Jump to content

This certainly seems like a grown up response


Jamie_B

Recommended Posts

[quote name='Jamie_B' date='01 April 2010 - 09:20 PM' timestamp='1270171259' post='874644']
Its funny you go on about liberals being about feelings and not facts, yet your entire line of thought here is irrational anger (feelings)
[/quote]

What is emotional about that when no one will define when enough is enough?

I know it sounds over the top but the road we travel if not fixed will eventually lead to something of that form.....

So I ask again.....When is enough, enough? Why can no one answer that question?

Personally...for each person....When is enough, enough?

Does the government guaranteeing everyone employment enough?

Does the government guaranteeing everyone the right to free food?

Does the government guaranteeing the right of direct deposit of my paycheck to their account?

Seriously.....answer the question....


WHEN IS ENOUGH, ENOUGH?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Tigers Johnson' date='01 April 2010 - 10:51 PM' timestamp='1270176662' post='874656']
What is emotional about that when no one will define when enough is enough?

I know it sounds over the top but the road we travel if not fixed will eventually lead to something of that form.....

So I ask again.....When is enough, enough? Why can no one answer that question?

Personally...for each person....When is enough, enough?

Does the government guaranteeing everyone employment enough?

Does the government guaranteeing everyone the right to free food?

Does the government guaranteeing the right of direct deposit of my paycheck to their account?

Seriously.....answer the question....


WHEN IS ENOUGH, ENOUGH?
[/quote]



hy·per·bo·le   [hahy-pur-buh-lee] Show IPA
–noun Rhetoric.
1.
obvious and intentional exaggeration.
2.
an extravagant statement or figure of speech not intended to be taken literally, as “to wait an eternity.”
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Tigers Johnson' date='01 April 2010 - 04:56 PM' timestamp='1270166168' post='874595']
SEE: salaries of people who run the country....or should I say...essential services....


how much is too much for you lucid? You failed to answer that in the last thread about this...

May I ask you if you are in the group that will pay your own way or the group that will be subsidized by my wages?
[/quote]

LOL.

You would be a terrible politician. Actually scratch that... with vague goals like these and a nice haircut, you can rabble rabble rabble and vow to take down the bureaucrats in Washington and win in a landslide.

Ambiguous goals FTW.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jifjRVLVjzA[/media]

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hV-05TLiiLU[/media]

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPMf6kW_1Nw[/media]

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-bY92mcOdk[/media]



I'm all for the "Punch a Democrat in the face" day.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Jamie_B' date='01 April 2010 - 11:00 PM' timestamp='1270177234' post='874659']
hy·per·bo·le   [hahy-pur-buh-lee] Show IPA
–noun Rhetoric.
1.
obvious and intentional exaggeration.
2.
an extravagant statement or figure of speech not intended to be taken literally, as “to wait an eternity.”
[/quote]

Once again....all you give is an intentional misdirection.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Tigers Johnson' date='02 April 2010 - 05:36 AM' timestamp='1270201007' post='874685']
Once again....all you give is an intentional misdirection.
[/quote]


Who is misdirecting? Im saying very directly that your over reacting.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Further I want to know why you conservatives always blame one side of the economic spectrum (and of course with a 10% unemployment its always true) while you jiggle the balls of the other end who is far more of a drain on the economy than the end you spit venom at?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Jamie_B' date='02 April 2010 - 06:09 AM' timestamp='1270202995' post='874687']
Further I want to know why you conservatives always blame one side of the economic spectrum (and of course with a 10% unemployment its always true) while you jiggle the balls of the other end who is far more of a drain on the economy than the end you spit venom at?
[/quote]


I love that you worked in 'jiggle the balls' into a sentence! Very nice! Seriously - I've been reading this string and if I may try and reset the conversation just a bit. To me this whole idea and let's even stay with economics is based around the loss of fiscal federalism. If we take the idea and can agree that generally our great nation was founded in the idea that [b]the state should do only what the individual truly cannot do on his own and if government must act then the government that acts should be the most local government possible[/b] then let's peel that back. Please before reacting that this statement DOES leave room for government action... it's what government...

In this string the question I think is really about when is enough enough NOT in the sense of a govt body helping or providing service but when is enough enough in terms of the most local govt giving up their power to whore for federal dollars to a far away central planning body. Health care essentially goes a step further and centralizes an individual, private corporation and not just localities like say the examples of police and fire. Even police and fire get in line at some level for federal money because we've lost fiscal federalism and the tax burden is turned upside down. Now the feds get most of YOUR money then go back to us, states and local to make us beg for it or to do what is best for us. Do you see the paradigm is going the wrong way the more we slide to that scale? Without this cities become the same, states become the same as there is no more an advantage to moving to say Texas over Kansas because one state has better this and that when it comes to taxes and regulations. Also along with taking our power as individuals and communities and states and giving it to the central planning of a federal bureaucrat it has that nasty side impact of reducing our choice.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='hocuspocus' date='02 April 2010 - 07:29 AM' timestamp='1270207799' post='874691']
I love that you worked in 'jiggle the balls' into a sentence! Very nice! Seriously - I've been reading this string and if I may try and reset the conversation just a bit. To me this whole idea and let's even stay with economics is based around the loss of fiscal federalism. If we take the idea and can agree that generally our great nation was founded in the idea that [b]the state should do only what the individual truly cannot do on his own and if government must act then the government that acts should be the most local government possible[/b] then let's peel that back. Please before reacting that this statement DOES leave room for government action... it's what government...

In this string the question I think is really about when is enough enough NOT in the sense of a govt body helping or providing service but when is enough enough in terms of the most local govt giving up their power to whore for federal dollars to a far away central planning body. Health care essentially goes a step further and centralizes an individual, private corporation and not just localities like say the examples of police and fire. Even police and fire get in line at some level for federal money because we've lost fiscal federalism and the tax burden is turned upside down. Now the feds get most of YOUR money then go back to us, states and local to make us beg for it or to do what is best for us. Do you see the paradigm is going the wrong way the more we slide to that scale? Without this cities become the same, states become the same as there is no more an advantage to moving to say Texas over Kansas because one state has better this and that when it comes to taxes and regulations. Also along with taking our power as individuals and communities and states and giving it to the central planning of a federal bureaucrat it has that nasty side impact of reducing our choice.
[/quote]


Certainly a discussable item, and where the states can help better than the fed they should, but there is definitely a role that the fed must play.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='hocuspocus' date='02 April 2010 - 07:29 AM' timestamp='1270207799' post='874691']
If we take the idea and can agree that generally our great nation was founded in the idea that [b]the state should do only what the individual truly cannot do on his own and if government must act then the government that acts should be the most local government possible[/b] then let's peel that back. Please before reacting that this statement DOES leave room for government action... it's what government...
[/quote]
Problem is, it's not true. A dispassionate examination of the period from late-colonial times, through the Confederation and the Constitutional debates, then through the Federalist period and into the Jefferson and Madison administrations overwhelming forces the conclusion that this was a matter of great debate. In fact, that unsettled debate is perhaps the strongest theme to run throughout our entire history.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Homer_Rice' date='02 April 2010 - 10:01 AM' timestamp='1270216919' post='874728']
Problem is, it's not true. A dispassionate examination of the period from late-colonial times, through the Confederation and the Constitutional debates, then through the Federalist period and into the Jefferson and Madison administrations overwhelming forces the conclusion that this was a matter of great debate. In fact, that unsettled debate is perhaps the strongest theme to run throughout our entire history.
[/quote]

Homer - I disagree that the ideal is not true but agree that the ideal has been unsettled as to how we actually live and govern which is fine. Like anything it is there as a guide or sign posts to help lead us along the way. I think we are more a country that respects and desires what that sentence describes and that it is in our fiber. We are not a people to be controlled so overtly (or perhaps covertly). The issue I think is some think it is not even debatable and that the current justifications of people who are pushing the "managerial authority of the social expert, the master planner of public privilege"(1) act as if they have won the debate once and for all. All I'm saying is that that ideal is undeniably what this country was started on the debates you mention now seem to be met with disdain by those in power. I mean the President right now is going around mocking those of us with this view... so the concern is where have all the good liberals gone? That same article I reference talks about how the last liberal Prez to possess a balance of social liberalism and a classical liberal element was JFK. He had many Republicans on staff, overrode Keynesians in hos admin and cut taxes and promoted for the general welfare by realizing that promoting growth in the private sector and individual responsibility rather than the culture of preference politics was the way to go. I just think today now more than ever we are unbalanced and too many have lost sight of this ideal I mentioned.

1 - "The Descent of Liberalism" by Michael Knox Beran in National Review, April 5 2010 edition.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='hocuspocus' date='02 April 2010 - 01:20 PM' timestamp='1270228852' post='874767']
Homer - I disagree that the ideal is not true but agree that the ideal has been unsettled as to how we actually live and govern which is fine. Like anything it is there as a guide or sign posts to help lead us along the way. I think we are more a country that respects and desires what that sentence describes and that it is in our fiber. We are not a people to be controlled so overtly (or perhaps covertly). The issue I think is some think it is not even debatable and that the current justifications of people who are pushing the "managerial authority of the social expert, the master planner of public privilege"(1) act as if they have won the debate once and for all. All I'm saying is that that ideal is undeniably what this country was started on the debates you mention now seem to be met with disdain by those in power. I mean the President right now is going around mocking those of us with this view... so the concern is where have all the good liberals gone? That same article I reference talks about how the last liberal Prez to possess a balance of social liberalism and a classical liberal element was JFK. He had many Republicans on staff, overrode Keynesians in hos admin and cut taxes and promoted for the general welfare by realizing that promoting growth in the private sector and individual responsibility rather than the culture of preference politics was the way to go. I just think today now more than ever we are unbalanced and too many have lost sight of this ideal I mentioned.

1 - "The Descent of Liberalism" by Michael Knox Beran in National Review, April 5 2010 edition.
[/quote]

Sorry, but a piece about "The Descent of Liberalism" in the National Review, smacks alot of picking up a copy of "The Descent of The Jew" by Heinrich Himmler.

Not interested.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Lucid' date='02 April 2010 - 01:46 PM' timestamp='1270230401' post='874773']
Sorry, but a piece about "The Descent of Liberalism" in the National Review, smacks alot of picking up a copy of "The Descent of The Jew" by Heinrich Himmler.

Not interested.
[/quote]

Wow. Have you ever read it? I'd say it is one of the most respected and balanced scholarly journals out there and if you read it you'd know that they often present all sides. So is it not okay to have a philosophy on how one should live? I mean you certainly do and by your measure then anything you post I guess I should not be interested in? Again- WOW. I just realized WOW is MOM upside down.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='hocuspocus' date='02 April 2010 - 01:55 PM' timestamp='1270230941' post='874774']
Wow. Have you ever read it? I'd say it is one of the most respected and balanced scholarly journals out there and if you read it you'd know that they often present all sides. So is it not okay to have a philosophy on how one should live? I mean you certainly do and by your measure then anything you post I guess I should not be interested in? Again- WOW. I just realized WOW is MOM upside down.
[/quote]


Umm... Ok..

So if I suggest a similar kind of article from The Huffington Post about "The Descent of Conservatism" you would be happy to indulge in it's content?

Obviously one is older than the other.. But I argue their bent is the same, although inverted.

**EDIT**

Ok, here you go - [url="http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/05/26/080526fa_fact_packer"]The Fall of Conservatism[/url]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Lucid' date='02 April 2010 - 02:02 PM' timestamp='1270231349' post='874777']
Umm... Ok..

So if I suggest a similar kind of article from The Huffington Post about "The Descent of Conservatism" you would be happy to indulge in it's content?

Obviously one is older than the other.. But I argue their bent is the same, although inverted.

**EDIT**

Ok, here you go - [url="http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/05/26/080526fa_fact_packer"]The Fall of Conservatism[/url]
[/quote]

I will read it - that is what civil discourse is all about. Haven't yet but will. I often troll other sources - I think the idea that something should not have a bent is an awkward idea. I mean what doesn't have some kind of perspective? Isn't all communication in one way or another there to persuade or convince. I see no reason why a credible source yours or mine cannot espouse ideas worth discussing rather than dismissing. This is the problem today. We dismiss each other without trying to understand.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='hocuspocus' date='02 April 2010 - 02:14 PM' timestamp='1270232081' post='874779']
I will read it - that is what civil discourse is all about. Haven't yet but will. I often troll other sources - I think the idea that something should not have a bent is an awkward idea. I mean what doesn't have some kind of perspective? Isn't all communication in one way or another there to persuade or convince. I see no reason why a credible source yours or mine cannot espouse ideas worth discussing rather than dismissing. This is the problem today. We dismiss each other without trying to understand.
[/quote]

I draw a distinction between perspective and agenda. And I am more than happy to try and understand.. In fact, I am definitely not a democrat, and have voted conservative many times in my life.

I am a STOUT constitutional conservative. (It's funny how willingly so-called "conservatives" are to radically change this document lately)

I am an absolute fiscal conservative. (Funny how the deficit has gone up under supposed "Conservative" admins like Bush 1 & 2, while having a balanced budget under a supposed "Liberal" admin like Clinton).

I am however a PROUD Social Liberal.. Because the farther back you go in this country the more fucked up we treated one another. I view progress in the human condition as progress.

I don't have a problem understanding conservatives one bit, since predominately, I am one.. However I find understanding what the people in this country who call themselves "Conservative" actually are, perplexing. It would seem their voice has been stolen by Fascists.. TBH.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Lucid' date='02 April 2010 - 02:02 PM' timestamp='1270231349' post='874777']
Umm... Ok..

So if I suggest a similar kind of article from The Huffington Post about "The Descent of Conservatism" you would be happy to indulge in it's content?

Obviously one is older than the other.. But I argue their bent is the same, although inverted.

**EDIT**

Ok, here you go - [url="http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/05/26/080526fa_fact_packer"]The Fall of Conservatism[/url]
[/quote]

So I read through it. I actually agree with it. It seems to have been written prior to the 2008 election and hits the nail on the head. The fightinh factions of American Conservatism have been fighting since the 40's and I'd agree that in 2008 conservatism of people the author mentions (like Russell Kirk) was gone and replaced by something less desirable. You will always note the parts on National Review and how even within it's writers there was wild disagreement as to the future so it proves what I'm saying - it is a scholarly journal presenting debate of the highest caliber. So was this peice true - yes. Is it true today? Not so much as what the author predicts (Obama election re-focusing the conservative cause) is happening today and public opinion polls bear it out that more people today see themselves as 'conservative'. It is the cycle of life I guess and the beauty of America. Thanks for sharing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Lucid' date='02 April 2010 - 02:21 PM' timestamp='1270232490' post='874780']
I draw a distinction between perspective and agenda. And I am more than happy to try and understand.. In fact, I am definitely not a democrat, and have voted conservative many times in my life.

I am a STOUT constitutional conservative. (It's funny how willingly so-called "conservatives" are to radically change this document lately)

I am an absolute fiscal conservative. (Funny how the deficit has gone up under supposed "Conservative" admins like Bush 1 & 2, while having a balanced budget under a supposed "Liberal" admin like Clinton).

I am however a PROUD Social Liberal.. Because the farther back you go in this country the more fucked up we treated one another. I view progress in the human condition as progress.

I don't have a problem understanding conservatives one bit, since predominately, I am one.. However I find understanding what the people in this country who call themselves "Conservative" actually are, perplexing. [color="#FF0000"]It would seem their voice has been stolen by Fascists[/color].. TBH.
[/quote]


x2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Jamie_B' date='02 April 2010 - 02:42 PM' timestamp='1270233739' post='874785']
x2
[/quote]

Oh boy - I missed the fascist thing. Really guys? Please show exactly how anyone is being a fascist. I'm tired of these words and comparisons being thrown around like nothing. I understand that many definitions call it 'right-wing' but is right wing on a whole different scale so this is apples to oranges. Generally fascists tend to include:

1.) a belief in the supremacy of one national or ethnic group - please give me serious examples of how this is actually happening and be warned if you hold up nut jobs on my side I know I can find em on yours...

2.) a contempt for democracy - again if anything the HCB recently passed and all the dealing it took shows a contempt for true democracy (I know we are a republic but on a true democracy standard like majority rules is there one example of a majority of Americans wanting the HCB?

3.)an insistence on obedience to a powerful leader, and a strong demagogic approach - x2 UH.... let's see who has this type of leader today...??

I guess my point is not to gotcha but to have a real discussion here - so who is fascist? How? By definition it is arguable if it applies at all to anyone but surely in recent days more applies to Obama. But I'd never call him or his supporter fascist because I know they aren't.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Lucid' date='02 April 2010 - 02:21 PM' timestamp='1270232490' post='874780']
I draw a distinction between perspective and agenda. And I am more than happy to try and understand.. In fact, I am definitely not a democrat, and have voted conservative many times in my life.

I am a STOUT constitutional conservative. (It's funny how willingly so-called "conservatives" are to radically change this document lately)

I am an absolute fiscal conservative. (Funny how the deficit has gone up under supposed "Conservative" admins like Bush 1 & 2, while having a balanced budget under a supposed "Liberal" admin like Clinton).

I am however a PROUD Social Liberal.. Because the farther back you go in this country the more fucked up we treated one another. I view progress in the human condition as progress.

I don't have a problem understanding conservatives one bit, since predominately, I am one.. However I find understanding what the people in this country who call themselves "Conservative" actually are, perplexing. It would seem their voice has been stolen by Fascists.. TBH.
[/quote]



[quote name='Jamie_B' date='02 April 2010 - 02:42 PM' timestamp='1270233739' post='874785']
x2
[/quote]


Please define your definition of fascism.....
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From Wiki -

[quote]Fascism, pronounced /ˈfæʃɪzəm/, is a radical and authoritarian nationalist political ideology.[1][2][3][4] [b]Fascists seek to organize a nation on corporatist perspectives; values; and systems such as the political system and the economy.[/b][5][6] Scholars generally consider fascism to be on the far right of the conventional left-right political spectrum,[7][8][9][10][11][12] although some scholars claim that fascism has been influenced by both the left and the right.[13][/quote]

And I'm not the only one who feels this way. (although the Dems put up "weak sauce" in fixing it as seen in Dod's bill.)

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbi-0Tg1b_g[/media]

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F67ZFpuZwl4[/media]

Although I dont agree with him with regard to regulation and the market place.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Jamie_B' date='02 April 2010 - 03:07 PM' timestamp='1270235277' post='874790']
From Wiki -



And I'm not the only one who feels this way. (although the Dems put up "weak sauce" in fixing it as seen in Dod's bill.)

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbi-0Tg1b_g[/media]

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F67ZFpuZwl4[/media]

Although I dont agree with him with regard to regulation and the market place.
[/quote]


Okay so the battle of definitions Wiki versus Websters... hmmm.... also the sources and the text on Wiki all applies to essentially Europe and the left-right 'spectrum applies to Europe and that historical time frame. So no response in regards to how this does not apply to American spectrum?

But alas lets play this game... so why not post the next few paragrahps? So how again are American defenders of individualism of the Enlightenment the same as fascists? Oh and the liberalism they refer to here is not American Liberalism but classical liberalism which is what today's American conservatives are born from... you know Hayek etc... Please read your own source which proves my point here...

Fascists believe that a nation is an organic community that requires strong leadership, singular collective identity, and the will and ability to commit violence and wage war in order to keep the nation strong.[15] [color="#FF0000"]They claim that culture is created by collective national society and its state, that cultural ideas are what give individuals identity, and thus rejects individualism.[15] In viewing the nation as an integrated collective community, they claim that pluralism is a dysfunctional aspect of society,[/color] and justify a totalitarian state as a means to represent the nation in its entirety.[16][17] They advocate the creation of a single-party state.[18] Fascist governments forbid and suppress openness and opposition to the fascist state and the fascist movement.[19] Fascists reject and resist autonomy of cultural or ethnic groups who are not considered part of the fascists' nation and who refuse to assimilate or are unable to be assimilated.[20] They consider attempts to create such autonomy as an affront and threat to the nation.[20] They identify violence and war as actions that create national regeneration, spirit and vitality.[21]

Fascism is strongly opposed to core aspects of the Enlightenment and is an opponent of liberalism, Marxism, and mainstream socialism for being associated with failures that fascists claim are inherent in the Enlightenment.[22] Fascists view egalitarianism, materialism, and rationalism as failed elements of the Enlightenment.[23] They oppose liberalism — as a bourgeois movement — and Marxism — as a proletarian movement — for being exclusive economic class-based movements.[24] They present their ideology as that of an economically trans-class movement that promotes ending economic class conflict to secure national solidarity.[25] They believe that economic classes are not capable of properly running a nation, and that a merit-based aristocracy of experienced military persons must rule through regimenting a nation's forces of production and securing the nation's independence.[26] Fascists support a "Third Position" in economic policy, which they believed superior to both the rampant individualism of laissez-faire capitalism and the severe control of state socialism.[27][28]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]They claim that culture is created by collective national society and its state, that cultural ideas are what give individuals identity, and thus rejects individualism.[15] In viewing the nation as an integrated collective community, they claim that pluralism is a dysfunctional aspect of society.[/quote]

Isn't that what the religious right does exactly? Because your talking about culture, not the common good.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Tigers Johnson' date='02 April 2010 - 03:03 PM' timestamp='1270235031' post='874789']
Please define your definition of fascism.....
[/quote]

Obviously the definition has changed over the years as different groups have tried to re-define it in an attempt to demonize their political opponents.

I like this definition.

[b]1. Right Wing:[/b] Fascists are fervently against: Marxism, Socialism, Anarchism, Communism, Environmentalism; etc – in essence, they are against the progressive left in total, including moderate lefts (social democrats, etc). Fascism is an extreme right wing ideology, though it can be opportunistic.

[b]2. Nationalism:[/b] Fascism places a very strong emphasis on patriotism and nationalism. Criticism of the nation's main ideals, especially war, is lambasted as unpatriotic at best, and treason at worst. State propaganda consistently broadcasts threats of attack, while justifying pre-emptive war. Fascism invariably seeks to instill in its people the warrior mentality: to always be vigilant, wary of strangers and suspicious of foreigners.

[b]3. Hierarchy:[/b] Fascist society is ruled by a righteous leader, who is supported by an elite secret vanguard of capitalists. Hierarchy is prevalent throughout all aspects of society – every street, every workplace, every school, will have its local Hitler, part police-informer, part bureaucrat – and society is prepared for war at all times. The absolute power of the social hierarchy prevails over everything, and thus a totalitarian society is formed. Representative government is acceptable only if it can be controlled and regulated, direct democracy is the greatest of all crimes. Any who oppose the social hierarchy of fascism will be imprisoned or executed.

[b]4. Anti-equality:[/b] Fascism loathes the principles of economic equality and disdains equality between immigrant and citizen. Some forms of fascism extend the fight against equality into other areas: gender, sexual, minority or religious rights, for example.

[b]5. Religious:[/b] Fascism contains a strong amount of reactionary religious beliefs, harking back to times when religion was strict, potent, and pure. Nearly all Fascist societies are Christian, and are supported by Catholic and Protestant churches.

[b]6. Capitalist:[/b] Fascism does not require revolution to exist in captialist society: fascists can be elected into office (though their disdain for elections usually means manipulation of the electoral system). They view parliamentary and congressional systems of government to be inefficient and weak, and will do their best to minimize its power over their policy agenda. Fascism exhibits the worst kind of capitalism where corporate power is absolute, and all vestiges of workers' rights are destroyed.

[b]7. War:[/b] Fascism is capitalism at the stage of impotent imperialism. War can create markets that would not otherwise exist by wreaking massive devastation on a society, which then requires reconstruction! Fascism can thus "liberate" the survivors, provide huge loans to that society so fascist corporations can begin the process of rebuilding.

[b]8. Voluntarist Ideology:[/b] Fascism adopts a certain kind of “voluntarism;” they believe that an act of will, if sufficiently powerful, can make something true. Thus all sorts of ideas about racial inferiority, historical destiny, even physical science, are supported by means of violence, in the belief that they can be made true. It is this sense that Fascism is subjectivist.

[b]9. Anti-Modern:[/b] Fascism loathes all kinds of modernism, especially creativity in the arts, whether acting as a mirror for life (where it does not conform to the Fascist ideal), or expressing deviant or innovative points of view. Fascism invariably burns books and victimises artists, and artists which do not promote the fascists ideals are seen as “decadent.” Fascism is hostile to broad learning and interest in other cultures, since such pursuits threaten the dominance of fascist myths. The peddling of conspiracy theories is usually substituted for the objective study of history.[26]



[b]Or this one (actually I think this one fits best, and is more modern)...[/b]


* "The Cult of Tradition", combining cultural syncretism with a rejection of modernism (often disguised as a rejection of capitalism).

* "The Cult of Action for Action's Sake", which dictates that action is of value in itself, and should be taken without intellectual reflection. This, says Eco, is connected with anti-intellectualism and irrationalism, and often manifests in attacks on modern culture and science.

* "Disagreement is Treason" - fascism devalues intellectual discourse and critical reasoning as barriers to action.

* "Fear of Difference", which fascism seeks to exploit and exacerbate, often in the form of racism or an appeal against foreigners and immigrants.

* "Appeal to a Frustrated Middle Class", fearing economic pressure from the demands and aspirations of lower social groups.

* "Obsession With a plot" and the hyping-up of an enemy threat. This often involves an appeal to xenophobia or the identification of an internal security threat. He cites Pat Robertson's book The New World Order as a prominent example of a plot obsession.

* "Pacifism is Trafficking With the Enemy" because "Life is Permanent Warfare" - there must always be an enemy to fight.

* "Contempt for the Weak" - although a fascist society is elitist, everybody in the society is educated to become a hero.

* "Selective Populism" - the People have a common will, which is not delegated but interpreted by a leader. This may involve doubt being cast upon a democratic institution, because "it no longer represents the Voice of the People".

* "Newspeak" - fascism employs and promotes an impoverished vocabulary in order to limit critical reasoning.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...