History and Understanding the Left/Communist/Progressive vs Right/Fascist Paradigm

NOTE: This post is written for serious students of American history and politics and for those who sincerely seek to understand them.  Due to the nature of the subject and amount of information I have to provide in order to make my argument, brevity isn’t possible.  All I can ask is that you read it through without skimming over anything.  Otherwise, you will only shortchange yourself.  Others will likely take this as arrogance, but I already know and understand what I am trying to convey because I have already done and continue to do the work necessary to educate myself.  This is why I also know it takes time and effort to even start to see the picture I am trying to help you see.  You have to take in and process a lot of information before the pieces start to come together.  I write now in an attempt to share my efforts with others and to provide a jump start for those who desire to further their own education so that they who wish may start to assemble those pieces and see the bigger picture.

In the past, I have tried to explain why history is among the most important things we can study.  Knowing and understanding history is the source of all human understanding of material matters.  When you know and understand it, you understand that history drives the present.  You also come to understand how and why history repeats itself: because men insist on remaining ignorant to history.

In the past, I have also tried to explain that Fascism is not a political creature of the Right as so many of us have been taught in school.  That so many of our teachers actually believe Fascism is on the far right is the direct result of their ignorance of history.  The only reason Fascism is thought to be “Right Wing” is because of a successful Communist propaganda campaign from the early part of the 20th Century.  Properly understood, Fascism and Communism are both on the Left, differentiated by referring to one as up and the other being down.  I wrote about this in The Political Spectrum as it Really is. But I am not alone in my understanding of history.  You can find much the same conclusion here (Note: one word of caution regarding the spectrum in this other link.  It does not allow for Anarchy, which is on the extreme Right.  Consequently, I would strongly suggest you consider the diagram in my own post over that in this other link).

Now, let me show you how this ignorance of history exhibits itself on the far Left by citing part of another web site I found:

Conscience of a Progressive

The Right has not only captured all branches of our government and much of our media, it has also largely succeeded in defining the terms of our political discourse. A progressive who engages in political debate while failing to appreciate this fact and to deal with it is vulnerable to serious tactical errors. The progressive thus, in effect, carelessly agrees to “play the game” in the opponents ball-park and by the opponent’s rules. Accordingly, casual and uncritical use of terms as “liberal” and “conservative,” and “right” and “left,” as they have come to be understood in the mass media, and thence in everyday conversation, leads one to carelessly concede some of The Right’s basic assumptions. Unfortunately, because most well-intentioned liberal politicians and pundits seem to be unaware of this, they have fallen into the semantic trap. They need not and should not do so.

Language is the constant yet unnoticed current that carries our thoughts. Thus, in the game of politics, the party which controls the language, controls the contest.

Newt Gingrich knows this, GOP strategist Frank Luntz knows this, and George Orwell, their apparent mentor, knew this.

So why don’t the Democrats know this?

I don’t mean to suggest that we are necessarily captive to the currents of language. Like a skilled navigator, one can factor the currents of language into the calculations of one’s judgment. But only if a person or a party takes the trouble to pause and take notice of the language.

Regrettably, the Democrats have not. For a party that is allegedly preferred by intellectuals, the Democrats have been tactically naive and stupid, prisoners of their fruitless habits. To be sure, astute scholars such as George Lakoff and Geoffrey Nunberg have offered the Democratic Party chiefs the keys to their jail cells and have shown them the way out, but they have been told, in effect, “Thanks, but no thanks.” And Noam Chomsky is regarded as “too extreme” and an embarrassment. Never mind that he is the foremost linguist of our time.

Now, I have many issues with the assertions made in this citation, but they are best left to another post (or two).  What I want to focus on here is two points that are relevant to the topic at hand.  First, this person doesn’t understand that Orwell was a Progressive.  Nor does he understand that Liberal doesn’t mean what he thinks it means.  He doesn’t know the history of the term or how the Progressives co-opted and later bastardized it as a result.  Nor does the author seem to understand that there are Progressives in both Parties.  All the writer sees is the Progressive tactic of language manipulation, which brings us to the second point.  In Europe, the division is Communist/Fascist, but in America, it is Progressive/Conservative.

Now, assuming the average RNL reader already understands that the open Progressive is on the American Left (up or down, take your pick), let me show you why I have been making the case that the American “conservative” is on the Right (down or up, opposite the Progressives).  Either way, they are both to the Left of our founding.

Who started the Environmentalist movement in this country?  Do you know?  Who started the push for Social Security?  How about the push for government by Administration and regulation: do you know who started that?  What if I were to tell you these all started as Republican ideas/policy?  Well, they were.  It’s just that they were known back then by different names.  We called them by names such as “conservation” and “social insurance.”  Here, read for yourself:

Social Insurance Movement

Who is a Progressive?

Theodore Roosevelt: Progressive Crusader

Do your homework and you will find the Republican Party not only helped to found the Progressive movement, that same Progressive ideology still controls the Party’s leadership and direction.  This is not to say that those who think of themselves as Barry Goldwater and Buckley “conservatives” have not tried to infiltrate the Party, because they have.  It’s just that the Progressives know what to expect and how to stop it, because they took over the Parties the same way.  This is why, when you look to the history of the Republican Party in the 20th and 21st Centuries, you will find that the Party leadership has been continually at war with its own membership.  Research it for yourself and see if it isn’t true. The trick to seeing our current political scene more clearly and accurately is to learn to filter out the effects of the internal struggle between the “conservative” base and Progressive leadership within the Republican Party.  Think of that as a game within a game and try to separate it from the battle between the two camps of American Progressivism and you’ll see more clearly and understand things much better.  Now, back to the primary point: that Communism and Fascism are as much to the Left as modern American “Liberalism” (i.e. Progressivism) and “Conservatism” (again, Progressivism) are.

Try this: think of the Democrats as Communist and the Republicans as Fascist (because this is actually accurate).  Communism is a collectivist ideology where the State controls all and Fascism is a collectivist ideology where the State controls all in partnership with favored industries, which the State allows to remain in private hands – so long as those private hands do not exceed the boundaries set by the State.  Both are collectivist ideologies, so both belong on the Left, only with one up and the other down so as to further differentiate them.  Now, once you understand and accept that this is an accurate conceptualization of reality, much of what we see happening in our political arena today starts to make more sense.  The Progressives in both Parties recognize each other and, thus, accurately accuse the other of doing what they do themselves but openly deny doing.  This is how the author above can accuse the Right of word/thought control without seeing it in his own Party.  In fact, once you accept this conceptualization of the American political landscape, you need do nothing more than to research the history of conflict between the Communists and Fascists in Europe during the first half of the 20th Century to see it replaying in America today.  The ideas, symbolism and even the criticisms of each camp are the same today as back then.

Let me end by showing you how to look for the connections, because – though they are deliberately cloaked in code words – they are not as hidden as many would like to believe.  Take the very word “progressive:’

Definition of PROGRESSIVE

1a : of, relating to, or characterized by progress

b : making use of or interested in new ideas, findings, or opportunities

 How often have you heard Democrat leaders talking about “new” ideas, and “moving forward?”  There is one connection.  In fact, the term “progressive” was chosen to appeal to the American ideal of progress so that the totally alien ideal of European collectivism could more easily be imported into the American political arena.  Now, back to the definition:

c : of, relating to, or constituting an educational theory marked by emphasis on the individual child, informality of classroom procedure, and encouragement of self-expression

 Look up some of my old posts on Progressive and card-carrying Communist, as well as the father of the modern American education system, John Dewey.  You’ll find a strong connection between this definition and Dewey’s work – which has been continued by men such as William Ayres and now has culminated in the Common Core Curriculum.  Finally there is this:

2: of, relating to, or characterized by progression

3: moving forward or onward : advancing

5: often capitalized : of or relating to political Progressives

 Need I explain this one anymore than to just show you this?

532785_425018097509106_2002193764_n

You might want to watch this series.  Remember, do not discount something just because you do not like the source.  I have often admitted that there is truth in a lot of what the people I oppose have to say.  The reason I oppose them is because their solutions are as wrong as the problems they criticize.

http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rm7gGXSBYiI&feature=player_detailpage

http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=-o3hmYZxtKI

http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=hv5P2WbBiQ0

http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=WzHo5iqQdVk

About these ads

149 thoughts on “History and Understanding the Left/Communist/Progressive vs Right/Fascist Paradigm

  1. You seriously ought to be collecting your stuff ( with Links !) into an E-Book Joe !

    This is excellent .

  2. “the totally alien ideal of European collectivism” Remove the word European and your statement becomes false. Collectivist views have been part of the American fabric from the founding. For instance, George Washington advocated the “equal distribution of property” (his words; cf. letter to Richard Henderson, June 19, 1788).

    • And yet when pushed he came down in favor of the Constitution over his own musings in a letter !

      When offered the option to become president for Life….he stepped down. Causing the Famous statement from Ole George the 3rd…”Then he truely IS a Great man ” !

      What we learn from the Founders is NOT that they were isolated from the European Ideas so popular at the time, nor that they didn’t entertain seriously the Political Dialogue of their time…….but rather that they saw through the fallacies and triumphed in establishing a truely NEW foundation for Individual Freedom.

    • Henry,

      I’m aware of this, but I’m not sure I would call Washington a collectivist — which is why I worded it the way I did. Several of the founders differentiated between the right to moveable property and property that can only exist through the agreement of society. I have written on this. But even then, they still held that the individual should have rights in ownership of that property with provisions for certain social control over how it was used. I do not think we can argue this is the European ideal of the collective.

    • Just looked it up and, as I suspected, Washington was not advancing the European ideal, or even a collectivist notion of equal distribution. He was expressing the founders’ general belief that the government should not hold private land as it does today. That, where there was land that was not being used, it should be made available for those who would work it for their sustenance. You’ll find a letter from Jefferson pounding this fact home after he had seen the serfs in Europe starving because the nobility would not allow them to work fallow lands. In the fuller context of what Washington believed, he still affords for private ownership of that land.

      “[I]t is a point conceded, that America, under an efficient government, will be the most favorable Country of any in the world for persons of industry and frugality, possessed of a moderate capital, to inhabit. It is also believed, that it will not be less advantageous to the happiness of the lowest class of people because of the equal distribution of property the great plenty of unoccupied lands, and the facility of procuring the means of subsistence.”

      – George Washington, letter to Richard Henderson, Mount Vernon, June 19, 1788; Fitzpatrick 29:520

      I think you may have misunderstood the meaning of his use of “equal.” It appears not to mean equal portion, but equal availability. So, upon further consideration, I would disagree with your assertion that the removal of the word “European” would make my statement false. Washington was still allowing for private ownership, something no collectivist model I am aware of allows.

      • “It is also believed, that it will not be less advantageous to the happiness of the lowest class of people because of the equal distribution of property the great plenty of unoccupied lands, and the facility of procuring the means of subsistence.”

        what Washington said

        now fro what Joe thinks he said

        It is also believed, that it will not be less advantageous to the happiness of the lowest class of people because of the equal(availability) distribution of property the great plenty of unoccupied lands, and the facility of procuring the means of subsistence

        How does the availability even make sense when it goes with the words equal distribution.

        Is the distribution of availability going to be equal? see how that sentence makes no sense.

        Equal distribution is equal distribution. If Washington really believed in what you want him to believe he would have said,

        “everyone should have the opportunity to buy land.” but no he said “it will not be less advantageous to the happiness of the lowest class of people because of the equal distribution of property the great plenty of unoccupied lands, and the facility of procuring the means of subsistence.”

        Which means he views the policy of equal distribution of uninhabited lands as beneficial to the lower classes. He did not say the policy of treating everyone’s dollar equally, the policy of land sales, but of land distribution.

        • Karl,

          His actions would indicate that you are the one reading your desires into the man’s words. That, and there is a greater body of other writing from Washington that would go further to refute your argument.

          However, in this case, looking just at this quote in question, if he meant equal amount of property for all, why would he mention “lowest class” when — presumably — all would be equal through equal property? The mention of “lowest class” assumes there are higher classes, which would then negate your argument.

          Language is a logic unto its own, and thus, obeys the rules defining and governing that language. If this were not true, then you would not understand what I am now writing. In this case, the fact that Washington clearly implied that there are and would continue to be other classes is self-evident. The mention of “great plenty” further supports my assertion. At the time, they couldn’t possibly mean equal division the way you wish they had because they had no idea how much land there was to divide.

          So, all-in-all, it would appear that you have fooled yourself again, my friend.

          • George Washington was simply saying equal distribution of uninhabited lands was beneficial. You know like the homestead acts of the 1800’s. It was not George Washington’s desire to equalize classes, but to have a sustainable private property system through government action, you know like liberals want to do.

            • “you know like liberals want to do”,
              ummmmmm, who are the “liberals” Karl speaks of?
              There haven’t been any TRUE “liberals” in power since the days of Thomas Jeffferson.

              Self described “Liberals” of today? They ARE Karls Marxist ideal. And still Karl accuses his own people of doing wrong …

              Thank you Karl for shining the light of truth on your ideological comrades.

              • well I mean liberals like modern day liberals. Who want to use the gov’t to maintain private property and capitalism. Liberals don’t want to end capitalism, they want to save it. Liberals believe capitalism can be saved. Communists don’t.

                Liberals solutions are these:
                1.reform campaign finance(eliminate crony capitalism)
                2.provide for the needy(so they won’t revolt, and still be able to claim social mobility)
                3.Regulate businesses and busts the trusts(so monopoly capitalism won’t develop)
                this is what die hard liberals want, but like die hard conservatives they get politicians who are in bed with big corporations, so you get centrists politicians who are willing to cut social security and don’t really go after banks.

                Just like conservatives, liberal centrist run on social issues.

                Communist solutions are:
                1.a dictatorship of the proletariat
                2.the end of private property
                3.democracy or mob rule, their the same.

                Liberals and conservatives are trying to save capitalism. Communists recognize that capitalism will collapse and are just awaiting the dictatorship of the proletariat.

                • Karl, you are the very first person that I have run across that actually got every single bit of that backwards.

                  I’ve sat here for the past 5-10 minutes attempting to come to an understanding how you could be utterly dyslexic about this, but now I just faced with hitting “POST COMMENT” completely miffed.

                • ==== head shaking, once again ====

                  ladies and gentlemen, please notice the language:

                  Provide for campaign finance reform: a system where “those in power” decide who is eligible to be allowed to be “in power”

                  provide for the needy: a system where “those in power” take property from one individual and give to another in return for political power from another.

                  “crony capitalism” I presume: a system where those in governmental power, extend favor, and protection, in return for political power.

                  Wikipedia on fascism….
                  “…corporative organization of the economy …, broadens the sphere of state intervention, and seeks to achieve, by principles of technocracy and solidarity, the collaboration of the ‘productive sectors’ under control of the regime, to achieve its goals of power, yet preserving private property and class divisions;”

                  And the flipside of such “planning”; taking away of choices by individuals in their own “little lives”

                  “free market” capitalism, with a limited government, and free producers, is genuinely “liberal”, ie. Thomas Jeffersonian ideal.

                  Today’s self described “liberals” are anything but liberal. They are tyrannous deceivers intent upon enslaving “the people” and drowning liberty.

                  You Karl, are not merely mistaken or wrong. You Karl understand these lies you propagate. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to point out your Marxist lies to our readership.

                  • Liberals truely believe they are trying to prevent monopoly capitalism. They are trying to create a sustainable small producer capitalism. The tendency of capitalism is towards monopoly capitalism. Liberals recognoze this and try to stop it. Campaign finance reform is meant to kept the monopoly capitalist out of the government. Providing for the needy is necessary. I know many here dislike food stamps, but what are hungry bellies going to do? I know many of you say “get a job.” Quite simply there is no manufacturing base in the U.S.A and all the walmarts and mcdonalds have so many employees that most employees don’t get to work 40 hours a week.

    • Henry, Dear Sir,
      Note Don’s reply. America’s founders considered and explored “everything” under the sun. You must look not only to words of a single letter, but to results for intent and understanding.

  3. Joe, well written. This goes back to my assertion long ago about liberals, and how their various title’s stick. We’ve all come to the understanding that they are utterly unwilling to take ownership of their past, are willing to re-write the language to suit their needs, and re-cast history to further their false narratives.

    Sadly though, they continue to gain traction.

  4. “Communism is a collectivist ideology where the State controls ”

    false

    Communism is the end of private property. A society where all property is administered collectively. It is also stateless. A worldwide federation of communes. I’ve heard different definitions of a state, if you consider a small commune a state then I guess that is communism.

    but we must not forget the class characteristic of the state. A state can be ruled y and for the bourgeoisie to the detriment of the workers. but a state can also be ruled by and for the workers.

    the U.S.A is not making any steps toward communism, since the state is undeniably bourgeoisie. the crooked deals between the military industrial complex and the crappy attempt by the democratic party to make a green-energy complex, do not benefit the workers. they benefit the owners of these industries. in Obama’s Chattanooga speech he said he wanted to lower the corporate tax rate.

    Communism is a revolution from the working class, Joe. Not tax policy from those who already hold power.

    • Yes yes, Karl,
      The federal government is a blend of Communism, fascism, and socialism.

      We are currently in a “post Constitutional” era. Which is not an “American” era.

      • you can’t blend the existence of private property and the non-existence of private property. How is the current bourgeoisie state that is anti Cuba and Korea, in any form communist. I wouldn’t even call it fascists or socialists. It is just a crummy gov’t. It is ignorant to use labels in an incorrect manner, and this even leads to using labels as a reason.

        For instance Joe’s post, is only about labels, the post attacks its target by attaching labels to them. It would have been way more constructive to have posted about the injustices and crimes of the gov’t and how its actions are detrimental to America and the world. instead of just pointing a finger and yelling progressive. As if the labels things have are an argument in and of themselves.

        • Texas,

          Karl is ever the model of what we try to expose and explain to people on the RNL. Honestly, we should thank him for his live illustrations of what is wrong with the ideas he espouses :-)

          • Joe, I honestly do not think Karl understand the ideas he espouses. What he puts in print for us is a conundrum of self created conflicts … so much so that I cannot even intelligently untangle them.

            Or as my patients from the Glennwood area of PC would say;

            “That boy is a hot mess.”

            • He just chants things from Workers Party Sites and books……..It’s pretty easy to see.

              His posts are sophmoric …. even for Marxists. I don’t bother with them any more . It’s like a re-hash of the First Chapter of the top 4-5 books of Marxism and Socialism….and not even original Texts mind you.

            • Augger,

              To be totally honest, Karl tows the Marxist ideal so perfectly — even down to his name — that I believe he is a spoof. I don’t think anyone believes Marx this completely. Even Marx said he didn’t believe his own drivel.

        • This post shines the light of truth and reality upon the Marxist fog of lies, deceit, misinformation, and indoctrination.

          Joe is pointing out the lie to all, “that 2 Lefts make a right”: in reality “2 lefts make a U-turn.”

        • In a pure communist society, the heavy-handed use of force by the government would not be necessary. But the only working communist-modeled government that comes to mind is in a book of fiction, The Dispossssed, by Ursula K Leguin. It is a good read, but no more based in reality than the Lord of th Rings Series.
          The only way that I see communism working is on a small scale, and then only with people dedicated to the cause. There are successful communes in the US; The Farm, in central Tennessee, comes to mind. But could a nation of communes survive outside of the protection of a larger govt? I doubt it, and we would probably end up with a feudal system or an Animal Farm clone.

          • “The only way that I see communism working is on a small scale, and then only with people dedicated to the cause.”

            Precisely, and I am pretty sure that even on a small scale, Communism would not last. The problem is pride, which isn’t otherwise a problem for anyone else, but the Communists. Once a person struggles for something really difficult, and then obtains it, rightfully so they want to keep that thing for themselves. That’s our nature, plain and simple.

            I am quite certain that if I drove over to Karl’s house, and started demanding his things stating they were not really his to begin with, I would be met with that resistance, and I should.

            Most communistic arguments are hypocritical at it’s core.

            • Best example of “Communism” in the real world is probably those little communes the Israelis have (had?). There are others, but these seem to have come closest to the ideal. But there’s a catch. While they seem to work looking in from the outside, when they are studied closely, one finds the membership is constantly rotating. Apparently, what happens is that new idealists come in, learn the hard lessons of reality associated with the Communist ideal (i.e. it doesn’t work) and then they leave. There are very, very few members in these communities that have been there more than a few years and — here’s the shocker — most of those who have been have assumed something that should not be in a Communist society: the mantle of leadership!

              We studied this in one of my sociology classes. The professor put these communities forth as “proof” that Communism worked. For some reason, when I pointed out the data indicated what I just explained, she attacked me in class. Go figure, right? I guess that explains why I am immune to public ridicule for trying to point to the truth: I’m used to it by now. :-)

              • Even the kibbutz you speak of practices capitalism, some generating upwards of $800million+ a year.

                You provide a very salient point, and one I am certain Karl will attempt to debunk shortly. However, I have stayed on the kibbutz before. I understand the dynamics.

                Thanks for bringing that up, Joe. :)

                • Augger,

                  I’ve never been on one, I only read some studies by some sociologists and referenced their findings. Please, YOU tell ME, did I get it right or was/am I off the mark? And if so, please straighten me out (I mean that).

                  • Well Joe, its not like one shoe fits all. Each is somewhat unique. Some are religious, others are secular. Some have exactly equal compensation, others have collective compensation, and some are a mixture of both. There is an ongoing struggle for gender equality, and always has been. Only about half of the youth get formal collegiate education, so it’s not equal for all. Because of their relative small size, crime is minimal. Despite efforts to keep to the collective mentality, people still acquire private property, and in some Kibbutz, that also is a struggle … but one that is nearly a thing of the past as they are finding there is no way not to have private property deep within one’s mind, and emotions. etc. etc. etc.

                    As I alluded to earlier, their attempts at maintaining a collectivist economy has not panned out for them, and many have abandoned that principle in favor of capitalism, which has for those communities solved social issues such as availability of education.

                    About the best analogy overall I can give is … their movement in contemporary times is similar to “Breaking Amish”.

            • http://www.thefarm.org/

              These people do wonderful things, they are dedicated to helping others, and all property is communal.
              While I admire them greatly, I could never be happy living there, being to acquisitive. And my fondness for loud rock and roll, played in the middle of the night, requires me to have a lot of space between myself and the neighbors.

        • Karl, one reason Progressive American government is “a blend of Communism, fascism and socialism,” is because of the doctrine of redistribution of wealth.

          The redistribution of wealth occurs when the government confiscates through taxing, borrowing or printing money, assets of those who earned them and gives them to those who did not earn them.

          By definition that is stealing. When governments steal from their citizens, those governments are committing oppression.

          Stealing is a grave breach of “the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God,”* upon which the American Republic was founded and upon which the Sovereign People look to for just law making.

          Consequently, Progressive American government is “a blend of Communism, fascism and socialism because it ruthlessly oppresses its people.

          Therefore, in seeking a just regime, the Sovereign People must reject Progressivism.

          *Cited from The Declaration of Independence

  5. Joe et al: What a fascinating post and thread! This is material I’ve spent a lot of time studying, and Joe, you nailed the critical issue that “Fascism” and “Nazism” were (and are) nationalist movements in the broader Collectivist wave that swept the Western world beginning in the 18th century. “Fascism” had strong national movements in Italy, Spain and some of the eastern European countries, and “Nazism”, whose full name was the “National German Socialist Workers Party” was initially the German version of Fascism, with a heavy dose of Germanic “Aryan” racism tossed in for good measure by Adolf Hitler and Joseph Goebbels. I don’t find the old “Left” and “Right” labels, which originally developed in the “Estates General” of pre-Revolutionary France, to be particularly meaningful anymore, but Communism, Nazism and Fascism were clearly all movements of the Collectivist “Left”, and none were in anyway connected with the “Right”, the Conservative and Classic Anglo-American Liberal movements.

    Joe, you are also quite right that those who fail to study history for themselves are both doomed to repeat it (according to George Santayana, one of the more accomplished 20th century Conservative thinkers) and are subject to the falsehoods perpetrated by those with an agenda to misrepresent or “rewrite” the past. You will recall that Orwell’s protagonist Winston Smith in 1984 was employed full-time in the government’s Ministry of Truth “correcting” information that conflicted with official party “reality” and that Squealer the propaganda pig in ANIMAL FARM was careful to rewrite multiple events to cast their “Leader, Comrade Napoleon” in the proper light. I believe Orwell considered himself a “Socialist” rather than a “Progressive”, which may be a distinction without a difference, since American Collectivists tended to fly the “Progressive” flag while their British brothers-in-arms sail as “Socialists”. Whatever his own political leanings, George Orwell’s ANIMAL FARM and 1984 provide insights into Collectivism that I have not found elsewhere in works of fiction. DARKNESS AT NOON by Arthur Koestler is another novel that “outed” the Totalitarian nature of Collectivist movements worldwide, which has been confirmed multiple times around the 20th century world in Germany, Italy, Spain, Russia, China, Viet Nam, Cambodia and other nations.

    I would like to know the author of your extended quote, Joe, because it is a masterpiece of Collectivist/Liberal/Progressive spin. Anyone who has followed the Lib/Progs in the US knows that Saul Alinsky’s (Mr. Obama’s strategic and tactical mentor) and Professor George Lakoff’s writings, have been guiding the Liberal/Progressive propaganda machine in the US for two generations and the fact that controlling the flows of information to the public was a core strategy of the Nazis (under Joseph Goebbels), Soviet Russia ( Glavlit, the Communist Party censoring agency, functioned much like Orwell’s “Ministry of Truth”) is easily documented. The Lib/Prog/Obama Spin Machine penetrated America’s “Mainstream Media” decades ago, and it is now largely unnecessary for the Federal government to censor the American media, since with the exception of Rupert Murdoch’s media (Fox News, the WSJ, etc.) the American media now functions primarily as the propaganda arm of the Liberal/Progressive movement in the US. As for Noam Chomsky, he has never been a “Linguist”, but rather is one of the founders of “Linguistic Analysis” a philosophical school with interesting theories that are well worth reading. But regarding political and economic thoughts, Dr. Chomsky went way around the bend decades ago and his writings in those areas often appear to come from a somewhat deranged mind.

    You are right again Joe (am I hallucinating?) that Progressivism , like libertarianism, is a movement rather than a political party, and there have always been Progressives in both major parties in the US. TR was a Republican Progressive, who founded America’s National Park System, and Woodrow Wilson was a Democrat Progressive, along with John Dewey (an intellectual disaster who thought education for the “masses” should stress Progressive propaganda) and Margaret Sanger, Planned Parenthood’s founder and patron saint, whose original goals for PP were to eliminate “Negroes” and other “mental defectives” through abortion and euthanasia. Wilson’s first term as President saw the passage of multiple Progressive priorities, including the Federal Reserve Act, Federal Trade Commission Act, the Clayton Antitrust Act, the Federal Farm Loan Act and the first permanent Federal income tax (which required a Constitutional amendment since it represented a clear violation of the “Takings clause”). Many of these new laws were highly unpopular, and after lying to the American people about their intention to enter WWI in the 1916 elections, the Progressives found themselves and their Collectivists policies highly unpopular in many parts of the nation. Progressivism was also blatantly racists toward African Americans, as Wilson pushed through the first racial segregation of the Federal government and Sanger sought to reduce and eliminate the Black population by locating Planned Parenthood abortion clinics in African American areas. Widespread rejection of the Progressive agenda caused the Progressives to drop their movement’s name in favor of the “Liberal” appellation, but the new “Liberal” movement had no historical or philosophical connections to Classical Anglo-America Liberalism, which had been embraced by most of America’s Founders.

    The progenitors of Liberal/Progressivism and all Collectivist movements were Jeremy Bentham and the British Utilitarians and German philosopher George Friedrich Hegel. America’s Founders, including Washington, would have had an awareness of Bentham and Utilitarianism, although there are little if any Utilitarian language or concepts in our founding documents, including the Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights. America’s Founders and Founding documents clearly stress individual freedom and liberty and safeguard those rights from government overreach in multiple areas. Bentham’s core concept of “utility” is Collectivist and would be developed by Marx, Engels and other Collectivist thinkers who arrived later.

    I’ve been with you to this point Joe, but I think the Conservatives and libertarians began to gain control of the GOP with Ronald Reagan’s speech nominating Barry Goldwater in 1964. The Nixon/Ford/Rockefeller wing of the GOP, which I regard as largely “Progressive” in its approach to governing, gained formal control after Goldwater’s 1964 defeat, but President Reagan, William F. Buckley and other Conservatives began building the new GOP, almost as an underground movement within the Party, and in 1980 the Conservative/libertarian alliance took the White House. Reagan installed libertarian economists like Milton Friedman, Thomas Sowell, John Taylor and others throughout the Federal government and reestablished Free Market Capitalism as the pattern for the American economy, launching the longest economic expansion in American history, from 1982 – 2007, with two relatively minor recessions during that incredible period of growth. Presidents Bush, Clinton and Bush largely followed the economic pattern that Reagan established, although the Bushes both were more comfortable with some Progressive ideas for social programs than the Gipper.

    I completely disagree that the GOP has demonstrated Fascist tendencies in recent years, although the Obama administration has embraced Fascist policies regarding the relationship of the Federal government and industry from its earliest days. The GM, Chrysler and AIG bailouts and Obamacare were and are all classic Fascist ploys, since under Fascism (and Nazism) the government controls business and industry while the ownership of enterprise remains in compliant private hands. The Obamites have followed other Fascist and Collectivist policies, but that is to be expected by Liberal/Progressives, whose basic theory of governance, like the Soviets (the Communist Party), the Nazis (the Nazi Party) and the Chinese (the PLA and the Central Party apparatchiks), is that America should by governed by a small, elite class of families (the Progressives within the Democrat Party) and average Americans should surrender their Constitutionally established freedoms in return for lives managed and determined by the Federal government and guarded aggressively by a growing Federal bureaucracy.

    As for the GOP, I believe the soul and future of the party are again in play today and more is at stake than ever before. The Progressive elements within the GOP, and here I include Chris Christy, John McCain, possibly Lindsey Graham and others, have begun to make common cause with the Liberal/Progressives, led by Obama and his ilk, who have completely captured the Democrat Party. The Conservatives and most libertarians, and here I include Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, Marco Rubio (who has done some dumb things, but I still view as a Conservative), Rand Paul and others, are rallying the Tea Parties and other Conservative and libertarian groups and I think they should retain control of the GOP, win back both Houses of Congress in 2014 and the presidency in 2016, if the conservative/libertarian coalition will hold together and confront our common, frequently demonic enemies. As a long-time libertarian who has never been a registered Republican, I find I have no choice but to support the GOP if the Lib/Prog agenda, which I detest, is to be successfully resisted.

    Joe, I thank you for a great post and I have thoroughly enjoyed the comments that followed. As is usual, I have written too much but I hope to get some reaction from RNL colleagues. Good night Gracie, CDE

    • You can find the author of that quote by following the link in the title before it.

      OK, if the GOP has not demonstrated Fascist tendencies, then please explain:

      “I have to destroy the free market to save it.”

      Remember, Fascism is a difficult creature to pin down, but one of its primary traits is govt./business partnerships where govt. is used to protect the favored businesses/industries. The GOP has shown a propensity to do this. TARP was done under Bush.

      Another Fascist trait is public welfare. Bush was responsible for Medicare/Medicaid (?) Part D, SCHIP and No Child Left Behind.

      Another Fascist trait is public surveillance and control. The Patriot Act was started under Bush.

      All I am saying is there is more than enough here to make the case. I’ve also come to understand that, when the identified Left (i.e. Democrats/Progressives/Liberals) point the finder of accusation at Republicans, we need to look closer rather than knee-jerk reject it. They may know what they are talking about, seeing how they are masters of these same things, themselves. There quite often is a grain of truth in what they say, just not in their solutions.

  6. Boy, you do go on, CDE ….good writing, though.Before I read Darkness at Noon. I disliked communism; Darkness taught me to hate it with visceral intensity. Another good book that exposes the communist ‘love’ of the proletaiat, is ‘For the sake of All Living Things, by John Del Vecchio, which focuses on the rape of Cambodia by the communists.

  7. Hi Joe/melfamy/et al: First, Mr. melfamy…you are absolutely correct about my apparent inability to say anything in less than 1,000-words. But I plead “Guilty, with an explanation.” My good friend Joe provides me with such good, meaty material that I find it difficult not to treat it very seriously, and that often means more words than are ideal. This thread is exceptionally interesting and I found myself stretching out in response to a really good post from Joe, and excellent comments from everyone else. I also have a somewhat unusual perspective for an American, in that I began my thinking about political, social and economic thinking at 14-years-old as a captive of Leftist ideology and moved gradually, as a result of some important intellectual mentors, my own research and life experiences, to my now long-time position as a non-doctrinaire pragmatic libertarian, with a combined distaste for and fear of the Liberal/Progressive movement and Collectivism in general.

    My brother and I grew up in a working class, Irish neighborhood in Philadelphia in the late 1950’s and 1960’s, during a time when Philly was still very much the “most northern Southern city” in America. We were largely Irish, since my mother’s parents (Gamble) had immigrated from County Kilkenny shortly after WWI to escape poverty and religious persecution by the British, and while my father’s side had a large and distinguished connection to English Quakers (Penn, Rhoads) and Puritans (Robinson), my paternal great grandmother was a Jackson and Irish blood was obvious in my father’s family generally. Philly in the 1960’s was a completely segregated town, both ethnically and by economic class. The Italians had wrested control of the police department from the Irish somewhat earlier and Commissioner Frank Rizzo, who would later serve two terms as mayor, ruled the city’s neighborhoods with an iron fist and sent his shock troops into the Irish neighborhoods frequently. At fifteen I saw one of my closest friends who was two years older shot dead by a Philly cop for the crimes of being Irish and drunk…no charges were ever filed.

    After an excellent primary education at Ben Franklin Elementary, I moved into the largely custodial public school system and began skipping school since the teachers made it clear that the schools were too crowded and they wouldn’t report us. I showed up for tests and turned in papers and spent most my time working part-time jobs and reading intensely in one of the local parks, frequently under a silver beech tree. My reading turned to Marx and Engels and I began to identify myself with the “proletariat”, persecuted by the Italian police and ready for the “Revolution” that my IRA heroes were fighting in the Old Country and the Black Panthers, Weathermen, and SDS were trying to fight in the US. My father was dismayed and gave me copies of DARKNESS AT NOON, NONE DARED CALL IT TREASON and other books that I read but did not regard as truthful at he time. I still have those books today. My DAVID COPPERFIELD narrative is drawing to a close, and I have shared it only to explain that my knowledge of Collectivist movements is both deep and very personal. I understand Liberal/Progressive thinking both from its own thinkers and from having wandered through it myself at a young and impressionable time in my life.

    Joe…sorry I missed the citation on the quote. I am still learning to use the RNL effectively and I missed that connection.

    On the GOP/Fascism connection, you are correct that the US has evolved an unfortunate economic variation on Free Market Capitalism in which very large corporations and banks often wield unhelpful influence with the Federal government and are often willing to support Federal programs like “Affirmative Action” which are contrary to their shareholders’ interests and clearly violate multiple safeguards within the Constitution (Amendments 10 & 14 in particular). I don’t have a name for this variation yet, but I don’t think it is “Fascism” in its usual sense, and I don’t think it is specifically Republican. Under the GOP the corporate entities tend to be more influential and under Democrats the government generally drives the bus, but it is something a new Ronald Reagan needs to address, and soon. The GM, Chrysler and AIG bailouts, TARP, and Affirmative Action programs are all evidence of this creeping Collectivism, but there are countless others and they violate both conservative and libertarian principles. And yes, as I mentioned above, the Bushes, who I regard as strong in many areas, were both presidents whose sentimentality got the better of their otherwise sound economic leanings…kinder, gentler and Compassionate Conservatism are not sound governing principles, however well intended.

    So no one in politics is ever always right, but I find the GOP correct far more often than the Liberal/Progressive/Democrats and Our Dear Leader is frighteningly clear in His goals for any who care to take the time to connect His not-so-subtle dots. He cannot be permitted to succeed. Cheers, CDE

    • CDE,

      I don’t know for sure, but I think I either didn’t make it clear (my fault), or you may have missed it just because you were looking at other points (no one’s fault), but here is the rift that I see in our current political divide:

      The “Left” (Democrat/Liberal/Progressive) sees government/State uber alles, so I tend to see them as the “Communist” side of American politic.

      The “Right” (Republicans/Conservatives — note I did not address Libertarians in this post) see private property and Capitalism uber alles (again, note I am not saying free market). SO I tend to view them as the “Fascist” side of our divide.

      Now, as I said, Fascism is a difficult bird to paint. It is more like a shadow in a dream than a material form we can easily define. But it does have some generally accepted characteristics. Among those are the “partnership” between govt. and industry whereas certain industries are allowed to remain — nominally — in the hands of “private” peoples — so long as they do the bidding of their govt. masters.

      Another aspect of Fascism is that it does purport to attend to the needs of the people. Mussolini did this, Franco did this — even Hitler. I see this as the central thread of “socialism” that runs through ALL Statist ideologies. As such, govt. policies labeled as “protections” for the people but which also serve as protectionism for the favored industries are another Fascistic side of our current system, and it is here where we find the strongest ties to “Conservatives.” Licensing, Regulation, Fines, Insurance and building codes are all Fascistic in nature as they limit the exposure of risk for industry while reducing the ability for up-start competition to challenge those established industries.

      Anyway, this is how I see the issue. Yes, it has other things mixed in which muddy the waters, but I try to sort through the silt to find the underlying bedrock. Besides, when you find and understand the bedrock, you usually come to understand that the silt which muddies the waters serves the agenda of one of these two sides: State control (Communism/Progressivism) or State/Government control (Fascism). This is just how I view it. You’re more than welcome to reject it.

      • Joe: My fault entirely as I missed the analogy you were drawing. While I agree that Liberal/Progressive/Democrats are certainly analogous to the “Left” or “Collectivist” end of the American political continuum, and I have no trouble viewing the GOP as analogous to the “Right”, I do have difficulty seeing the GOP as fully analogous to the “Fascists”. This is because I completely agree with your earlier point that the “Fascists” and the “Nazis” were both movements of the Collectivist Left. This does not mean that I don’t think that Republicans haven’t grown too comfortable with allowing “Big Business” and “Big Government” to create an incestuous, revolving door relationship, with both partners having too much shared interest and collaboration with the other. In my opinion what has been the unique genius of our American economy throughout our history has been our unduplicated small business/entrepreneurial sector. The Big Business/Big Government alliance tends to strangle us entrepreneurial types by implementing laws that the big players can afford to meet, but which those of us who focus and have a talent for building start-ups (I’ve built four and my wife has built two) are required to devote a far larger percentage of revenue to meet. Federal (and state and local) requirements costs us about the same as the big players, but cream-off an often unworkable percentage of our operating cash. But I have found a difference between how Conservatives and Progressives view the business/government relationship. Conservatives have an understanding of how important the private sector is in America, both big and small, and they are willing to try to understand what we need to build and grow our enterprises. While I agree Big Business has grown to have too much influence with the GOP when the GOP is in power, Conservatives/Republicans seem to consistently understand that no one in government in the history of the world has ever created value, while we businessmen and especially we entrepreneurs take risk and create value everyday we are in business. Without us, there can be no government programs, defense, domestic or any other type. Many Republicans do understand this dynamic because they are far more likely to have come out of the private sector, where they were successful, a term Progressives hate, and they have built businesses, met payrolls, provided returns to investors and filed the stupid, often useless forms that petty bureaucrats who have never held an actual productive job, met a real deadline or taken a calculated risk in their lives seem to create out of thin air.

        When I look at the Progressives/Democrats, however, I see a very different, totally un-American approach to the relationship between government and business. Our Dear Leader actually believes that government can somehow “create” productive jobs and that taxpayers, most of whom work in the private sector and most in small businesses, should pay-up so that he and his Progressive cadres can reward pseudo-entrepreneurs who are incapable of securing funding from investors who know what they’re doing. To Mr. Obama, business is to be controlled, treated like a cow who is constantly milked by the government sector and selectively rewarded based on its willingness to give lip service to bad business ideas like “Green Energy”, restricting America’s extraction of its own abundant energy sources like coal, natural gas and shale-based petroleum and treating “Climate Change” as if it is something that hasn’t occurred thousands of times in the history of our planet. The Prog/Dem’s manage to embody many of the worst traits of both the Communists/Marxists and the Fascists/Nazis, Collectivist movements all, in terms of viewing government as capable of managing the private sector more effectively than those who have spent our lives and careers doing it successfully. I am working on a post titled “Are Liberal/Progressives Crazy: False Consciousness in the Reign of Obama” and it will explain my views in this area.

        While i will not open the topic here, my studies of what makes organizations successful, both in government and industry, have convinced me that large organizations can achieve true effectiveness, that meaning they meet and exceed actual, measurable goals, most consistently when they organize around teams that target specific tasks, re-organize when the task is completed and then move onto the next required goal. Read Tracy Kidder’s great book, THE SOUL OF THE NEW MACHINE to get a sense of what I mean. Big businesses can succeed, but they do it best by thinking and acting like small organizations. The companies Mr. Obama loves are dinosaurs who are too big to fail.

        Joe, as I’m sure you know, my libertarian comrade-in-arms Milton Friedman examined all these issues and drew conclusions like you and I have drawn in his great book, CAPITALISM & FREEDOM. The Liberal/Progressives are incipient Collectivist Totalitarians working to change America forever, as Mr. Obama promised on the night of his 2008 election victory. They wait only for crises sufficiently threatening to complete the exchange of our Constitutionally guarded rights for a Collectivist state run like the other Collectivist disasters around the world. The GOP is not perfect nor pure, but it has the infrastructure in place to reverse the Collectivist incursions against our freedoms. My intent is to put my energy behind making the case for freedom within the party that is at least not opposed to the very idea. As is usual, Joe, I regard the enemies of my enemies as my friends and I know clearly who are enemies are. Warm regards, CDE

        • CDE,

          It might help if I were to openly state that I am looking at the GOP according to what its leadership apparently believes as demonstrated by what they do. I do not equate the GOP with “conservatives” in the sense I think you do. Most of those in the rank-and-file membership of the GOP who consider themselves :conservative” are closer to Classic Liberals than Burke’s Conservatism. AT the same time, the GOP leadership is somewhere between Burke’s Conservatism and a modified form of Fascism.

          Anyway, this is how I view the modern GOP. Maybe it will help you understand my argument better, and maybe it won’t. At least I have tried to explain it as best I can :-)

          • Joe: That does help. And I think you’re correct about the GOP rank & file being more Classically Liberal and the current and soon to hopefully retire leadership bearing the ongoing influence of Collectivist thinking (you call it Fascist & I’ll call it Progressive, but both names are Collectivist) that was quite strong in both parties in the early 20th century. I think the rising generation of GOP leaders, Cruz, Lee, Rubio, Rand Paul and others are much more attuned with the Classic Anglo-American Liberal views of the GOP rank & files than the fading generation, McCain, Graham, and McCain and Graham. And Burkean Conservatism is more influential with the older group as well. I call the Classic Liberal influence libertarian, but I know we’ll differ on that choice of words. Cheers, CDE

            • CDE,

              “(you call it Fascist & I’ll call it Progressive, but both names are Collectivist)”

              That is the distinction I was trying to draw. Both Parties are collectivist, but the leadership divides along Progressive (Communist) and GOP (Fascist) lines within that general collectivist category.

              Now, as for Cruz et al being new leaders of the GOP: I would agree that they are leaders of the rank-and-file, but I would disagree as to them being leaders of the Party. When Cruz has the ability to control who gets nominated, where the RNC spends its money and direct the Party to get rid of McCain in the same way they got rid of West, THEN — and ONLY THEN — will I concede that Cruz has attained a leadership role in the Party.

  8. I understand how you guys feel about our system, that it started going bad around Teddy Roosevelt’s time. I also know that progressivism put us on top of the Heap of Nations. Whether we would have won ww2, or seen another scenario at the end of the conflict, without a Progressive system, is a subject worthy of conjecture. After WWII, things got bad, then things got worse(guess you know the tune), We stayed the #1 nation, still are, but internally, things weren’t so good.
    The Depression happened; it was worldwide, and I doubt that we could have avoided it no matter what government we had. I have known many old people over the years; to a man, they praised FDR for saving the country. That perception, true or not, is very strong, and it could only encourage Americans to accept a more kinglike Commander-in-chief. This acceptance of power in the Oval Office, maybe it led many to ignore politics for the most part. Vote? Sure, but that is enough, let those who know take care of things.
    We coasted along for two generations. Fairly prosperous, it was easy to let the government handle things that the people and the states used to do for themselves.
    Let me back up a hair; many families, including both sides of mine, were torn apart by the Depression. There was an economic diaspora, as families lost homes, left home in 1000-mile job searches, children sent to relatives or to orphanages. Both occurred in my family. and my Dad and his Mother lived in the woods in an old shack for a time, gigging frogs for food.
    Family ties were severed in many cases. Within a generation, the traditional family suffered mightily. People lost their sense of belonging, to the land and traditions.
    Our constitutional government works best with an orderly society, in which little is asked of it other than the enumerated powers. Even so, its spirit was violated many times before Roosevelt. After the depression, then the war, people were used to being ‘saved’ by their leaders. Government became the go-to guy, and hey! We got the money, let’s help them. Then those people, then that group. They say they don’t need help? They must be doing well, let’s tax them.
    So here we are today, with a top-heavy government that is too big to fail, one that has metastasized, and grows seemingly on its own.
    I don’t see this being the result of a vast, centuries-old conspiracy, our current malaise resulted from leaders not leading, but catering. Are there conspiracies? Yes, but it is cabals vying for a piece of a stale and moldy pie.
    Personally, I would have heard alarm bells the day it was decided that paying farmers for not raising a crop was a good policy. Many probably were alarmed, obviously, their voices are getting stronger these days, maybe its time to listen, before we implode, and our greatness becomes the stuff of legend.

    • Greg, in times of crisis, I am certain that no individual citizen from either side of the political fence wants to honestly turn their back on the disadvantaged in need. The inherent problem with both political parts is that they have a common goal … more government influence.

      Sadly, once the government begins a program, they never want to relinquish their new found authority. Nothing is temporary within the Federal Government.

      So yes, we could/should help each other in times of desperate need, but we cannot afford to do that any longer because we know that any assistive program is going to affect us for the rest of our lives, and beyond.

    • Hi melfamy/Greg: Please let me know how you prefer to be addressed, since it appears my colleagues routinely address you as “Greg”. I go by either Charles or Chuck and have no real preference between the two. I’ve been enjoying your comments, especially in this thread, which I continue to find quite interesting. I find myself nodding along with the sweep of your last comment as much of my family’s experience of the Depression paralleled what you describe. My mother, the youngest of eight children of Irish immigrants, was bundled off to distant relatives in Philadelphia after my maternal grandfather was mysteriously killed, probably by nativists in southern New Jersey around 1930. She grew up in the worst of the Depression being treated as a domestic servant from a very early age, Her life’s prospects looked bleak until it was discovered she had a beautiful singing voice and as an eight-year-old she began appearing on popular radio shows like the Arthur Godfrey Show and The Amateur Hour. As she began earning money her status changed and I suspect she carried her adoptive “family” through the worst of the Depression years, after which she launched a career as a jazz singer in her late teens. Many families have similar stories and the crises of the Depression caused Americans to accept a level of Progressive government control under FDR that they had rejected fifteen years earlier under Woodrow Wilson.

      I must differ with you on Progressivism ever having carried America to new heights or even having produced a decent economy for average Americans. Let’s focus on the Depression as an example. Libertarian economist Milton Freedman has produced the definitive study of the Great Depression in his book, A MONETARY HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES: 1867 – 1960. The chapter on the Great Depression, entitled “The Great Contraction: 1929 – 34″, describes in detail how what should have been a moderate, cyclical recession was exacerbated and lengthened by the incompetence of the Federal Reserve, a Progressive invention put in place by the Wilson Administration in its first term. Had the Fed managed the money supply correctly, and how to do it was not a mystery, the recession that followed their tightening the money supply when it should have been freed up would have lasted the typical 18 – 24 months of typical cyclical recessions and would certainly not have destroyed American communities.

      The second Progressive disaster that extended the depression involved Roosevelt’s decision to gain political benefit from the event by putting a raft of Progressive programs in place under the claim they would somehow “cure” the “excesses” of Hoover’s Republican Progressive administration. As any competent economist could have predicted, government programs have never successfully solved a recession or depression, and FDR’s nonsense repeatedly slowed or negated the private sector’s repeated incipient recoveries, until America’s entry into WWII finally brought about an actual national recovery. Progressivism’s deification of Roosevelt has been carefully nourished in the Liberal media and academia, but the fact is that Roosevelt’s was a failed presidency, by any objective measure, as Friedman and others have demonstrated many times. On the WWII issue, FDR’s refusal to overrule Joe Kennedy’s anti-British and anti-Semitic hatreds kept America out of the war in Europe long enough for Hitler and Himmler to launch and implement their final solution to the “Jewish problem”, which cost 6 MM Jews and millions of Gypsies, Slavs and Russians their lives, including many in my wife’s family, so FDR was far from an effective war leader, either. FDR was charismatic and he played effectively on Depression era America’s fears and emotions, but he was no Ronald Reagan.

      The constant stream of false information and propaganda that flowed from FDR’s Washington did convince many Americans to place their trust in the Federal government rather than in the traditional American institutions of family, church and synagogue, community and the vast network of voluntary organizations that de Tocqueville had described with wonder a hundred years before. The enormous growth of FDR’s bureaucracy strangled the traditional American safety-net, like bad money drives out good. And so we arrive at the Obama-era, with the greatest growth in the Federal bureaucracy and in our National Debt in our history. Our Dear Leader is FDR and LBJ on steroids, and he is committed, as he has stated often, to replace our freedoms, self-reliance and mutual help with the longstanding Progressive dream of America as Britain under one of its pathetic pre-Thatcher Labour governments. Free enterprise shackled with high taxes and endless, useless regulations, small businesses and entrepreneurs buried under government forms and inspections, the IRS targeting the Lib/Progs opponents and America’s role as the “Shining City on the Hill” relegated to the “Ash Heap of History”. Greg, I’m sorry if I don’t see Progressivism’s success in America, but I’m certainly willing to be proved wrong or corrected. In the meantime, great chatting with you, CDE

  9. Joe, I know you are used to rejection, but wouldn’t it be better if your ideas enjoyed a modicum of acceptance? I am referring to the use of loaded words, communism, fascism, nazi, et.al. Many will tune you out, just as soon as they see the words.
    While you make a good case about the origins of progressivism, people have certain images that are provoked by these words. You end up, I feel, preaching to the deacons while behind you, the pews are emptying. Liberals resent the implication that they are some sort of nazi bastard-child and, truly, we aren’t.
    When the word fascism is uttered, I think of Mussolini haranguing a crowd, ultra-militarism and super-patriotism. It just does not fit what we have in America, even if welfare and the ‘saving of GM reflect certain fascist values, A time may be coming when people will say, “Oh yeah, Joe was right.” Wouldn’t you rather not see that day? But people are not ready to accept either communism nor fascism as what is happening in our country; we don’t goose step, don’t stand in lines for bowls of thin gruel, and we have giant TV’s!
    Just a friendly suggestion, find different words, or avoid comparisons to these ugly alternatives to what we are supposed to be. For myself, once I get past the buzzwords, your ideas go down a lot smoother.

    • Melfamy,

      If I have to cede what I believe to be correct to be accepted, I chose to be rejected. My allegiance is to the truth, as best I can find it. And history has shown me that those who are on the side of truth are usually in the minority. Maybe I would ask you, why doesn’t that bother YOU?

      Now, as to the implication that Liberals are NAZI’s: never made that accusation. However, I have said that they are following an ideology closely connected to the NAZI Party and which shared many of the same ideas and goals. This is true, not my opinion. SO why should I muzzle myself? If others do not want to face the truth, they will find themselves right where they are: siding with people they think they oppose (i.e. NAZI’s) when, in fact, they don’t. Now, if you think I am claiming to absolve the Right, you must have missed the exchange I had with Utah, Augger, Don and others a short while back. I am as harsh on the Right and its history as I am on the Left, and I openly include myself in my own accusations.

      Now, as to Mussolini not fitting. Did you ever bother to read the quotes I posted from those speeches? He is talking about how democracy is talking itself to death when the people want action. He is saying he should just act rather than worry about the democratic process. Let me ask you — and be honest — in the past few years, have you seen someone sticking their nose in the air and saying much the same thing? I have. So the spirit of Fascism is alive and well in this nation.

      As for people not being ready to accept communism or fascism: again, why don;t you ever read the links I post for you? Wilson explained this. He said that Americans were not ready for it — under those names. This is why he chose to use the label “Progressive.” Same policy (communist), different packaging. America HAS bought that, and the Communist Party USA has acknowledged the same.

      We don’t stand in line for handouts? Did you miss the stories of people in the lines for “Obama cash” a few years back? Same thing, Greg.

      Finally, if I find different words or avoid the truth in comparison, then you won’t listen. If all you care about is having your ears tickled, then you are not interested in learning and — most importantly — you are not interested in change. Because, until a person is ready to deal honestly and harshly with their own faults, they cannot change anything outside themselves.

      • I am interested in the ideas you espouse going forward just as much as what you say about the past.
        But your ideas get lost in semantics. People will not listen to you, Joe, if the image that your words evoke don’t match what they see.
        I don’t know how much Italy suffered after ww1 and the depression; but Germany had high unemployment, shortages, an hyperinflation. That’s what it took for people to accept demagogues like Mussolini and Hitler, Lenin, Castro, and Pol Pot

        Now, I admit that our tolerance is lower these days; we have been fat and happy for far too long. But we are nowhere near the conditions that led to the rise and fall of the 3rd reich. Politically, yes, you can make the case, and you should, that fascism is the direction in which we seem to be headed. Just call it statism, totalitarianism, authoritarian addiction, which is just as true.
        Ok, I tried.

        • Greg,

          I want you to — please — go read the book “In the Garden of Beasts.” Hitler bought the people’s loyalty the same way our politicians are buying it today. Remember, “poor” is a relative word. All one has to do to act desperate is believe they are and they will do exactly as the Germans did.

          The Romans are a close parallel, as well. However, the way they lost their liberty is not as closely related to our path as that which the Germans traveled — in the 1930’s (not 40’s).

          Either way, I do not understand why people have such a problem with facing reality. The words SHOULD cause us discomfort — and for good reason. But we should not avoid them because they do so. Instead, we should be very careful to make sure we use them accurately and appropriately and not throw them around without just cause or thought. When they are used as bludgeons is when they harm and do us a disservice. But when we use them accurately, they serve to educate.

          At the same time, try to read my words bit more closely. I think you have been missing all the allowances for people being fooled that I have been making. You may have missed the heat I have been taking for it from those who do not want to let others off the hook.

          I am thinking of starting to use some video for these tougher posts because — and you know THIS to be true, too — I am not as harsh in person as I appear in type. I think it will help if people can see I am not yelling or foaming at the mouth when I write these posts.

          Does that help at all?

  10. “my fondness for loud rock and roll, played in the middle of the night requires me to have a lot of space between myself and the neighbors.”

    +1 for Melfamy. There might be hope of warming up to this guy after all.

    • Dude, you have an infinite capacity to assume slight where none was intended. You are in a tight neighborhood. There';s nothing wrong with that. This is how many Americans live. Most of my mother’s family lives in New Orleans in areas as or tighter than where you are. So I’m not sure how or why you decided my comment was a slight on you???

      • I don’t know about limited, but our home and rental property are paid for. And I could not ask for better neighbors. If you don’t count the bikers that moved in down the road, and the meth house that burned down last year, it is crime-free.
        Sounds as if you like Rock. If you haven’t already heard or seen the Cream Reunion at Albert Hall concert, it is not to be missed! Clapton plays every solo as if it’s going to be his last!

        • “but our home and rental property are paid for.”

          Perfection.

          Given the state of declining retirement benefits, one cannot depend on the Federal Government to provide a retirement (i.e., Social Security) to all who have worked and paid for it in advance. Over the past 10 years, I have endeavored to augment my retirement with rental condos and property, and am already reaping the benefits of that strategy as the older properties are adequately funding further expansion.

          Looking to the future, there may be a sound strategy in obtaining loans late in life but with enough time to collect on the rental fees, as the banks are all too willing to collect interest on those properties, and then recover them following your end of life. I just would have those properties in a separate trust/LLC to avoid risk to the owned properties.

          • good advice, Augger, thanks. I will look into the trust/llc thingie.

            I am tempted to cash in my stocks and get a couple more rentals, but the market has, in the words of Chico Escuela, been berry berry good to me lately.I saw the last downturn coming, and cashed out in time. When that happens again(assuming my prescience wasn’t dumb luck), I will have to seriously think about getting another property.

            • Having a well written trust certainly helps to mitigate a tremendous amount of ownership issues, and avoiding probate is a wonderful gift to your children.

          • Augger,

            Property is not unknown to me…………Neither is the current state of Urban and thus State finances……..As you know property is not a “cash equivalent”….thus time and other “factors” weigh heavily on the ability to Quickly realize the “asset” in any other form than fixed revenue generation.

            What this means is that the Taxing authority in the State and Local area ( and Soon Federal as well ) will be looking to all these property “assets” for remedy……failure to pay forfiets the asset and thus the sunk cost as well.

            It is something to be aware of…..even Trusts have to pay what the “Tax-man Sayeth “……………….For those “Property owners” who worship Government and their Entitlement Checks this will of course not be a worry and perhaps even music to their ears…………but to those awake to economic realities ( and life in general ) it is wise to be prepared.

            • Don, no where did I ever assert that I was looking to avoid paying my taxes, nor am I looking to loophole my children from paying the taxes on the assets the trust will provide them once they become the executor of the trust. That being said, having no direct ownership as we enter end of life stages does in fact have it’s advantages where the cost of healthcare can quickly burn your life’s work in to nothing. There’s an old saying …

              “You can’t get blood from a turnip.”

              Well I intend to make sure I own not one single turnip for them to try to blood-let from. :)

              • <>

                My point Augger….is that Government ( Local, State and Ultimately Federal ) will be looking increasingly at TAXING fixed assets More and More and MORE as time goes forward. It could get to a point where the Tax will almost equal, equal or exceed the rental income…..and selling out options will be limited… ( 1) because Real Estate is just structured that way and (2) because at that point noone is going to want to purchase what will have become a Tax-liability.

                I never said anything about not wanting to OR avoiding Taxes at all …. it was a comment about asset valuation, capital deployment and planning. I should have known better as many view real estate almost as sacrosanct as their religion.

                Sorry I mentioned it ….. as they used to say…Keep on Trucking…whatever

        • Good neighbors are hard to come about these days. I’m crammed into a small space between a cultural Indian family (dots not feathers), and Russian immigrants. Both families have very loud children. The walls are paper thin. Bedtime is very unpleasant in our building.

          I love rock. My interests in rock have been taking me backwards in time lately. I’ll have to check out that Cream reunion tonight when I get a chance. Youtube has a plethora of videos on it.

          “Clapton plays every solo as if it’s going to be his last!”

          That’s rare. Music has lost its diligence as of late. I’m looking forward to these reunion videos.

  11. No sane politician will even propose raising taxes right now, that isn’t a worry, yet! However, there are laws and regulations on the books that are not 100% enforced; the collection of fines can be ramped up without threatening any politician’s chances of re-election. And there’s always speed traps and highway stops for safety inspections. …

    • Melfamy,

      No SANE politicians, true. But how many of those do you HONESTLY think we have in office? I mean, given the state of our politics today, what SANE person would even run?

      • good point! lol

        But even if wanting the job is proof of madness,they still have the desire, strange as it is, to retain the position.

        That mayor of San Diego is a complete perv, the dems are insane not to have pressured the bastard to step down. Having a democratic mayor is not good for the party, if his continued presence causes a loss of public support for dems, which it is.

    • “No sane politician will even propose raising taxes right now, that isn’t a worry, yet!”

      Greg, I am not so certain my friend, but this represents an excellent place to begin a new thread to discuss new tax proposals during this nauseating period we are suffering through. So I am going to borrow your quote (not to pick on you), and use that for the catalyst for a new thread.

  12. Pingback: Insane In the Membrane | The Rio Norte Line

      • Of course you don’t Joe, because you don’t know what fascism is. Fascism is oppression, gay rights is no more an imposition on anyone anymore than integration was, and by that I mean, if it was screw “em!

        • Sorry, Melfamy, but you guys on the Left think Fascism is anything you don’t like. I’d have to say YOU don’t understand Fascism. My understanding is well documented here on the RNL and, so far, no one has been able to show me where I’m wrong — just tell me they don’t accept what the Fascists said about their own movement. Or have you forgotten that I have quoted the very man who coined the term?

          • Nazis and fascists went after gays and gypsie as well as Jews. In this country, we are empowering gays, not persecuting them. You need to find another way to denigrate the left, because Putin will outdo every claim you make about Obama.

            • But Franco and Mussolini did not. But yes, there is usually a theme of “It’s their fault” in all Fascist regimes, but, if you are going to point to a crack-down on gays and yell FASCISM, then ignore the way traditional family values and or Christian/Jews are being attacked in this country, you are showing a one-sided bias that destroys any credibility you might have on the issue.

              And, if you think I have been letting “The Right” off the hook, all you are doing is solidifying your biased view of things. I have been ALL OVER the Right lately. The difference — at least one of the bigger ones — is that the Right can sometimes be made to see their own reflection in the morality mirror. The Left seldom if even does, as you are demonstrating.

              • There is also the suppression of speech issue.
                Would you mind telling just how gay marriage is destroying anyone else’s marriage? How your christian values are under attack? You are the freaking majority by far! Living side-by-side with other belief systems and cultures is not the same as being threatened by them. If christianity cannot survive an attack by the equivalent of mice, it cannot be all strong a belief system to begin with.

                • See, there is your one-way mirror. Gays can force the majority straight community — using govt — to accept them and that is NOT Fascism (in your eyes), but if a straight society has a problem with homosexuality, they are the Fascists.

                  How are Judea/Christian values under attack? Melfmay, your bias is showing again. Look how you are attacking me for espousing my faith values. Better yet, look what they are doing to Christians in San Antonio.

                  You see, you do not see your reflection in the morality mirror. You also like to chose sides: you will defend what you think are the rights of one side while thinking it perfectly fine to use govt. force to trample the rights of others — even the majority. There’s no way I know to reach you until you can see your reflection.

                  • You think that other Americans gaining acceptance is fascism and anti-christian, and you expect anyone outside of this room to take you seriously? Talk about prejudices showing!

                    • That’s the point. They didn’t “gain” acceptance: they used govt. to FORCE it on society. Look at how they are using govt. to negate 2 votes by the people in “liberal” California. THAT is Fascism, Melfamy, not society trying to defend itself from such attacks by such a small minority.

                    • It is a case of preventing the tyranny of the majority. If the majority of Americans were okay with slavery, would that make it okay?

                    • Melfamy,

                      This is a false analogy. Slaves are not deviants. By definition, homosexuality is a deviancy. It is also connected to some real social problems.

                      This is the core of the problem: a very small minority forcing changes to definitions of words and concepts. The redefining of marriage is one of these definitions that homosexuals are using the govt. to force society to change.

                      You’re not going to agree. I get that. heck, you’ll see my comment as proof that I am the bigot here. I’m not being a bigot: I am stating the truth — by definition, which means, when you see bigotry in my words, you are forcing another change of definition on me. Only, this time, you are trying to change the eternal laws of logic and right reason.

                    • By whose definition? Yours? Not the American Psychological Association:

                      n 1973, the weight of empirical data, coupled with changing social norms and the development of a politically active gay community in the United States, led the Board of Directors of the American Psychiatric Association to remove homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). Some psychiatrists who fiercely opposed their action subsequently circulated a petition calling for a vote on the issue by the Association’s membership. That vote was held in 1974, and the Board’s decision was ratified.

                    • Political Correctness — backed by govt. FORCE — caused that to be changed. Before that, they actually listed it as a disorder that — with counseling — had a 95% cure rate. But now, again, through govt. force, you can’t even discuss a “cure” in connection to homosexuality.

                      Greg, you are in denial of reality here — PERIOD! There is no sense in wasting any more time with you: you will refuse to believe they are going to kill you when they put you on the train, when they shave your head, when they strip you, even when they have locked you in the gas chamber. You simply do not see reality.

                    • You are going to be on the side that puts people in ovens, Joe.. Where do you get this 95% cure rate? How did they
                      cure’ them Frontal lobotomy or shock treatments. And just what is like to be scared of everybody and everything not like you?

                    • Sorry, Greg, but you are standing firmly in the middle of the crowd/ideology that does that sort of thing. It is yet another of the truths in this world you cannot see, but if it makes you feel better to believe that…

                    • A July 10-14 poll by Gallup found support for gay marriage at 54%, a record high, and double the support of 27% Gallup first measured when the question was asked in 1996.[13]

                      A July poll by USA Today found that 55% of Americans supported gay marriage while 40% did not.[14]

                      A May 9 Washington Post-ABC News poll found that 55% of Americans supported gay marriage while 40% did not.[15]

                      A March 20–24 CBS News Poll found that 53% of Americans supported same-sex marriage, 39% opposed it, and 8% were undecided.[16] The same poll also found that 33% of Americans who thought same-sex couples should be allowed to legally marry said they once held the opposite view and had changed their opinion.

                      A March 7–10 Washington Post-ABC News[17] poll found that 58% of Americans support same-sex marriage while 36% opposed. The poll indicated that 52% of GOP-leaning independents under 50 years old supported gay marriage.[18]

                      A March Quinnipiac University poll of voters found 47% supported same-sex marriage and 43% were opposed.[19]

                    • @Melfamy
                      why do liberals love the gays and their agenda more than the working poor.

                      Switch on MSNBC and an undue attention is given to gay marriage.
                      There are working class people out there who are struggling to makes end meet, are stuck in a cycle of poverty and powerlessness. And what do liberals not shut their trap about?
                      gay marriage.

                      Gay marriage is not even a real issue.

                      Do you think the economy will recover, the environment will get cleaner and people will be able to escape poverty. If gay marriage was legal?

                      Because it won’t. Thanks to the fecklessness of liberals and conservatives, the communists vanguard is more likely to be popular than the two major political parties.

                    • Karl, If the Republicans wanted, they could hammer out a budget tomorrow that Obama would sign. Trouble is, the GOP wants Americans to hurt for the next two years, that is the only way they will get a majority in both houses,and the Presidency. Power is all they care about, look to N Carolina to see what they do with it. Hint, it ain’t job creation

                    • You mean, if they wanted to be Leftist Democratic Progressives, they could present a budget Obama would sign.

                      That’s called surrender.

                      The FACT here is that the Democrat Party has NOT submitted a budget since Obama took office. As the Party in the WH, this is on Obama — NOT the Republicans.

                      but, as I have previously explained, you have great difficulty seeing things in any way but the most favorable to you, not as they are.

                    • You are talking exactly like a right-winger, Joe, The DEMOCRATIC Party is the name, why the childish change? Who controls Congress? The majority party controls the budget process. And calling the plan Obama put forth as socialist is just the latest example that you really don;t know caca about what the hell is going on in the world. Or, you think the rest of us are so stupid, we will believe your fantasies. Some Are, not naming names. Still, you’re on the fringe, Joe, and you risk becoming a laughing stock.

                    • “If the Republicans wanted, they could hammer out a budget tomorrow that Obama would sign. Trouble is, the GOP wants Americans to hurt for the next two years,”

                      This is a helluva an assertion, even for you Greg. Do you have some evidence based proof that there is this grand conspiracy by the GOP to overtly harm American citizens? If you have any whistle-blowers or the like that have it documented, I would literally start a campaign calling for their resignations, and trials.

                      What I see reported around the political circles is Obama holding out on deals that does not ask for more taxation and spending, while the Republicans are looking to stop additional spending, and trim current spending programs where it can. I believe I even started a new thread here discussing that very thing.

                    • I am going by their actions, Augger. Also, the actions of the GOP in North Carolina, where the first legislation passed by the all GOP all the time legislature, were moves to restrict abortions and voting, nothing about spending and/or tax reform, nothing about job creation.
                      Thankfully, the economy is rebounding without the GOP, who are more worried about repealing Obamacare, which is settled legislation, than with helping the average american.
                      Now, maybe congress adopting a hands-off approach is a good thing, maybe it somehow attributed to the pick-up in economic activity. I’ve always been a fan of congressional gridlock, maybe neglect is just as desirable. :)
                      If you’re an investor, Augger look at AMH and WCIC, housing is about to boom!

                    • Greg,

                      Does it ever occur to you that the policies you like and advocate are the cause of what you see as harm for the average American? Or that the policies you oppose — which are largely based on proven economic data — may actually be the cure you are seeking? Finally — and most important — does it ever occur to you that it is none of govt. damned business to be taking care of people — especially when to do so means it has to stomp on other citizens it is supposed to be equally representing and protecting?

                    • Talk about the 180 degree rule, Joe, you opened a can of it with your first sentence.
                      Let’s see, you advocate a government based on christian principles, correct? What is christian about a government that doesn’t help people in need? Your anger at the thought of such a thing is almost palpable

                    • Christ did not tell the government to do that, he told INDIVIDUALS to do it. So, for the govt. to do it is 180 degrees OPPOSITE what Christians are supposed to do because it shoves off our duty onto an artificial entity.

                      See what happens when you speak from ignorance?

                    • “I am going by their actions, Augger. Also, the actions of the GOP in North Carolina, where the first legislation passed by the all GOP all the time legislature, were moves to restrict abortions and voting, nothing about spending and/or tax reform, nothing about job creation.”

                      Fair enough as long as everyone understands it is an opinion. Everyone has their right to opinions. I do admit I am unaware of NC politics, but as a person with Federalist principles, I believe they have a right to self determination as a state, and I’ve long been a proponent of less Federal intrusion into soverign state decisions … even if I disagree with that state’s position.

                      “Thankfully, the economy is rebounding without the GOP, who are more worried about repealing Obamacare, which is settled legislation, than with helping the average american.”

                      I do not believe it is as simple as that on either front. The economy is clearly not rebounding very well, and certainly not as well as the Democrats would have us believe (who can blame them for their slant … it’s detrimental for them not to spin it to their favor).

                      Obamcare is a holy terror on so many levels we’d need an entire blog site to just address the issues we find on a continuing basis. For example, I recently saw 5 patients AND sutured a nasty laceration in 25 minutes….. but spent the next 1 and a half hour documenting all of that under the new regulations.

                      “Now, maybe congress adopting a hands-off approach is a good thing, maybe it somehow attributed to the pick-up in economic activity. I’ve always been a fan of congressional gridlock, maybe neglect is just as desirable. “

                      I think there may be a salient point here, but I have a different spin on it. I think Congress should be slow, and painfully deliberate. I think that about 90% of the problems we have today as a nation is the result of too many regulations passed too quickly, without enough forethought. Not to pick on Obamacare, but to pick on Obamacare … we are seeing the very thing I fear with this legislation … no one knows what the hell to do with it, how to implement it, and what it’s boundaries are. We are just seeing the first ripples from the colossal mess, and already the Unions, the IRS, and Congress want the hell out of it.

                      That should resonate.

                      “If you’re an investor, Augger look at AMH and WCIC, housing is about to boom!”

                      Insightful. My significant other is a real estate attorney, and echo’s your sentiment. :)

                      p.s. – Consider the strategy that I hinted towards you earlier.

                    • I am no fan of Obamacare, but is what we have. Besides, early reports from Cali indicate that it may actually lower costs.
                      Figures can be massaged, so I am watching with open eyes. But if the states don’t give it a chance, we will never know,
                      Many large bills end up in the tinker shop, getting tweaked so they will better serve the people. it is not a sign of failure.

                    • What we have an a ton of uncertainty and an enormous dose of “who the fuck knows”. You are right, figures can be massaged, but I think the law is written around punitive measures … which should never be the proverbal ‘teeth’ of a law such as this. While California may see lower costs, other states may not …

                      Where Obamacare premiums will soar

                      All are supposed to be equal under the law. I would feel much better about it, if Obama and his family had to live within it. I am just saying.

                    • You what I would prefer, and it would be simpler, and not a giveaway to the insurance industry.
                      Right now, I cannot get insurance, at least not any that will cover my multitude of problems. Luckily, I can negotiate with promises of quick pay-offs; many are not in that situation.
                      I agree with your last statement, in addition, federal employees should not have better retirement plans than social security, or we should have their plan.

                  • republicans aren’t any better. But democrats don’t even seem to be active in any way or form, except for complaining about republicans, and gay marriage.

                    Democrats are visionless when it comes to America. Their vision is a vision of an American not taken into a new gilded age. But that is the entirety of their vision.

                    Democrats can’t push back against the cultural hegemony of the conservatives. they are too afraid of being labeled socialist. Democrats are on the run and fearful. Obama is a compromiser, his solutions are the same solutions of the conservatives of the 1990’s. Obamacare is crap, his economic policy is non-existent.

                    Conservatives on the other hand are in a circular firing squad. Both parties are going down and the people will turn to the alternative. Instead of having to decide between tax the rich more and tax the rich less. It will be. Why the hell are there any rich in the first place, why should the owners of the means of production decide the labor of the workers and profit from it at the same time.

                    Utah had a post against envy. but the new proletarian politics won’t be about envy. When you have no home, no savings, no future, it stops being envy and starts being survival instinct.

                • Without the intent to be flippant Greg, by your very definition of fascist, then the Freedom From Religion Foundation is overtly practicing fascism in purity against religious people. Let’s just quantify the criteria with some ambitious, and not so ambiguous examples we’ve all seen in the news …

                  1. oppression — christians are bullied in to removing the crosses from their mighty-mite football teams.
                  2. persecuting — bullish polices and threats of litigation whenever a person wishes to display a religious symbol on their place of business.
                  3. suppression of speech — forcing the sequester of religious people to pray in the same public building that non-religious people choose not to pray in.

                  Looking at the last, I have to ask, “Aren’t we all equal?” What harm comes to an agnost, or atheist if a portion of religious people choose to pray for example versus those who have been suppressed in to having to ignore their faith at the demand of another?

                  And why would they be stripped of that right of Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Peaceful Assembly, or Freedom of Expression?

                  What a slippery slope we go down when we start tossing allegations of facisim around.

                  • I hesitate to state the obvious, but it seems as if you and B are okay with the suppression of homosexuals. Remember the old poster that ends “and when they came for me, there was no one left to defend me.”?
                    Augger, those sound like freedom from religion issues, nothing else. But gimme some meat to chew on(i.e. links), it is no fun biting shadows..

                    • Melfamy,

                      The issue here is that you have accepted the defining down of deviancy. When there are medical records showing that the proper treatment can cure people of homosexuality, and they stay cured at a rate of 95% or better, then you are going to have a difficult time convincing me they are “born that way.”

                      It used to be called medical science — BEFORE political correctness started taking over our science, that is.

                    • Joe, you are talking about aversion therapy, and you are on the same page as the Italian fascisti

                      http://www.standardmedia.co.ke/?articleID=2000085874

                      Joe, for all you supposed learned dissertation on the subject, your ho-hum attitude towards homosexuals speaks louder than words. It is YOU who are following in fascist footsteps, not liberals.
                      I did not set out to play gotcha!, I am truly disappointed to hear your neanderthalian response to a human rights issue.

                    • OK, Greg, so you support equality for pedophiles. I get it. You also think rapists are “born that way” and should be given equal rights. I get it — I just don’t agree with you.

                      Now, Greg, before you start telling me those are different things, DON’T! I can take ANY argument I have heard homosexuals make, insert the word pedophile for homosexual and the arguments are the same. In fact, this movement has already started — just like I and others with a moral compass and common sense told you it would.

                      And as for rape: if the “victim” was wearing any sort of provocative clothing, she was “asking for it.” Just ask the Muslims who have ruled this to be a point of fact in several legal cases around the world. I guess this is another point of American bigotry that we are so far behind them in recognizing these things. Anyway, because rapists are “born that way,” and the woman was “asking for it,” you would be a bigot to advocate passing laws against the rapists.

                      And you didn’t play “gotcha,” you did EXACTLY as Utah said you Leftists do: you hung yourself. The sad parrt is, you don’t understand logic well enough to see how. That is why you do not understand the point Augger was trying to explain to you about religious exclusion.

                    • You can substitute the word miscegenation for homosexual, too, that does not change the fact that I am talking about adults engaging in mutually-agreed-upon behavior, not the fucking of children. Equating what I said with rapists, where choice is denied to one party is equally stupid.
                      And you are the one who likes to imply that Trayvon asked for it because he was wearing a hoodie. 180 180 180!!!

                    • You did miss my point, and that is likely my fault (work has been insane as of late). I am not necessarily ok with the suppression of any group of persons, or person … unless they are conducting themselves criminally, but that is a different story.

                      My point was that “suppression” has many different faces, and is generally defined by those that are the victim of it. As far as specific links, not many tonight my friend. 5 back to back 16 hour shifts have rendered me to posting generalities from memory, but each example is easily Googled, I promise. For example (and it really is just one of many):

                      http://www.texastribune.org/texas-education/public-education/battle-over-religion-schools-returns-east-texas/

                      Freedom “From” religion, can be reversed equally by those who practice it saying “Freedom FOR religion”. Each have a point … and specifically why we have constitutionally protected rights. Agree?

                    • agreed, so why the need to espouse religion at a football game in the first place? And what about Jewish students? Muslim and Hindu students?How about us atheists? Would it be okay for an atheist halfback to run through a banner reading GOD IS DEAD? or one reading GOD-FEARING MAN = SUPERSTITIOUS FOOL?
                      Hope things settle down at work, don’t burn out, America needs good doctors.

                    • Then why are YOU always the one advocating the govt. FORCE YOUR opinion on others and I am always advocating the govt. just leave people alone???

                    • What is needed is tolerance on many fronts. I allowed a visiting local Muslim physician toss his rug behind me while I was dictating to pray, and I do not practice Islam.

                      If a kid wants to run through a banner let him. If the other doesn’t, then don’t force him too.

                      We react to the opportunism of those with agendas who build a prison of their own design simply because they feel slighted when in fact, they likely really aren’t.

                      Sentience really isn’t difficult to practice.

                    • First, tolerance is a Christian moral ethic. In fact, that is where Western culture got the principle from: the Hebrews and Christians.

                      but more important, Melfmay and his leftist brothers have a one-way view of “tolerance,” and it generally reads something like “Whatever I want to do, you have to embrace, but whatever I think you shouldn’t do, the govt. should outlaw.”

                    • Not that I am discussing Greg specifically, but that’s pretty much my point, Joe.

                      Too often, we see leftist groups all too willing to stomp upon the rights of others for the benefit of their agenda. Then they wonder why people rail against them after having their way of life trampled upon.

                    • I went to Sharing Ramadan 2 weeks ago. Before we ate, the muslims prayed in front of the room. They were going to go to another building to pray, but there was a horrendous rainstorm in progress.
                      It was no big deal, listening to them chant and kneel, but I was impressed that they were willing to pray separately from us; if only xtians were that polite.

                    • I get the point you are attempting to make, but as with most … people have personal motives within a given religion (or absence of). There is the possibility that they had a different motive for wanting privacy.

                      Some folks in both religions believe their best prayers are prayed in private.

                      We’ll explore it tomorrow if you like. I’m going to turn in with a cheesy Si-Fy movie. Best damn sleep aid ever.

                      Good night. :)

  13. Pingback: Understanding the Progressive/Communist vs. Fascist Split in American Politics: Part I | The Oil in Your Lamp

Talk Amongst Yourselves:

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s