Liberalism equals Fascism in America

from JoeUser Forums

I could not understand why liberals did not like the term liberal any more, I did a little research and found out why and was shocked to find out that what modern day liberals used to call themselves were conservatives and that conservatives were called liberals. Lincoln was a liberal republican. The conservative movement wanted to keep slavery and all the draconian laws that went with them.

 

Liberals are crafty if not smart, they in the 1950’s started calling themselves liberals in order to get the black vote. These same self described liberals used dogs and fire hoses and clubs to stop the voters registration movement, they lynched black leaders and did was we call today terrorism in order to maintain power and the status quo. If you bother to do your homework you will notice that all the political leaders that wanted to keep the status quo in the south were democrats. But democrats got such a bad name for their antics they took the term liberal democrat to show that there was a difference.

 

Liberalism; the philosophy that has as its aim the development of individual freedom which describes the Republican Party not the democrat party.

 

Often opposed to liberalism is the doctrine of conservatism in politics, the desire to maintain, or conserve, the existing order. Conservatives value the wisdom of the past and are generally opposed to widespread reform. This describes the democrat party perfectly.

 

After the conservatives ran the name into the dirt they stole the term liberal as I said and called republicans conservative and proceeded to hang on the republican party all the crap the conservatives did in the 50’s and 60’s Mr. William F. Buckley re-invented the conservative movement within the republican party and the neo liberals went on to tarnish the good name of liberalism as they did conservatism.

Then something happened in the democrat party, the infusion of socialism, something that is completely un-American, and over the next 40 years liberals tried to force socialism upon America. This has not worked so well so now liberals are trying something old and forgotten called fascism.

 

Fascism is a totalitarian philosophy of government that glorifies the state and nation and assigns to the state control over every aspect of national life. This describes the liberal democrats of Hillary Clinton’s generation. Fascism, especially in its early stages, is obliged to be antitheoretical and frankly opportunistic in order to appeal to many diverse groups. Nevertheless, a few key concepts are basic to it. First and most important is the glorification of the state and the total subordination of the individual to it. The state is defined as an organic whole into which individuals must be absorbed for their own benefit as well as the states. This "total state" is absolute in its methods and unlimited by law in its control and direction of its citizens.

 

In there mind everything stems from the state to the citizens. Mrs. Clinton has stated many times publicly that when she is elected president she will force big business to do what is right, she will force the citizens to do what is best for them in her eyes. This is not liberalism so she is correct to say she is not a liberal. We are now witnessing the next evolution of the democrat party, the change from liberalism to fascism. Mrs. Clinton does not wish to just run the government she wants to control our lives. I know this may sound like hyperbole and I wish it was but the facts are the facts. If we choose not to have health care she plans to mandate that all people must pay into the government for health care. The state will raise our children because it takes a village to raise a child and stupid parents might teach the wrong thing so the state will do that for us. The state will decide where we will work and what job to work at.

 

Look at her speeches and you will see this is her aim, I did not make up any of this I read her speeches and realized the connection between what she said and what three other people in history said that sound the same, Benito Mussolini, Adolf Hitler who based the National Socialist German Workers' party off of his hero at the time Mussolini, Francisco Franco of Spain. Spain is a fascist government but not so much since Franco died in 1975 and this is frightening to me.

 

Don’t get me wrong I am not saying that Senator Clinton is the next Hitler or Francisco Franco or that she is only one pushing this agenda if she fails to get elected there will be others to take her place in the next election she is just the first of many and the democrat party has no idea what is coming down the line. What I am saying is that if we allow this march to fascism to continue America as we know it will cease to exist in the very near future.

11,727 views 32 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
WOW! You want to start the fire! ;)

But on the serious side, what you just described is Communism as well. The state being all. So I am curious. Are they just 2 sides of the same coin? What separates them, both in practice and in theory? (I think I know the latter, but the former seems to be blurred).
Reply #2 from Stardock Forums Top

It's simple... they want us to think for ourselves... unless of course, we don't think like they do, then we need to be "re-educated'.

WindowBlinds - Free yourself of the default settings, customize your desktop.
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
WOW! You want to start the fire!
End of quote


Who, me?  :SURPRISED: 

But on the serious side, what you just described is Communism as well. The state being all.
End of quote


I thought so at first but there is a difference, communism always held that the masses had the power, one man one vote, and the communist party or leadership served the people. People freely giving what they have to people that have a need.

Fascism holds that the state and its leaders are all important and they decide what is best for the people. You serve where and when the state needs you and if you don’t like it your choice is to obey or die.

What Senator Clinton said in her speeches was if there was a shortage of doctors in an area the state will pick doctors from another area and send them. If they refuse to go then they lose the right to practice medicine. She wants to force us to pay for medical care and if we don’t want to then we will be fined the cost and forced into the system. Her rationale is it is the only way to make it fair for everyone.

Soviet style communism was more fascist than communist which is why you see them as two sided of the same coin. When I was in the Soviet Union in 1975, when the police said stop and you ran they chased you and beat the snot out of you for running then arrested you. When I lived in Spain in 1979, a fascist nation, when the police said stop you stopped or they shot you dead in the streets. Every policeman was armed with a submachine gun to guarantee law and order on the streets and the police were sole judge jury and executioner if you failed to obey them. In communism they had elections and the people were expected to vote giving the pretence of choice and power. With fascism you have a leader who is installed for life and his word is law. Mussolini was the first true fascist and the first time the term was used. Hitler admired Mussolini so much he wrote him and asked for an autographed picture. Mussolini looked at the letter and refused. When Hitler took power he tried to emulate Mussolini’s fascist state but he did it slowly because the people did to want such a thing. General Franco took over Spain with the help of WWII and successfully held power until his death, then they started having elections and after 33 years of reforms the cops will now chase you if they feel like it or shoot you dead in the streets if they don’t. Differences may be subtle but they are there.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
If you move far enough in either direction from the center, you wind up in the same place: at something resembling fascism. The opposite of conservative is not liberal -- it’s radical, and the right wing equivalent of liberal is neo-conservative.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
I thought so at first but there is a difference, communism always held that the masses had the power, one man one vote, and the communist party or leadership served the people. People freely giving what they have to people that have a need.
End of quote


So in theory, it is the one, versus the many. in practice, it is always the one. Animal Farm.
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
So in theory, it is the one, versus the many. in practice, it is always the one. Animal Farm.
End of quote


Right, at least with communism it almost looked like the people had a choice.

If you move far enough in either direction from the center, you wind up in the same place: at something resembling fascism. The opposite of conservative is not liberal -- it’s radical, and the right wing equivalent of liberal is neo-conservative.
End of quote


This is very true if you are an idiot. Neo-conservatism has nothing to do with being radical. A neo-con is one that used to be a liberal and has grown up, switched sides, becoming a traitor to the one true religion of ignorance. I don't write this as an insult to liberals it is what it is. when there is a problem there are three ways to deal with the problem, ignore it, try the liberal way of doing things which has never worked, and the right way which is the conservative way. Welfare is a case on point. The liberal mind set was to recruit people into the welfare system because poor people are not equiped to survive without it. the conservative way was to say get a job if you can if you can't we will help you. 800 thousand people off welfare later not a single person taken off the system fell through the cracks. It took less than ten years after fifty years of telling people that they were too stupid to make a living on their own. Wow what a difference when we allow people to reach thier full potential.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
Neo-conservatism has nothing to do with being radical. A neo-con is one that used to be a liberal and has grown up, switched sides, becoming a traitor to the one true religion of ignorance.
End of quote

I don't think Bush has ever been a liberal but he's the head neocon right now. Neocon policies are radical: agressive forign policies without prudent planning or execution, out of control spending with massive debt... those are radical policies.


Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
I don't think Bush has ever been a liberal but he's the head neocon right now. Neocon policies are radical: agressive forign policies without prudent planning or execution, out of control spending with massive debt... those are radical policies.
End of quote


This is incorrect on several levels. First Mr. Bush is a republican not a conservative so he can’t be a neo-con he as never been thought of as a conservative by conservatives. Yes, to get elected he had to bow down to conservatives to get their votes but he has not done anything other than tax cuts that comes close to what conservatism requires or is looking for to be counted as one of us.

Second, the left calls the president a neo con as an epithet not as an actual description of the man. I could go on but why bother, you don’t know, and if what I wrote does not reach you very little else will.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
All righty then.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
Mrs. Clinton has stated many times publicly that when she is elected president she will force big business to do what is right, she will force the citizens to do what is best for them in her eyes.
End of quote


But it's okay for corporations to dictate what is right for the consumers. Obama will have a hell of a time getting you to cross the aisle. ;) 
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
But it's okay for corporations to dictate what is right for the consumers
End of quote


How do they do that?
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
wonderful article.. well thought out and most of all factual!
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
But it's okay for corporations to dictate what is right for the consumers.
End of quote


Sorry, but if you understood the corporate world you would know that business does not make money (profit) by making things that people don’t want. People dictate what the corporations do not the other way around. Maybe I misunderstand what you wrote if I am wrong please clarify.

Obama will have a hell of a time getting you to cross the aisle.
End of quote


Senator Obama has a better chance in walking through hell in gasoline soaked underwear than me crossing the isle and voting for him.

wonderful article.. well thought out and most of all factual!
End of quote


Thank you for your kind words.
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
Maybe I misunderstand what you wrote if I am wrong please clarify.
End of quote


I simply meant that there is a hierarchy in corporations that indeed dictate by controlling demand and supply. CEOs, surely don't give a damn for their shareholders who are constantly shortchanged in favor of their outrageous salaries and bonuses.
Just ask subprime borrowers who are losing their homes, or parents who have bought unsafe toys from China toys'r us.
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
I simply meant that there is a hierarchy in corporations that indeed dictate by controlling demand and supply.
End of quote


To some small extent this is true you don’t want to have a glut of your product because the price will drop in order to maintain sales. The proper balance is required in order to keep your workforce productive and money rolling in. when there is an imbalance is where there is trouble. Too few of a product will cause prices to go up, reducing demand and sales.

CEOs, surely don't give a damn for their shareholders who are constantly shortchanged in favor of their outrageous salaries and bonuses.
End of quote


This is not the case most CEO’s must avoid what you wrote because they are paid the bulk of their salary in stock making them shareholders as well. At one time it might have been the case but not in the last 22 years. If they short change the shareholder then they short change themselves. That is the purpose of paying them in stock options, if they do a good job the stock is worth more than they were paid and if the company fails the stock is worthless and the CEO loses millions.

Just ask subprime borrowers who are losing their homes,
End of quote


This has nothing to do with the first part of your statement or the fix those people are in. I sell real estate the borrowers did it to themselves. In my state I lose my license if I sell a person property they can’t afford. They knew they could not afford the property but they took a chance. They gambled that the value would continue to rise when history shows it won’t do that forever. New York in the 70’s Texas in the 80’s Miami Florida in the 80’s and most of the southern states in 2005. Each time it happens companies get the blame when it is the person who borrowed the money to buy the house is at fault. The subprime loan was designed to help people ease into a home while they cleared their debts so they could afford the mortgage. Instead of clearing their debts they took on more debt to go along with a house they could not afford. If they cleared their credit card debts and had a little discipline they would have been fine. They did not and they are being put out on the streets in record numbers. All of this is explained to them before they take the loan but they did not pay attention or chose to ignore the advice given them. How is that any companies fault? By law it is printed in big bold letters what they are getting into, it is part of there mortgage package. I had a coworker tell me he was buying a house just before the bubble burst. He was getting a 125 loan meaning he was buying a house for 125% of the value of the house with a thousand dollars down at 2% teaser rate. That is fine for the length of the teaser which would be three years. At the end of the time the mortgage would go up to 6% at the time that was the going rate for his credit rating. What was he going to do with this extra money he got? Remember he got a loan for 125% which means he gets to pocket 25%. He was going to take his wife on a romantic cruise and buy two new cars. This is what most people do so they now have two car payments of gas guzzling cars, a mortgage payment, and all the credit card debt they were supposed to pay off with that money. Three years later he has not saved a dime, the mortgage payment went up by 2% cause by law in my state you can’t raise the rate more than 2% at a time, so now he is paying 4% interest the first half of the year and another 2% the second half of the year. Bringing him up to 6% that now with pay raises he could almost afford if he did not have the two car payments, the price of gas is going up, his credit card bills are killing him, and oh yeah, he has an adjustable rate loan and the prime went up another percent the first half of the next year. He falls behind on his payments and loses everything in another 6 months. Did the lender do wrong? Nope, the borrower did and you feel sorry for him and want to blame corporate America for his failure to be responsible.

or parents who have bought unsafe toys from China toys'r us.
End of quote


Ok, China screwed us! It is China’s fault. They were given exacting requirements but because they chose not to follow them we end up with toys that are defective. China has to pay that money back. The company makes restitution and we go on.
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
I simply meant that there is a hierarchy in corporations that indeed dictate by controlling demand and supply. CEOs, surely don't give a damn for their shareholders who are constantly shortchanged in favor of their outrageous salaries and bonuses.
Just ask subprime borrowers who are losing their homes, or parents who have bought unsafe toys from China toys'r us.
End of quote


Abuses happen. It is a fact that we are human, and suffer from the 7 deadly sins (not all of us and not all at once). But you are sadly mistaken to believe that is how the world turns. We do see examples of what you speak. WorldNet, Enron, etc. Get the picture?

CEOs do not dictate their salary. They are bid for, and the market decides (yes, even at that nosebleed height, there is supply and demand market). Strike one.

Corporations do not dictate demand. Remember the edsel? They can plan, hope and project. But ultimately the customer decides.

SubPrime borrowers WANTED homes (a strange concept for communist and other left leaning individuals, but yes, even marginal borrowers want to own a home). No one forced them to sign on the dotted line. They were presented an opportunity. And they decided it was worth the risk.

How worth it? Well, we hear about he sub prime meltdown, and how everything is going to hell in a hand basket. Yet the real truth is that well over 98% of the loans are solid and good! SO why the panic? When you are a corporation, working on a 1-5% profit margin, and your profit just got eaten up with bad loan write offs, you tank. SO the lenders (who are the losers here, not the vast majority of borrowers) have to dig into cash reserves. Some of the late starters did not have that (and then some of the high flyers burned all of theirs on - get this - RISKY investments. I think Risk is defined as part of investment, but I may be mistaken.

And the unsafe toys? Again, someone decided to cut corners, and was found out. And the company the doofus worked for? took a BIG hit! As it should be (that is their penalty for not ensuring Q&A).

You really should read my Econ 101 blog. And take a course at your local CC in Econ. It helps explain that man is not by nature evil and must therefore be jailed to prevent him from doing harm.
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
How worth it? Well, we hear about he sub prime meltdown, and how everything is going to hell in a hand basket. Yet the real truth is that well over 98% of the loans are solid and good! SO why the panic?
End of quote


Becaue it makes people feel good to see others fail and it sells papers. It misdirects the public into thinking that the economy is going into the tank when it is not, causing it to go into the tank.
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
Liberls are fascists.... by the same logic, neo-cons are nazi's since they come from Prescott Bush's Nazi vision (remember they tried to pull a coup on Roosevelt to stop the new deal).

I am a liberal green. I am not typical, in that I am a military intelligence major from a historic military family. I think the liberal idea of one world govenment is where we cross paths, and I do not like bloodless liberals. However, what it is going to take to defeat al queda, I hate to say it, is a draft. There is the arguement that drafted armies fight like the notoriously rebellious troops in nam. This belies what happened during ww 2. People just don't seem to take these schools teaching kill all the infidels seriously. They would slit my throat in a second over the first book I wrote, not to mention I had a radio show last year... very liberal, but our biggest fans were soldiers. The thing I like about the liberal plan to end the war is that the soldiers are suffering too much. War is not condusive to mental health. This is why a draft is needed. And america needs a mission, again, besides trying to make sure we get the last drop of oil on the planet; I suggest alternatives to the draft, but mostly like in israel. Though I don't think they should let their fundamentalist off from duty. I am not jewish by the way, and love the palastines, the iranians... I have known fine men from most countries on this planet.

I am hoping a spiritual revival will happen. Some religion that does not exclude the other, you know? And does not use cults. I also majorede in anthro in cults, and believe me, the intelligence community loves to use them.

I will stop back by and hope for some discussion.


Have a great day....
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
Liberls are fascists.... by the same logic, neo-cons are nazi's since they come from Prescott Bush's Nazi vision (remember they tried to pull a coup on Roosevelt to stop the new deal).
End of quote


Stop being an ass and read the article. YOur statement shows a childish response to a well thought out blog, that you can disagree with - if you actually read it.
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
Liberls are fascists.... by the same logic, neo-cons are nazi's since they come from Prescott Bush's Nazi vision (remember they tried to pull a coup on Roosevelt to stop the new deal).
End of quote


You just shot all credibility out the window with that statement. Neo-con is a racist term that was used to describe Jews that voted republican. Being a Jew I learned this back in the 1960’s if you studied history you would know that but if you listen to propaganda as it seems is where you get your knowledge you will always be mistaken. Let us not forget it was the Kennedy klan that supported Hitler against Roosevelt. Need another history lesson?

I am a liberal green. I am not typical, in that I am a military intelligence major from a historic military family.
End of quote


What about that makes you atypical?

However, what it is going to take to defeat al queda, I hate to say it, is a draft.
End of quote


Why do you come up with that silly idea? Sorry I am having a very difficult time taking you seriously. I mean no disrespect as per sub-chapter 10 article 88 of the UCMJ.

The thing I like about the liberal plan to end the war is that the soldiers are suffering too much. War is not condusive to mental health.
End of quote


We would not want the soldiers to suffer when they can sit on post and watch the rest of the citizens get murdered on TV. Sorry you are not serious, I have serious doubts you are in the military but if you are then you must be in the army because there are a lot of officers that think like you do in the army.

I am hoping a spiritual revival will happen. Some religion that does not exclude the other, you know? And does not use cults. I also majorede in anthro in cults, and believe me, the intelligence community loves to use them.
End of quote


Ok, Dr. Guy, is this a joke, you are playing a joke on me right? You got someone to write this mess just to twist my tail. Very funny, good one.
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
Ok, Dr. Guy, is this a joke, you are playing a joke on me right? You got someone to write this mess just to twist my tail. Very funny, good one.
End of quote


If it is, it is on all of us. This guy has done more than Super LIberal ever dreamed of! :LOL:
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
Are you sure he was not a put up job?

My goodness what garbage. Everyone knows that you only do a draft when it is a grave national emergency, to this point we are sending in our second and third string troops to play with them just to keep it challenging. What do we need with a draft when recruitment is up, reenlistment is up and we are winning?
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
Fascism holds that the state and its leaders are all important and they decide what is best for the people. You serve where and when the state needs you and if you don’t like it your choice is to obey or die.
End of quote


Sounds good. I might be a non non-facist.
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
Sounds good. I might be a non non-facist.
End of quote


Cute! And this would mean what?
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
Sounds good. I might be a non non-facist.Cute! And this would mean what?
End of quote


What are you trying to say!? Are you a facist?

:)