were part of the chattering class, talkers interested in policy, politics, culture. They went into politics, print and electronic journalism, church bureaucracies, foundation staffs, Hollywood careers, public interest organizations, anywhere attitudes and opinions could be influenced. And they are exerting influence.”
Robert H. Bork, “Slouching Toward Gomorrah,” p. 51


b Entire areas of academia have been co-opted:

82% of Liberal social psychologists surveyed said they would be prejudiced against a conservative applicant. [https://journals.cambridge.org/images/fileUpload/documents/Duarte-Haidt_BBS-D-14-00108_preprint.pdf]


c. "...an alarming level of intolerance emanates from the left side of the political spectrum toward people who express views that don't hew to the 'settled' liberal worldview..... . I'm now embarrassed that I ever thought such a thing, let alone said it aloud.Such a prejudiced viewwas only able to take root because of the lack of ideological, political, and religious diversity in my world."
Kirsten Powers, "The Silencing: How The Left Is Killing Free Speech,"


d. O'Sullivan's First Law (a.k.a. O'Sullivan's Law), paraphrased by George Will as stating that any institution that is not libertarian and classically liberal will, over time, become collectivist and statist.

O'Sullivan's First Law: All organizations that are not actually right-wing will over time become left-wing. I cite as supporting evidence the ACLU, the Ford Foundation, and the Episcopal Church. The reason is, of course, that people who staff such bodies tend to be the sort who don't like private profit, business, making money, the current organization of society, and, by extension, the Western world. At which point Michels's Iron Law of Oligarchy takes over — and the rest follows. http://old.nationalreview.com/flashback/flashback-jos062603.asp





3. Now....the key question in this one-question test...what is the Litmus Test of Indoctrination? Simply accepting this lie:

"While communism and socialism are on the Left side of the political spectrum, the really horrid doctrines of Nazism and Fascism are on the right! And the folks we hate in American political landscape are iterations of those 'Rightwing' beliefs!"


Admit it, Liberals, Progressives, Democrats....you bought that lie like it was on sale!

The above from the 'woman' who thinks Winston Churchill was a Bolshevik.

Do you dislike mostly: her views, her attitude, herself, her responses or her existence?

Seems you're 'over' the attempts at substantive rebuttals is why I ask. Merely curious, not a trick.

Ask her what her personal view is on Medicaid, i.e., what should be done with it. See what you get.

I'm not very interested, to be quite honest. I am just trying to get at why you "bother," and to a seemingly obsessive degree, to just come and take a shit on every OP she creates whether you use substance or a simple drive-by.

If you don't like the way she chats I can't see why you're a "staple" in every single thread she creates and withou fail.

I could be wrong, I'd have to do a search because, admittedly, I'm not reading all o her threads.......but from my sample-set, you're velcroed to someone you don't seem to really want to engage.

You don't know what you're talking about. That, I suppose, is your prerogative.

You're right, I haven't rustled through the archives to verify.....but statistically, I'd say that my sample-set of data was adequate to make the determination that if she were a man, you'd be attached to him scrotally with suction cups.

But entertainment is entertainment, was just curious as to your reasoning.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The above from the 'woman' who thinks Winston Churchill was a Bolshevik.

Do you dislike mostly: her views, her attitude, herself, her responses or her existence?

Seems you're 'over' the attempts at substantive rebuttals is why I ask. Merely curious, not a trick.

Ask her what her personal view is on Medicaid, i.e., what should be done with it. See what you get.

I'm not very interested, to be quite honest. I am just trying to get at why you "bother," and to a seemingly obsessive degree, to just come and take a shit on every OP she creates whether you use substance or a simple drive-by.

If you don't like the way she chats I can't see why you're a "staple" in every single thread she creates and withou fail.

I could be wrong, I'd have to do a search because, admittedly, I'm not reading all o her threads.......but from my sample-set, you're velcroed to someone you don't seem to really want to engage.

You don't know what you're talking about. That, I suppose, is your prerogative.

You're right, I haven't rustled through the archives to verify.....but statistically, I'd say that my sample-set of data was adequate to make the determination that if she were a man, you'd be attached to him scrotally with suction cups.

But entertainment is entertainment, was just curious as to your reasoning.

Did she hire you to get me to leave her alone. She's desperate to post unchallenged.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The above from the 'woman' who thinks Winston Churchill was a Bolshevik.

Do you dislike mostly: her views, her attitude, herself, her responses or her existence?

Seems you're 'over' the attempts at substantive rebuttals is why I ask. Merely curious, not a trick.

Ask her what her personal view is on Medicaid, i.e., what should be done with it. See what you get.

I'm not very interested, to be quite honest. I am just trying to get at why you "bother," and to a seemingly obsessive degree, to just come and take a shit on every OP she creates whether you use substance or a simple drive-by.

If you don't like the way she chats I can't see why you're a "staple" in every single thread she creates and withou fail.

I could be wrong, I'd have to do a search because, admittedly, I'm not reading all o her threads.......but from my sample-set, you're velcroed to someone you don't seem to really want to engage.

You don't know what you're talking about. That, I suppose, is your prerogative.

You're right, I haven't rustled through the archives to verify.....but statistically, I'd say that my sample-set of data was adequate to make the determination that if she were a man, you'd be attached to him scrotally with suction cups.

But entertainment is entertainment, was just curious as to your reasoning.

And all of this has what to do with the topic?

 

[G.T.]

Do you dislike mostly: her views, her attitude, herself, her responses or her existence?

Seems you're 'over' the attempts at substantive rebuttals is why I ask. Merely curious, not a trick.

Ask her what her personal view is on Medicaid, i.e., what should be done with it. See what you get.

I'm not very interested, to be quite honest. I am just trying to get at why you "bother," and to a seemingly obsessive degree, to just come and take a shit on every OP she creates whether you use substance or a simple drive-by.

If you don't like the way she chats I can't see why you're a "staple" in every single thread she creates and withou fail.

I could be wrong, I'd have to do a search because, admittedly, I'm not reading all o her threads.......but from my sample-set, you're velcroed to someone you don't seem to really want to engage.

You don't know what you're talking about. That, I suppose, is your prerogative.

You're right, I haven't rustled through the archives to verify.....but statistically, I'd say that my sample-set of data was adequate to make the determination that if she were a man, you'd be attached to him scrotally with suction cups.

But entertainment is entertainment, was just curious as to your reasoning.

Did she hire you to get me to leave her alone. She's desperate to post unchallenged.

Sir, no sir *Salutes.*

I was genuinely curious what you like so much about disagreeing with her very existence.....lol...was all.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Ask her what her personal view is on Medicaid, i.e., what should be done with it. See what you get.

I'm not very interested, to be quite honest. I am just trying to get at why you "bother," and to a seemingly obsessive degree, to just come and take a shit on every OP she creates whether you use substance or a simple drive-by.

If you don't like the way she chats I can't see why you're a "staple" in every single thread she creates and withou fail.

I could be wrong, I'd have to do a search because, admittedly, I'm not reading all o her threads.......but from my sample-set, you're velcroed to someone you don't seem to really want to engage.

You don't know what you're talking about. That, I suppose, is your prerogative.

You're right, I haven't rustled through the archives to verify.....but statistically, I'd say that my sample-set of data was adequate to make the determination that if she were a man, you'd be attached to him scrotally with suction cups.

But entertainment is entertainment, was just curious as to your reasoning.

Did she hire you to get me to leave her alone. She's desperate to post unchallenged.

Sir, no sir *Salutes.*

I was genuinely curious what you like so much about disagreeing with her very existence.....lol...was all.

She has a classic combination of Rightwing arrogance and ignorance that makes for fine sport in shooting down.

 

[Camp]

I'm not very interested, to be quite honest. I am just trying to get at why you "bother," and to a seemingly obsessive degree, to just come and take a shit on every OP she creates whether you use substance or a simple drive-by.

If you don't like the way she chats I can't see why you're a "staple" in every single thread she creates and withou fail.

I could be wrong, I'd have to do a search because, admittedly, I'm not reading all o her threads.......but from my sample-set, you're velcroed to someone you don't seem to really want to engage.

You don't know what you're talking about. That, I suppose, is your prerogative.

You're right, I haven't rustled through the archives to verify.....but statistically, I'd say that my sample-set of data was adequate to make the determination that if she were a man, you'd be attached to him scrotally with suction cups.

But entertainment is entertainment, was just curious as to your reasoning.

Did she hire you to get me to leave her alone. She's desperate to post unchallenged.

Sir, no sir *Salutes.*

I was genuinely curious what you like so much about disagreeing with her very existence.....lol...was all.

She has a classic combination of Rightwing arrogance and ignorance that makes for fine sport in shooting down.

Plus she has a pattern of attempting to insult, disparage, whine and name call anyone that critiques her or in any way questions her credibility, sources, etc. I suspect she collects a financial reward for each post that appears in her threads. As long as it is listed on the first or second page the reward is forthcoming. It just seems to me that she antagonizes and baits anyone who will contribute to drawing attention to her threads, which are always (except for her sports threads) dedicated to right-wing conspiracy theories with a focus on demonizing.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Well.....I'd be remiss by failing to point out that I've had the privilege of attending some of the very best universities in the world...

No matter the anger evinced by the Leftists....none will be able to find any errors in the thread.

Why would you be remiss to refrain from being a pain in the ass braggadocio, you bloody elitist narcissistic twit??

If that is absolutely TRUE Cynthia, then why haven't you learned to compose two properly constructed consecutive paragraphs that would get a passing grade in Comp 101? Why haven't you correctly learned proper attribution, footnoting and end-noting? Why haven't you been able to shed that grammar school cobbled up outline style, at which even a 12 year old would wrinkle their nose in disdain? And why haven't you learned to punctuate correctly with all this education you are claiming you have obtained?

Your silly blog reads EXACTLY, even word for word, cobbled outline by cobbled outline that you post here. Oh, but that's probably because you regularly repost that same drivel on this board, huh Cynthia! And when you do that, why don't you attribute the source? You NEVER attribute that source on a repost from that site so your claim you always attribute is false, therefore you are a LIAR, Cynthia!

 

[NYcarbineer]

You don't know what you're talking about. That, I suppose, is your prerogative.

You're right, I haven't rustled through the archives to verify.....but statistically, I'd say that my sample-set of data was adequate to make the determination that if she were a man, you'd be attached to him scrotally with suction cups.

But entertainment is entertainment, was just curious as to your reasoning.

Did she hire you to get me to leave her alone. She's desperate to post unchallenged.

Sir, no sir *Salutes.*

I was genuinely curious what you like so much about disagreeing with her very existence.....lol...was all.

She has a classic combination of Rightwing arrogance and ignorance that makes for fine sport in shooting down.

Plus she has a pattern of attempting to insult, disparage, whine and name call anyone that critiques her or in any way questions her credibility, sources, etc. I suspect she collects a financial reward for each post that appears in her threads. As long as it is listed on the first or second page the reward is forthcoming. It just seems to me that she antagonizes and baits anyone who will contribute to drawing attention to her threads, which are always (except for her sports threads) dedicated to right-wing conspiracy theories with a focus on demonizing.

Her kind post the same shit over and over again just trying to wear down the people who can refute her shit.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If you've succumbed to one particular lie.... your misunderstanding of all of history, politics and economics is explained.
We'll investigate....



1. Over 65 million well-intentioned Americans voted for an utter incompetent ideologue, one with a personal history of anti-American views and actions.

How is this possible?

The answer is suggested in the title of the thread: indoctrination....so very many have been trained to allow others to do their thinking for them.



2. The Leftists, the statists, collectivists have worked tirelessly for over a century to turn Americans into unquestioning drones, and have been immensely successful! It has been accomplished by wresting control of the schools, the media and the political apparatus of the major political party.

a. “The radicals were not likely to go into business or the conventional practice of the professions. They were part of the chattering class, talkers interested in policy, politics, culture. They went into politics, print and electronic journalism, church bureaucracies, foundation staffs, Hollywood careers, public interest organizations, anywhere attitudes and opinions could be influenced. And they are exerting influence.”
Robert H. Bork, “Slouching Toward Gomorrah,” p. 51


b Entire areas of academia have been co-opted:

82% of Liberal social psychologists surveyed said they would be prejudiced against a conservative applicant. [https://journals.cambridge.org/images/fileUpload/documents/Duarte-Haidt_BBS-D-14-00108_preprint.pdf]


c. "...an alarming level of intolerance emanates from the left side of the political spectrum toward people who express views that don't hew to the 'settled' liberal worldview..... . I'm now embarrassed that I ever thought such a thing, let alone said it aloud.Such a prejudiced viewwas only able to take root because of the lack of ideological, political, and religious diversity in my world."
Kirsten Powers, "The Silencing: How The Left Is Killing Free Speech,"


d. O'Sullivan's First Law (a.k.a. O'Sullivan's Law), paraphrased by George Will as stating that any institution that is not libertarian and classically liberal will, over time, become collectivist and statist.

O'Sullivan's First Law: All organizations that are not actually right-wing will over time become left-wing. I cite as supporting evidence the ACLU, the Ford Foundation, and the Episcopal Church. The reason is, of course, that people who staff such bodies tend to be the sort who don't like private profit, business, making money, the current organization of society, and, by extension, the Western world. At which point Michels's Iron Law of Oligarchy takes over — and the rest follows. http://old.nationalreview.com/flashback/flashback-jos062603.asp





3. Now....the key question in this one-question test...what is the Litmus Test of Indoctrination? Simply accepting this lie:

"While communism and socialism are on the Left side of the political spectrum, the really horrid doctrines of Nazism and Fascism are on the right! And the folks we hate in American political landscape are iterations of those 'Rightwing' beliefs!"


Admit it, Liberals, Progressives, Democrats....you bought that lie like it was on sale!

Robert Bork and his ideas are well on their way to becoming fossils.

 

[Camp]

6. How can we prove that Liberalism and Progressivism are iterations of the other Leftist ideologies....Communism, Socialism, Fascism, and Nazism?

Simple:

"The excesses of the European versions of fascism were mitigated by the specific history and culture of America, Jeffersonian individualism, heterogeneity of the population, but the central theme is still an all-encompassing state that centralizes power to perfect human nature by controlling every aspect of life., albeit at the loss of what had hitherfore been accepted as ‘inalienable human rights.’"
Goldberg, "Liberal Fascism."

Your source is a partisan right wing pundit. His writings are not considered facts. You are using the opinion of a hack writer to promote an imagined or wishful fact.
Does the word hitherfore come from that dope Goldberg or is it a typo from you. Maybe there is such a word and I am not aware of it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

6. How can we prove that Liberalism and Progressivism are iterations of the other Leftist ideologies....Communism, Socialism, Fascism, and Nazism?

Simple:

"The excesses of the European versions of fascism were mitigated by the specific history and culture of America, Jeffersonian individualism, heterogeneity of the population, but the central theme is still an all-encompassing state that centralizes power to perfect human nature by controlling every aspect of life., albeit at the loss of what had hitherfore been accepted as ‘inalienable human rights.’"
Goldberg, "Liberal Fascism."

Your source is a partisan right wing pundit. His writings are not considered facts. You are using the opinion of a hack writer to promote an imagined or wishful fact.
Does the word hitherfore come from that dope Goldberg or is it a typo from you. Maybe there is such a word and I am not aware of it.

Be fair!!!
....you're a dunce, and I accept that!



In actuality, Goldberg is accurate and correct...as proven by the fact that you haven't even tried to point out a single thing in the posts that isn't true.

Further....his work is known to be scholarly.

"Although Goldberg does permit himself a few moments of over-the-top liberal bashing,his book is for the most part a work of serious scholarship that attempts to identify important intellectual connections between the American Progressives and European Fascists of the early twentieth century and a number of trends in modern U.S. politics, many but not all of which are associated with contemporary American liberalism.

For the most part,Goldberg succeeds in this endeavor,calling our attention to the ways in which the Progressives, the Fascists, and much of liberalism share a fundamental distrust of markets, unintended social order, and other core ideas of classical liberalism.

Goldberg’s strengths arehis destruction of the argument that fascism is “right-wing”and the way he draws powerful parallels between the line from American Progressivism to the New Deal and the ideas behind European fascism."
https://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_13_03_7_horwitz.pdf


Now.....so that all recognize what a wind-bag you are......answer one question: Have you read the book being discussed?

 

[NYcarbineer]

6. How can we prove that Liberalism and Progressivism are iterations of the other Leftist ideologies....Communism, Socialism, Fascism, and Nazism?

Simple:

"The excesses of the European versions of fascism were mitigated by the specific history and culture of America, Jeffersonian individualism, heterogeneity of the population, but the central theme is still an all-encompassing state that centralizes power to perfect human nature by controlling every aspect of life., albeit at the loss of what had hitherfore been accepted as ‘inalienable human rights.’"
Goldberg, "Liberal Fascism."

Your source is a partisan right wing pundit. His writings are not considered facts. You are using the opinion of a hack writer to promote an imagined or wishful fact.
Does the word hitherfore come from that dope Goldberg or is it a typo from you. Maybe there is such a word and I am not aware of it.

Be fair!!!
....you're a dunce, and I accept that!



In actuality, Goldberg is accurate and correct...as proven by the fact that you haven't even tried to point out a single thing in the posts that isn't true.

Further....his work is known to be scholarly.

"Although Goldberg does permit himself a few moments of over-the-top liberal bashing,his book is for the most part a work of serious scholarship that attempts to identify important intellectual connections between the American Progressives and European Fascists of the early twentieth century and a number of trends in modern U.S. politics, many but not all of which are associated with contemporary American liberalism.

For the most part,Goldberg succeeds in this endeavor,calling our attention to the ways in which the Progressives, the Fascists, and much of liberalism share a fundamental distrust of markets, unintended social order, and other core ideas of classical liberalism.

Goldberg’s strengths arehis destruction of the argument that fascism is “right-wing”and the way he draws powerful parallels between the line from American Progressivism to the New Deal and the ideas behind European fascism."
https://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_13_03_7_horwitz.pdf


Now.....so that all recognize what a wind-bag you are......answer one question: Have you read the book being discussed?

Are people supposed to debate with you, or with the author of the review?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Here is a very salient point made in that review of Goldberg's book that the author of this thread definitely does not want to be seen:

"Goldberg is excruciatingly careful, almost to the point of excessive apologizing, to clarify that he is not claiming that modern liberals are Fascists or Nazis or that they advocate in any way the political violence associated with those movements...."

So for all her comical efforts to align herself with Goldberg and his beliefs on this subject,
she manages, in the expression of her own opinion, such as it is, to fundamentally and specifically disagree with Goldberg on what is the core theme and motive of all these threads she's started on this very same topic, i.e.,

her claim that modern day liberals ARE Fascists or Nazis.

Go debate Jonah Goldberg, PC, because he thinks you're full of it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

7. If one should try to educate Democrat voters, this late in their lives, what follows is anger, vituperation, and malevolence!



"What accounts for this venom?

Progressives have been waging intellectual war on American constitutionalism for more than a century. Woodrow Wilson preferred German philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, who inspired Karl Marx, to Jefferson and Madison. In this respect, there’s nothing new under the sun. There’s also a bit of projecting their own arrogance onto their opponents."
Why the Fear of American Exceptionalism?



“.... in America, where hostility to big government is central to the national character, the case for statism must be made in terms of 'pragmatism' and decency. In other words, our fascism must be nice and for your own good.”

It should be noted, at this point, that fascism is closely related not only to progressivism, but also to communism.

The chief difference between fascism and communism is that the former is rooted in nationalism and seeks to create a socialist utopia within the confines of a particular country's borders; thus the Nazis embraced “NationalSocialism.”

Communism, by contrast, seeks to transcend national boundaries and promote a worldwide proletariat revolution, where the foot soldiers are bound together not by a common nationality but by their membership in the same economic class.

This was expressed by Karl Marx's famous exhortation in the Communist Manifesto:

“Workers of the world, unite!” Apart from this distinction, communism and fascism are kindred spirits of anti-capitalism. Jonah Goldberg characterizes them as “closely related, historical competitors for the same constituents, seeking to dominate and control the same social space.” “n terms of their theory and practice,” he says, “ the differences are minimal.” Progressive Support for Italian and German Fascism - Discover the Networks




"...fascism and communism...closely related, historical competitors for the same constituents,seeking to dominate and control the same social space.” “n terms of their theory and practice,” he says, “ the differences are minimal.”


And that, of course, includes Liberalism.

 

[NYcarbineer]

7. If one should try to educate Democrat voters, this late in their lives, what follows is anger, vituperation, and malevolence!



"What accounts for this venom?

Progressives have been waging intellectual war on American constitutionalism for more than a century. Woodrow Wilson preferred German philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, who inspired Karl Marx, to Jefferson and Madison. In this respect, there’s nothing new under the sun. There’s also a bit of projecting their own arrogance onto their opponents."
Why the Fear of American Exceptionalism?



“.... in America, where hostility to big government is central to the national character, the case for statism must be made in terms of 'pragmatism' and decency. In other words, our fascism must be nice and for your own good.”

It should be noted, at this point, that fascism is closely related not only to progressivism, but also to communism.

The chief difference between fascism and communism is that the former is rooted in nationalism and seeks to create a socialist utopia within the confines of a particular country's borders; thus the Nazis embraced “NationalSocialism.”

Communism, by contrast, seeks to transcend national boundaries and promote a worldwide proletariat revolution, where the foot soldiers are bound together not by a common nationality but by their membership in the same economic class.

This was expressed by Karl Marx's famous exhortation in the Communist Manifesto:

“Workers of the world, unite!” Apart from this distinction, communism and fascism are kindred spirits of anti-capitalism. Jonah Goldberg characterizes them as “closely related, historical competitors for the same constituents, seeking to dominate and control the same social space.” “n terms of their theory and practice,” he says, “ the differences are minimal.” Progressive Support for Italian and German Fascism - Discover the Networks




"...fascism and communism...closely related, historical competitors for the same constituents,seeking to dominate and control the same social space.” “n terms of their theory and practice,” he says, “ the differences are minimal.”


And that, of course, includes Liberalism.

And, oblivious to the truth that refutes her, she plods on.

 

[edthecynic]

O'Sullivan's First Law (a.k.a. O'Sullivan's Law), paraphrased by George Will as stating that any institution that is not libertarian and classically liberal will, over time, become collectivist and statist.

O'Sullivan's First Law: All organizations that are not actually right-wing will over time become left-wing.

Fascists only see two groups of people, their side and the enemy.

The leader of genius must have the ability to make different opponents appear as if they belonged to one category.
- Adolf Hitler

May 12, 2008

RUSH: I maintain that moderates and independents are Democrats. Because, by definition, if someone or some organization is not conservative, it's by definition going to be liberal, not moderate, not independent, it's going to be liberal

Interesting, in light of the nature of this thread....that youv'e quoted a Leftwinger...Adolph Hitler...

...and a Rightwinger, your bête noire, Rush Limbaugh.

Less interesting is that you predictably sidestepped the two matching quotes from the two people you worship most!

 

[PoliticalChic]

O'Sullivan's First Law (a.k.a. O'Sullivan's Law), paraphrased by George Will as stating that any institution that is not libertarian and classically liberal will, over time, become collectivist and statist.

O'Sullivan's First Law: All organizations that are not actually right-wing will over time become left-wing.

Fascists only see two groups of people, their side and the enemy.

The leader of genius must have the ability to make different opponents appear as if they belonged to one category.
- Adolf Hitler

May 12, 2008

RUSH: I maintain that moderates and independents are Democrats. Because, by definition, if someone or some organization is not conservative, it's by definition going to be liberal, not moderate, not independent, it's going to be liberal

Interesting, in light of the nature of this thread....that youv'e quoted a Leftwinger...Adolph Hitler...

...and a Rightwinger, your bête noire, Rush Limbaugh.

Less interesting is that you predictably sidestepped the two matching quotes from the two people you worship most!

As usual...I put you in your place by stating facts.

You, your usual...lies.

As a conservative, a Leftist like Hitler couldn't possibly by anyone I 'worship.'


In short, the difference between your post and truth is the difference between a lightning bug and lightning.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

O'Sullivan's First Law (a.k.a. O'Sullivan's Law), paraphrased by George Will as stating that any institution that is not libertarian and classically liberal will, over time, become collectivist and statist.

O'Sullivan's First Law: All organizations that are not actually right-wing will over time become left-wing.

Fascists only see two groups of people, their side and the enemy.

The leader of genius must have the ability to make different opponents appear as if they belonged to one category.
- Adolf Hitler

May 12, 2008

RUSH: I maintain that moderates and independents are Democrats. Because, by definition, if someone or some organization is not conservative, it's by definition going to be liberal, not moderate, not independent, it's going to be liberal

Interesting, in light of the nature of this thread....that youv'e quoted a Leftwinger...Adolph Hitler...

...and a Rightwinger, your bête noire, Rush Limbaugh.

Less interesting is that you predictably sidestepped the two matching quotes from the two people you worship most!

As usual...I put you in your place by stating facts.

You, your usual...lies.

As a conservative, a Leftist like Hitler couldn't possibly by anyone I 'worship.'


In short, the difference between your post and truth is the difference between a lightning bug and lightning.

Fucking COWARD!