Anyhoo, lately we have been hearing more and more about our country ALREADY being a socialist/fascist country, but the examples of that socialism/fascism are never actually good examples.
I have a good example. "Progressive" taxation is indeed a socialist idea, even though it is contradictory of all things socialist because socialism is supposed to mean that everyone gives/takes equally from the pool. Keep in mind that those "people" that claim to be "liberals/progressives" are really just morons that choose to call themselves something other than MORONS.
I took sixteen hours yesterday creating a wonderful You Tube video to illustrate my point, but I promptly forgot what I did with it. I am CUH-RAZZZEEEE like that, so I'll just have to explain what I mean with WORDS.
Define socialism: a political theory advocating state ownership of industry or capital.
Define fascism: a political theory advocating total state regulation of industry or capital, while maintaining private "ownership" of property. (Ignore the fact that total regulation of "your" possessions kinda negates your "ownership." You are NOT free to do with your possessions as you wish, so fascism is LITERALLY just like socialism.)
I actually heard one idiot say that fascism and socialism are OPPOSITES. Whew, boy! It is terrifyingly skeery that someone could be that dumb, but such is always the case with people that use the synonym "LIBERAL" for the actual word, MORON.
Please note that I am in the dead-center of the political philosophy spectrum, with TRUE anarchy to the far right. The people who march with the socialist Democrat morons in their Parades of Imbecilic Douchebags and call themselves "Anarchists" are really just idiots, not TRUE anarchists. but, the PIDs are uproariously funny to watch.
Back to progressive taxation. You see, in the United States of America, we tax smart people much more than dumb people. There is a reason for that higher tax RATE (for smart people) in the imbecilic mind. Smart people make more money than dumb people and you cannot get blood from a turnip to give to a turnip, amiright?
However, there is a monumental problem with this technique of socialism, it continues to remove money from the economy, place it in the hands of dumb people and they promptly squander that money on stupid things, LIKE DOPE. That is what dumb people do, DUMB THINGS. The OPPOSITE of that is true as well, smart people do smart things with their money, which helps EVERYONE in the process. GO FIGGER!!!
So, to the true socialist, of which Obama is NOT one because he is to the LEFT of a socialist, they think that taking money from SMART people and giving it to DUMB people is a good thing. And they think this because they are STUPID. If you play that theory out to the end you get a startling discovery. Dumb people do dumb things with money and DESTROY wealth in the process. Yes, it IS possible to make something of value into something worthless and ANYONE can do that. However, it is tough to make something that is worthless into something that is valuable, only smart people can do that. (This explains Steve Jobs and the iPad.)
Then the ultimate thing occurs when socialism is followed. No one has any money! And guess what? That is exactly what TRUE socialists want. They want everyone to be poor.
Okay, I have rambled enough about this topic, consider it completely covered. Can we please just agree that liberals are dumb, therefore Obama is dumb, and get on with our destruction of smart people and all wealth on the planet?
Please take the time to comment or click one of the 'Share/Save' buttons.
17 comments:
Your vacations on the islands must be pretty freakin' wild. Some day I'm gonna have to party with you!
innominatus, I am Catholic, need I say more?
Have you ever heard of cultural capital?
Gov't can never destroy that (outside of exterminating whole groups of people), they can suppress it but when the pressure lets up....BOOM! It is like putting pressure on a spring, when the pressure lightens up those with cultural capital go to the top of your society (unless they are discriminated against). The Jews did it in Europe (not as much because of all the discrimination) and US (even with the Ivy League quotas), and the Chinese did it in Asia (outside of China of course).
How does cultural capital fit into your paradigm?
Roderick
The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism — ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. ”
— Franklin D. Roosevelt,
Stanley G. Payne's Fascism: Comparison and Definition (1980):
* the creation of an authoritarian state
* a regulated, state-integrated economic sector
* fascist symbolism
* anti-liberalism
* anti-communism
* anti-conservatism.
Umberto Eco (1995):
* "The Cult of Tradition", combining cultural syncretism with a rejection of modernism (often disguised as a rejection of capitalism).
* "The Cult of Action for Action's Sake", which dictates that action is of value in itself, and should be taken without intellectual reflection. This, says Eco, is connected with anti-intellectualism and irrationalism, and often manifests in attacks on modern culture and science.
* "Disagreement is Treason" - fascism devalues intellectual discourse and critical reasoning as barriers to action.
* "Fear of Difference", which fascism seeks to exploit and exacerbate, often in the form of racism or an appeal against foreigners and immigrants.
* "Appeal to a Frustrated Middle Class", fearing economic pressure from the demands and aspirations of lower social groups.
* "Obsession With a plot" and the hyping-up of an enemy threat. This often involves an appeal to xenophobia or the identification of an internal security threat. He cites Pat Robertson's book The New World Order as a prominent example of a plot obsession.
* "Pacifism is Trafficking With the Enemy" because "Life is Permanent Warfare" - there must always be an enemy to fight.
* "Contempt for the Weak" - although a fascist society is elitist, everybody in the society is educated to become a hero.
* "Selective Populism" - the People have a common will, which is not delegated but interpreted by a leader. This may involve doubt being cast upon a democratic institution, because "it no longer represents the Voice of the People".
* "Newspeak" - fascism employs and promotes an impoverished vocabulary in order to limit critical reasoning.
1935 Communist International:
“Fascism in power is the open, terroristic dictatorship of the most reactionary, the most chauvinistic, the most imperialistic elements of finance capitalism.”
------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism
------------
Umberto Eco's definition is important here. Which "wing" of politics most typifies his description?
OSO said:
"Umberto Eco's definition is important here. Which "wing" of politics most typifies his description?"
Umberto Eco (1995):
* "The Cult of Tradition", combining cultural syncretism with a rejection of modernism (often disguised as a rejection of capitalism).
-Which side of the political isle is actively rejecting capitalism? THE LEFT
* "The Cult of Action for Action's Sake", which dictates that action is of value in itself, and should be taken without intellectual reflection. This, says Eco, is connected with anti-intellectualism and irrationalism, and often manifests in attacks on modern culture and science.
-Action for Action's sake is the definition of the Big Government Left. ZOMG!! We just had a financial meltdown, the government has to do something about it! ZOMG!!! After millions of years on this planet, people are still getting sick, the government has to do something about it! ZOMG!!! After millions of years of human evolution there are still poor people! The government has to do something about it!
And as for anti-intellectualism, I have one word for you, Algore.
* "Disagreement is Treason" - fascism devalues intellectual discourse and critical reasoning as barriers to action.
-I'm pretty sure that it was everyone's favorite NYT columnist that said Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin's words were 'flirting with sedition'.
* "Fear of Difference", which fascism seeks to exploit and exacerbate, often in the form of racism or an appeal against foreigners and immigrants.
-Immigration reform has nothing to do with racism and everything to do with respect for the law. Get it through your thick moronic leftist skulls.
* "Appeal to a Frustrated Middle Class", fearing economic pressure from the demands and aspirations of lower social groups.
-It is leftist social programs including the piss-poor public school system and welfare which keep the poor from advancing themselves. There by preventing 'economic pressure from the lower social groups'.
* "Obsession With a plot" and the hyping-up of an enemy threat. This often involves an appeal to xenophobia or the identification of an internal security threat. He cites Pat Robertson's book The New World Order as a prominent example of a plot obsession.
-I've never met a lefty who didn't think there was some sort of conspiracy going on... 9/11 Truthers, Trig Palin Birthers, War For Oil'ers, Israelis stealing Palestinian home land'ers... etc.
* "Pacifism is Trafficking With the Enemy" because "Life is Permanent Warfare" - there must always be an enemy to fight.
-There is a huge difference between having a strong national defense force and being prepared for battle and 'life is permanent warfare.' But then again, you're a lefty and wouldn't get that.
* "Contempt for the Weak" - although a fascist society is elitist, everybody in the society is educated to become a hero.
-Contempt for the weak, you mean like upholding social programs which doom it's inhabitants to repeat the cycle and never better themselves such as welfare?
* "Selective Populism" - the People have a common will, which is not delegated but interpreted by a leader. This may involve doubt being cast upon a democratic institution, because "it no longer represents the Voice of the People".
Selective Populism like the words that Barack Obama used to get himself elected? 'We are the one's we've been waiting for'
* "Newspeak" - fascism employs and promotes an impoverished vocabulary in order to limit critical reasoning.
-Which side of the political isle defends the failing public school system and resists any attempts to reform it? Hmm, can't place my finger on it
One more example of 'Disagreement (with a lefty) is Treason'.
OSO, I think you hit the nail on the head with your first quote from FDR.
"...any other controlling private power. ”
We have come to that place in America. Of course, you don't live here, so you don't know...but I'm tired of beating that dead horse.
There is a "controlling power" that has come to "own" government. And, it is a "group." Even though it is a tiny "group," it can manipulate the masses. It can convince them that the tiny little group really, really, REALLY has their best interests at heart. And, that if they will vote for those political candidates that they put forth...or stuff ballot boxes for them...or intimidate the BAD people from voting against them...
Well, everything will be peachy-keen, and they'll all be drinkin' that free bubble-up, and eatin' that rainbow stew! Yet, their neighborhoods deteriorate...their schools become football fields for gang wars...their children face an EVEN WORSE future than they did. But, it's all "peachy-keen," because there is HOPE if they vote for the HOPE guy (guys).
I'm not letting Republicans off the hook here. They have often squandered opportunities to turn this Titanic around, and have been complicit with VERY bad policy decisions.
But the truth is, the great bulk of every policy initiative that leads to our eventual national destruction has been put forth by Democrats.
And, when WE are eventually "toothless," Australia (and the rest of the world for that matter) will be at the mercy of REAL totalitarians, wondering why America isn't coming to help. It will be because we can not.
You know what OSO? You got me! Again. I just wasted about three minutes trying to explain what life is REALLY LIKE here in America to someone that doesn't live here.
But, I won't beat that dead horse again...
Roderick, culture really doesn't have anything to do with what I believe. Individualists exist in any culture, despite all attempts, of all cultures, to derail individualism.
Anon, um, thanks. Liberals always do the best job at proving my points.
OSO, you beclowned yourself with the quote from FDR.
Thanks, Classicaliberal, you made my rebuttal unneeded, whippersnapper.
Andy, you know what we are up against, how do we convince anti-intellectuals to try to learn something?
We don't, TD. We waste our breath with hardened anti-intellectuals...just like I did with OSO.
We catch them when they are young enough to still be curious about FACTS. After they have been indoctrinated, and mind numbed...or a ward of the State, and totally dependent, it's hopeless.
Andy, we had a lot of converts when the Muslims attacked. So, we know that liberal minds can be changed. The only problem is that a bunch of folks had to die for it to happen.
True! It was an eye-opener for many thousands, and a coffin closer for other thousands.
TD, I shudder to think that it takes true carnage to open eyes to truth. But, maybe it does. Maybe OSO's big eyeball will finally get the cataract surgery when Abdul is at his door demanding adherence to the Quaran, or else...
And, there is no America left to come save him...
Like I said...beating a dead horse.
Please keep in mind, Andy, beating a dead horse is good cardio, though.
Paul,
Wait a second, how can one have or attain wealth without culture?
Self-discipline, delayed gratification, spend less than you earn, invest liquid capital in non-deprecriating assets,....
Isn't culture paramount to developing industry and capital? Compare Germany to Argentina, who is more industrious and has more capital represented by their markets? Doesn't culture play a role here?
Individualism has to be based on something, a individual cannot exist in a cultural vacuum. Your culture (southern US Scottish-Irish) probably has a lot to do with your beliefs. Native Americans didn't have a concept of private property until the European settlers showed up. So if you were born 3k years ago in the Souix nation can you own a piece of property? How could you buy it, without any of the required infrastructure like rule of law, finance, a culture that understands what a fence represents, etc...?
I can't see how culture cannot matter.
Roderick
Sorry about the double negative at the end.
Roderick
How can you have or attain wealth without culture?
Jest stopped by to post my "amens", and this is a question?
It's a tip-toe (attempted) around the question of property, of course. Even the Labour Theory of Value guys--all Leftists--would have a hard time swallowing a premise that attempts to define "property" as unimportant due to an attempt to narrowly define property as a mere cultural relic. The real world is not a frat party, where the sentiment of "Hey, let's take Cochise's horse, he don't care!" wouldn't pass muster if you were one of the noble, indigenous aborigines of Roderick's musings. I would suggest that any fellow callous enough to take Cochise's horse without permission would be subject to a near-terminal upbraiding. (Where do they dream up these fantasies?)
Go ahead and cite The Commons, and how "really, none of us ever owns anything." Serially. Go 'head. Ownership of property is not an abstraction. Just come over to the house and take something. You'll find out. (Oh, and "all property is theft" doesn't pass intellectual muster, either.)
.
Roderick, if we took off for grammar mistakes, I would be sitting in the corner with a damned dunce hat on. <--sentence ended in a preposition.
But, as OregonGuy stated in a way, without personal property, there is no freedom. Just as my ancestors did not practice individualism, and instead chose communal living, there was NO FREEDOM. Every "person" was inextricably tied to the success or failure of the group.
The fun part about individual freedom for me is that I get to pick and choose with whom I deal. I can get my meth from a Chinese dude, my weed from an Irishman, and my prescription drugs from a black guy IF I choose to.
The cultural things are even MORE unimportant. If an Iranian decides to ignore his cultural upbringing of beating his wife, then chances are better that I will decide to deal with him because as an individualist, I recognize the inherent equality of the sexes because everyone is an idividual. (No, NOT gender, because I have no clue what that even means.)
Paul,
Wait a second, how can one have or attain wealth without culture?
Self-discipline, delayed gratification, spend less than you earn, invest liquid capital in non-deprecriating assets,....
Isn't culture paramount to developing industry and capital? Compare Germany to Argentina, who is more industrious and has more capital represented by their markets? Doesn't culture play a role here?
Individualism has to be based on something, a individual cannot exist in a cultural vacuum. Your culture (southern US Scottish-Irish) probably has a lot to do with your beliefs. Native Americans didn't have a concept of private property until the European settlers showed up. So if you were born 3k years ago in the Souix nation can you own a piece of property? How could you buy it, without any of the required infrastructure like rule of law, finance, a culture that understands what a fence represents, etc...?
I can't see how culture cannot matter.
Roderick
Post a Comment