The Left Goes Full Fascist, As Krauthammer Reveals

[Spectre]

The day might well come when, to protect our actual physical safety, progressivism will have to be banned just as Nazism has been banned in Germany. The reason is that the progressive left has dropped its pleasant mask and shown us the rotting, hideous skull that always lay beneath it.

They are moving now to suppress, even by using police powers, all opposition to and dissent from their orthodoxies.

Charles Krauthammer explains in his own way how and why this is happening. In my own way--which parallels his--is that it is happening because a] progressivism has ALWAYS been fascist, and b] they are losing on every front on the merits, from global warming to--especially--the comprehensive and calamitous FAILURE of the most leftist administration in American history, Obama's, and when you lose on the merits, all that's left to you is intimidation and slander.

This is FAR worse than McCarthyism. This is naked FASCISM.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-thought-police-on-patrol/2014/04/10/2608a8b2-c0df-11e3-b195-dd0c1174052c_print.html

Highlight:

Like the CEO of Mozilla who resigned under pressure (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/04/04/mozilla-exec-out-of-job-for-gay-rights-intolerance-some-think-thats-intolerant/) just 10 days into his job (http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304819004579485681587615234?mg=ren o64-wsj) when it was disclosed that six years earlier he had donated to California’s Proposition 8, which defined marriage as between a man and a woman (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/supreme-court-rules-gay-marriage-cases/story?id=19492896).


But why stop with Brendan Eich, the victim of this high-tech lynching? Prop 8 passed by half a million votes (http://www.latimes.com/local/la-2008election-california-results,0,5277783.htmlstory#axzz2yQ6FXHPx). Six million Californians joined Eich in the crime of “privileging” traditional marriage. So did Barack Obama. (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/may/11/barack-obama/president-barack-obamas-shift-gay-marriage/) In that same year, he declared that his Christian beliefs made him oppose gay marriage.


Yet under the new dispensation, this is outright bigotry. By that logic, the man whom the left so ecstatically carried to the White House in 2008 was equally a bigot.


The whole thing is so stupid as to be unworthy of exegesis. There is no logic. What’s at play is sheer ideological prejudice — and the enforcement of the new totalitarian norm that declares, unilaterally, certain issues to be closed.


Closed to debate. Open only to intimidated acquiescence.


To this magic circle of forced conformity, the left would like to add certain other policies, resistance to which is deemed a “war on women.” (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/republicans-suffer-among-female-voters/2012/03/08/gIQANzfM1R_story.html) It’s a colorful synonym for sexism. Leveling the charge is a crude way to cut off debate.


Thus, to oppose late-term abortion is to make war on women’s “reproductive health.” Similarly, to question Obamacare’s mandate of free contraception for all.

[Peter1469]

Absolutely correct. The American progressive movement is an off-shoot of European fascism.

[Matty]

This is all very easy to do in the absence of a free press! That is why the left has such a visceral hatred for Fox News! This global warming bull sheets is purely political. The plan is to tax the crap out of western civilization and redistribute the wealth to Africa!

[Spectre]

Absolutely correct. The American progressive movement is an off-shoot of European fascism.

Especially considering that the economic set-up this administration is moving towards is CLASSIC Italian fascism in its compulsion of both big business and labour to knuckle under the overall 'guidance' of the state. Sheer, unadulterated Mussolini!

[kilgram]

Well, seriously?

Are you using as example the case of Mozilla? It is easy to explain.

Do you know what kind of organization is Mozilla? Well, I can explain it to you. Do you know something about free software? Well, in summary it is an organization that forms part in a movement for the freedom. The freedom in software, but freedom after all.

It is contradictory for an organization of this kind having someone that goes against the freedom, that votes against it who opposses to it. If you are an organization for the freedom, it is obvious that the head of the organization must give example of this.

And obviously, it is normal that if Republican wage a war against woman, it is contraception, abortion... limiting their freedom to decide or choice, they are not going to vote a party that go against their interests.

However, in other way, is stupid going back to Democrats. But well, it is what happens in a bipartidist system.

[kilgram]

This is all very easy to do in the absence of a free press! That is why the left has such a visceral hatred for Fox News! This global warming bull sheets is purely political. The plan is to tax the crap out of western civilization and redistribute the wealth to Africa!
Well, Western civilization is already redistributing all the wealth of Africa to themselves. But hey, that Africa trying to recover what is of theirs is absolutely wrong. They should continue being poors and miserable, that for reason God did them.

[Peter1469]

Especially considering that the economic set-up this administration is moving towards is CLASSIC Italian fascism in its compulsion of both big business and labour to knuckle under the overall 'guidance' of the state. Sheer, unadulterated Mussolini! Right. Fascism is not corporatism. Everything with the state, nothing outside of the state.

[Spectre]

Well, Western civilization is already redistributing all the wealth of Africa to themselves. But hey, that Africa trying to recover what is of theirs is absolutely wrong. They should continue being poors and miserable, that for reason God did them.

You can give them all the money in the WORLD, and in a few years they will be as poor as they've always been and the ones who had their money taken away from them would be rich again.

It's not cash that makes you rich, or at least KEEPS you rich: it's the ability to master modern capitalism and having a stable and efficient society. Unless Africa acquires these things, all the money in the world will NOT really help them.

Africans need to become more CHINESE.

[Peter1469]

Well, Western civilization is already redistributing all the wealth of Africa to themselves. But hey, that Africa trying to recover what is of theirs is absolutely wrong. They should continue being poors and miserable, that for reason God did them.

Africa will remain poor so long as it clings to its tribalism. But they do have massive geographic challenges to breaking out of tribalism.

[Alyosha]

Well, seriously?

Are you using as example the case of Mozilla? It is easy to explain.

Do you know what kind of organization is Mozilla? Well, I can explain it to you. Do you know something about free software? Well, in summary it is an organization that forms part in a movement for the freedom. The freedom in software, but freedom after all.

It is contradictory for an organization of this kind having someone that goes against the freedom, that votes against it who opposses to it. If you are an organization for the freedom, it is obvious that the head of the organization must give example of this.

And obviously, it is normal that if Republican wage a war against woman, it is contraception, abortion... limiting their freedom to decide or choice, they are not going to vote a party that go against their interests.

However, in other way, is stupid going back to Democrats. But well, it is what happens in a bipartidist system.

Mozilla is for profit now.

[Spectre]

Right. Fascism is not corporatism. Everything with the state, nothing outside of the state.

'Corporatism' in Fascist theory doesn't mean what modern leftists mean when they use the word 'corporatism' at ALL.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism#Fascist_corporatism

[kilgram]

Africa will remain poor so long as it clings to its tribalism. But they do have massive geographic challenges to breaking out of tribalism.

Africa will remain poor until they can exploit their own resources.

Enviado desde mi MT15i usando Tapatalk 2

[Matty]

Well, Western civilization is already redistributing all the wealth of Africa to themselves. But hey, that Africa trying to recover what is of theirs is absolutely wrong. They should continue being poors and miserable, that for reason God did them.
Recover what exactly?

[Refugee]

You're starting to see the rise of progressivism, which includes corporatism and liberal fascism. Progressivism is simply a rule by the elite, big business and bankers; democracy is a system that allows you to vote for it and the regulations and dumbing down which you now see around you is designed to make you not only accept it, but want it. You might not agree, but your children will understand. :smiley:

[Peter1469]

Africa will remain poor until they can exploit their own resources.

Enviado desde mi MT15i usando Tapatalk 2

And they haven't been able to do that on their own. Geography as I said above.

Many wonder how the United States became a super power. Geography. The US is protected to the east and west by oceans (and the US is a naval power as opposed to a land power). And to its north and south are benevolent and weak powers. Plus it has an unsurpassed navigable waterway system to connect it to itself and the world cheaply (movement of trade via water is the cheapest option). If North America was covered in jungle and desert like Africa, there would be no United States. It would be impossible.

[Refugee]

And they haven't been able to do that on their own. Geography as I said above.

Many wonder how the United States became a super power. Geography. The US is protected to the east and west by oceans (and the US is a naval power as opposed to a land power). And to its north and south are benevolent and weak powers. Plus it has an unsurpassed navigable waterway system to connect it to itself and the world cheaply (movement of trade via water is the cheapest option). If North America was covered in jungle and desert like Africa, there would be no United States. It would be impossible.

And due to the English criminal classes which we deported. Australia is the same, we just produce a better class of criminal. :laugh:

[Peter1469]

And due to the English criminal classes which we deported. Australia is the same, we just produce a better class of criminal. :laugh:

I am ready to debate that in the pub of your choice. Factor in flight time. :wink:

[Mister D]

Well, Western civilization is already redistributing all the wealth of Africa to themselves. But hey, that Africa trying to recover what is of theirs is absolutely wrong. They should continue being poors and miserable, that for reason God did them.

What exactly is theirs? That was rhetorical. I'm sure you don't know.

Anyway, consider your own country. Despite its large empire it became relatively impoverished and was a European backwater by the early 18th Century. Clearly, there is a lot more at work.

[Mister D]

Africa will remain poor until they can exploit their own resources.

Enviado desde mi MT15i usando Tapatalk 2

India and East Asia have developed but Africans haven't because...? but the real question here is why we assume they must do anything. Why must everyone emulate the west?

[Mister D]

'Corporatism' in Fascist theory doesn't mean what modern leftists mean when they use the word 'corporatism' at ALL.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism#Fascist_corporatism

no one listens and everyone misuses the term that way. not just leftists.

[Refugee]

What exactly is theirs? That was rhetorical. I'm sure you don't know.

Anyway, consider your own country. Despite its large empire it became relatively impoverished and was a European backwater by the early 18th Century. Clearly, there is a lot more at work.

Under socialism, Spain is now near bankruptcy. Another Greece in the near future?

[Mister D]

Under socialism, Spain is now near bankruptcy. Another Greece in the near future?

And just think of when the bill arrives from Africa. :shocked:

[Spectre]

This Fascist impulse in the progressive left that Krauthammer speaks about was incubated and cultivated in the social sciences and arts departments of most universities.

At one time universities guarded and transmitted the heritage of western and world culture. Now they are philistine factories churning out ignorant, indoctrinated, and unemployable losers...you know, people like exotix.

[kilgram]

Under socialism, Spain is now near bankruptcy. Another Greece in the near future?
Socialism?

What socialism? I don't remember that Spain has ever been governed by any socialist. Can someone refresh my memory?

[Refugee]

India and East Asia have developed but Africans haven't because...? but the real question here is why we assume they must do anything. Why must everyone emulate the west?

Absolute classic! I vote that the common sense post of the month that all the current western ideologies combined haven't been able to answer.

[Refugee]

Socialism?

What socialism? I don't remember that Spain has ever been governed by any socialist. Can someone refresh my memory?

Never, are you sure? Zapatero?

[Gerrard Winstanley]

India and East Asia have developed but Africans haven't because...?
Guns, germs and steel.

[1751_Texan]

The day might well come when, to protect our actual physical safety, progressivism will have to be banned just as Nazism has been banned in Germany. The reason is that the progressive left has dropped its pleasant mask and shown us the rotting, hideous skull that always lay beneath it.

They are moving now to suppress, even by using police powers, all opposition to and dissent from their orthodoxies.

Charles Krauthammer explains in his own way how and why this is happening. In my own way--which parallels his--is that it is happening because a] progressivism has ALWAYS been fascist, and b] they are losing on every front on the merits, from global warming to--especially--the comprehensive and calamitous FAILURE of the most leftist administration in American history, Obama's, and when you lose on the merits, all that's left to you is intimidation and slander.

This is FAR worse than McCarthyism. This is naked FASCISM.


To aspire America to emulate want can only be discribed as unconstitutional actions is ludicrous.

What form of government most resembles unconstitutionalism? There are so many...which would you pick for your governmental model?

PS. Does Krauthammer advocate banning progressivism?

[1751_Texan]

Never, are you sure? Zapatero?

Spain was no longer in power when Zapatistas tried to overthrow the Mexican government. Maybe you're thinking of that other revolution in 1810.

[kilgram]

Never, are you sure? Zapatero?

Zapatero? He was not socialist.

Enviado desde mi MT15i usando Tapatalk 2

[kilgram]

Spain was no longer in power when Zapatistas tried to overthrow the Mexican government. Maybe you're thinking of that other revolution in 1810.

???? Zapatero not Zapata.

Zapatero is the previous president of Spain.

Enviado desde mi MT15i usando Tapatalk 2

[Refugee]

Zapatero? He was not socialist.

Enviado desde mi MT15i usando Tapatalk 2

Not to you just everyone else. "Enviado desde mi MT15i usando Tapatalk 2", means absolutely nothing to me. I'll let you into a little secret, your theories would have you up against a wall in any communist country I've ever been to. :smiley:

[Peter1469]

Not to you just everyone else. "Enviado desde mi MT15i usando Tapatalk 2", means absolutely nothing to me. I'll let you into a little secret, your theories would have you up against a wall in any communist country I've ever been to. :smiley:

That means he is responding from his smart phone though the Tapatalk app. It is like a message saying "sent from Blackberry."

[Refugee]

That means he is responding from his smart phone though the Tapatalk app. It is like a message saying "sent from Blackberry."

Oh right, my apologies. Shows how far behind technology I am. :smiley:

[nathanbforrest45]

Especially considering that the economic set-up this administration is moving towards is CLASSIC Italian fascism in its compulsion of both big business and labour to knuckle under the overall 'guidance' of the state. Sheer, unadulterated Mussolini!

Which is why I often refer to him as Obamalini.

[nathanbforrest45]

And they haven't been able to do that on their own. Geography as I said above.

Many wonder how the United States became a super power. Geography. The US is protected to the east and west by oceans (and the US is a naval power as opposed to a land power). And to its north and south are benevolent and weak powers. Plus it has an unsurpassed navigable waterway system to connect it to itself and the world cheaply (movement of trade via water is the cheapest option). If North America was covered in jungle and desert like Africa, there would be no United States. It would be impossible.


I disagree. I think geography certainly helped but it was our strong belief in capitalism that allowed men of vision to take advantage of every opportunity that presented itself. Its not the physical but the political that determines destiny.

[Peter1469]

I disagree. I think geography certainly helped but it was our strong belief in capitalism that allowed men of vision to take advantage of every opportunity that presented itself. Its not the physical but the political that determines destiny.

In part. But without the geographic benefits you would spend too much capital on infrastructure.

[nathanbforrest45]

In part. But without the geographic benefits you would spend too much capital on infrastructure.


What is the real issues in Africa keeping them from becoming economically viable? Its not the jungles or the deserts or the lack of natural resources. Its governments that pit one group against another, one religion against another. Its a government that allows no freedom. How or why would anyone start a shoe factory for example if all of the proceeds are going to be stolen by the government? Look at Zimbabwe. Before it became a fascist dictatorship it was the breadbasket of Africa and was a net exporter of goods. Now it can't come close to feeding its own people.

By the way, I am been called a racist for pointing out this little fact.

[Peter1469]

Those governments can't control their territory. Hard geography. No real infrastructure. That allows local tribalism to rule. And yes they are corrupt.


What is the real issues in Africa keeping them from becoming economically viable? Its not the jungles or the deserts or the lack of natural resources. Its governments that pit one group against another, one religion against another. Its a government that allows no freedom. How or why would anyone start a shoe factory for example if all of the proceeds are going to be stolen by the government? Look at Zimbabwe. Before it became a fascist dictatorship it was the breadbasket of Africa and was a net exporter of goods. Now it can't come close to feeding its own people.

By the way, I am been called a racist for pointing out this little fact.

[Mister D]

Guns, germs and steel.

The rise of east Asia etc. would tend to undermine such a thesis. In any case, I'd be wary of strongly ideological works that ignore genes and culture.


Great review of his work:

---

Diffusion is also supposed by Diamond to have played a large role in the triumph of Europe over China. Throughout Guns, Germs, and Steel, Diamond argues that geographical barriers to diffusion are one of the main reasons why some societies failed to progress. But China, he argues, had fewer barriers to diffusion than Europe had. Shouldn't China, therefore, have progressed more rapidly than barrier-ridden Europe? How does he get around this contradiction? First, he introduces a tortuous theory to the effect that, not only is too little diffusion a hindrance to development, but so, too, is too much diffusion. Like the second of the Three Bears, Europe had just the right balance between too little differentiation and too much, and this, mysteriously, led to more intense diffusion of innovations in Europe than in China. Second, he claims -- another traditional argument -- that Europe's lack of political unity somehow favored the diffusion of innovations, whereas it certainly did the opposite. Political boundaries are barriers to human movement; also, they frequently correlate with linguistic boundaries and thus can be barriers to communication. The third argument is largely an implicit one, though clearly evident nonetheless. Diamond claims that social and technological development moved steadily westward from the Fertile Crescent to Europe. He states (incorrectly) that writing, invented in the Fertile Crescent, was merely a tool of the ancient despotic bureaucracies until the alphabet diffused westward to Greece, where, he says (again incorrectly), the Greeks added the vowels and thereby transformed it into an instrument of creative writing: of innovation, abstract thought, poetry, and the rest. In essence: an argument that intellectual progress diffused westward and became consequential when writing reached Europe. This must be the basis for his argument that "the Graeco-Judeo-Christian tradition of empirical inquiry" is one of the reasons why Europe triumphed. Yet throughout Guns, Germs, and Steel Diamond insists (rightly) that all peoples are equally creative, equally rational. This is a contradiction but not really a historical problem, since "empirical inquiry" was not invented by Europeans and was as highly developed in China, and other civilizations, as in Europe.

http://www.columbia.edu/~lnp3/mydocs/Blaut/diamond.htm

[Gerrard Winstanley]

The rise of east Asia etc. would tend to undermine such a thesis. In any case, I'd be wary of strongly ideological works that ignore genes and culture.
Genes don't make a civilization, unless we're set to digress into biological racism. Culture arises from conditions, not the other way round.

[Peter1469]

Genes don't make a civilization, unless we're set to digress into biological racism. Culture arises from conditions, not the other way round.

I generally agree with this.

[Mister D]

Genes don't make a civilization, unless we're set to digress into biological racism. Culture arises from conditions, not the other way round.

Who suggested they do? If, on the other hand, you don't believe genes impact culture and vice versa you're delusional. Secondly, I didn't suggest my culture or civilization was better. That assumption is, however, implicit in Diamond's book. :wink:

[nathanbforrest45]

Those governments can't control their territory. Hard geography. No real infrastructure. That allows local tribalism to rule. And yes they are corrupt.


The fact still remains it is politics more than location that makes the difference. It doesn't matter if that "government" is a national dictatorship or tribal warfare between different groups. If Exotix down in Alabama gathered up all of her family members and attacked Ravi in whatever God Forsaken hell hole she lives in that is what would matter more than the natural resources either had.

[Mister D]

Never, are you sure? Zapatero?

Sounds like a No True Scotsman. I have to ask if a socialist has ever ruled anywhere? kilgram

[Peter1469]

Well, if assholes are in charge nothing is possible.

Back to reality. Geography creates potential, or obstacles that must be overcome- at a cost.

If North America didn't have the Mississippi river basin, our history would be completely different, and the US would never have become a world power. And likely not the nation that we have today, but rather several nations, more like Europe.



The fact still remains it is politics more than location that makes the difference. It doesn't matter if that "government" is a national dictatorship or tribal warfare between different groups. If Exotix down in Alabama gathered up all of her family members and attacked Ravi in whatever God Forsaken hell hole she lives in that is what would matter more than the natural resources either had.

[nathanbforrest45]

This is sort of the chicken and egg argument. Without the resources the capitalist would have stayed home. Without the capitalist the resources wouldn't have been exploited.

So, in the interest of harmony and fellowship I declare that we are both correct :grin:

[Peter1469]

This is sort of the chicken and egg argument. Without the resources the capitalist would have stayed home. Without the capitalist the resources wouldn't have been exploited.

So, in the interest of harmony and fellowship I declare that we are both correct :grin:

Resources are limited. What is the potential of a new nation that can transport goods for $100 per ton, versus a nation that can transport goods at $1000 per ton?

It is that simple.

[nathanbforrest45]

Resources are limited. What is the potential of a new nation that can transport goods for $100 per ton, versus a nation that can transport goods at $1000 per ton?

It is that simple.

Until the man who develops a way to transport goods at a lower rate comes along or the man who sees other potentials, like maybe tourism because of the natural beauty of the country. Other than the extremes like the Sahara Desert or the Antarctic everywhere has something to offer and merely awaits the vision to find it.

[kilgram]

Sounds like a No True Scotsman. I have to ask if a socialist has ever ruled anywhere? @kilgram (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=867)
A socialist, no. Socialdemocrats in North of Europe.

Socialism ceased to exist in Spain in 1939. But between 1931 and 1939 Socialism governed in Spain a few times.

[Peter1469]

Until the man who develops a way to transport goods at a lower rate comes along or the man who sees other potentials, like maybe tourism because of the natural beauty of the country. Other than the extremes like the Sahara Desert or the Antarctic everywhere has something to offer and merely awaits the vision to find it.

We are comparing North America to African jungle.... You can also compare it to Greece and the Balkans.