The Growth of a 21st Century Fascism


CDNBear
#1
A new fascist movement is on the rise, and proponents of individual liberty are losing ground.
Left-wingers often accuse conservatives of being fascists, but the reality is that fascism is simply another form of collectivism, like socialism and communism. The differences, such as they exist, are marginal between these collectivist ideologies when viewed from the perspective of Liberalism. Fascism idolizes the state, socialists idolize “society” and communists idolize “humanity” as a whole.


Davis Guggenheim shares his Oscar with former US Vice President Al Gore after winning an award for his documentary feature 'An Inconvenient Truth' at the 79th Annual Academy Awards in Hollywood, California, February 25, 2007. REUTERS/Gary Hershorn (UNITED STATES - OSCARS)


What holds these ideologies together is much stronger than what divides them: they are all dedicated to the proposition that the rights and desires of individuals are properly subsumed by the needs of the whole. Individualism is selfishness, rights are collective, and the “good” of the whole is the true measure of society.
Collectivism has been like a chronic disease in the body politic ever since the birth of Liberal Individualism in the 18th Century. For Locke, there was Rousseau. The American Revolution contrasted with the French Revolution and its guillotine. America had George Washington and Europe had Napoleon. Lincoln saved the Union as Marx was promoting Communism in Europe. . For the last 300 years we in the Western world have been living in the midst of a struggle between the forces of Liberal individualism and the forces of collectivism.
Communism and fascism dominated much of 20th Century history as the alternative to Liberal individualism and free markets. Democratic socialism is still eating away at European societies, which grow poorer and more sclerotic every year as they continue to declare the superiority of their model to American individualism.
Even here in America, the home of Liberal individualism, there is a constant assault on individual liberty. The steady growth of economic regulations, income redistribution, speech codes (New York just banned the use of a racial slur in public!), the ever growing tax code, and ridiculous limits to what we can eat, drink, or smoke.
Still, compared to most of the developed world, American is remarkably free for the moment. And that’s a nagging problem for the believers in collectivism.
So today we are witnessing the rise of a new version of the same old collectivist ideal; instead of the State or Humanity being elevated above individualism, it’s an idealized version of the environment or the “Earth.” Call it Nature, call it Gaia, or even call it Climate, the ideologists of collectivism are just trying to sell us a new reason to subsume our individual liberty to a collectivist whole.
The “crisis” of global climate change is a ridiculous on its face. The very concept is bizarre and illogical, if for no other reason than simply because there is not a default “standard” climate to compare any particular momentary climate state to. Compared to what, exactly?
Today’s climate is quite different from that of even a few hundred years ago, and once you go back a few thousand years—a blink of the eye in the lifespan of the earth—much of the earth that is farmland and cities was buried under thousands of feet of ice. If you could run the history of earth’s climate as a movie, it would be a constantly changing before your eyes. No one minute looking much like the next. Different climate, different species, even different arrangements of continents and oceans would dominate at any given moment.
Simply put, there is no permanent “state of Nature.” Nature, Climate, the Earth, or “climate”—whatever you want to call it—is not some permanent unchanging ideal. It’s so dynamic that even in the span of a few years or decades changes can render a landscape unrecognizable, fundamentally altered.
“Climate change” is not something induced by human beings or a “crisis” to be avoided; it is simply the reality of living on earth. To the extent that human activities may contribute to climate variability, the same can be said of termites, trees, and even the slow action of plate tectonics. It’s true, but what’s your point? Literally everything changes the state of the earth, all the time. Fighting change is like fighting gravity; good luck! Call me when you succeed.
The steady drumbeat of fear mongering has nothing to do with a “crisis” of climate change, because climate change is not a crisis. It was reality before human beings existed, and will be long after we are all buried.
However, it has everything to do with promoting the solution to the crisis of climate change: the demotion of individualism and liberty and the promotion of collective solutions and collectivism in general.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/c...01/2007&page=1
 
tamarin
Conservative
#2
Fascist is certainly a popular term these days. It's long ago jumped out of the bailiwick of purists and assumed the popular meaning it currently holds: one who imposes his beliefs and values on you.
In a world that seldom sees major wars one can expect endless machinations domestically and internationally as various elites battle for influence, dominance and control.
Global warming seems like a slam dunk to me but I'm collecting articles on it and reading where I can. I am furious at the box the Liberal Party put us in with Kyoto. It's one thing to ratify and quite another to do absolutely nothing about financial consequences as the clock ticked.
 
CDNBear
#3
Quote: Originally Posted by tamarin View Post

Fascist is certainly a popular term these days. It's long ago jumped out of the bailiwick of purists and assumed the popular meaning it currently holds: one who imposes his beliefs and values on you.
In a world that seldom sees major wars one can expect endless machinations domestically and internationally as various elites battle for influence, dominance and control.
Global warming seems like a slam dunk to me but I'm collecting articles on it and reading where I can. I am furious at the box the Liberal Party put us in with Kyoto. It's one thing to ratify and quite another to do absolutely nothing about financial consequences as the clock ticked.

I would agree...

But the pro AGW crowd, has now resorted to death threats, on top of the usual insults about those who question the validity of the AGW theory, ie: ignorant, limited highschool education, neocon shill, oil industry shill and so on.

When people start to threaten ones life over their sceptical position, or try to berate someones intellect until they acquiese, it's forced thought, by threat and coersion, that is fascism.
 
snfu73
#4
George Orwell

What is Fascism?

TRIBUNE

1944


Of all the unanswered questions of our time, perhaps the most important is: ‘What is Fascism?’
One of the social survey organizations in America recently asked this question of a hundred different people, and got answers ranging from ‘pure democracy’ to ‘pure diabolism’. In this country if you ask the average thinking person to define Fascism, he usually answers by pointing to the German and Italian régimes. But this is very unsatisfactory, because even the major Fascist states differ from one another a good deal in structure and ideology.
It is not easy, for instance, to fit Germany and Japan into the same framework, and it is even harder with some of the small states which are describable as Fascist. It is usually assumed, for instance, that Fascism is inherently warlike, that it thrives in an atmosphere of war hysteria and can only solve its economic problems by means of war preparation or foreign conquests. But clearly this is not true of, say, Portugal or the various South American dictatorships. Or again, antisemitism is supposed to be one of the distinguishing marks of Fascism; but some Fascist movements are not antisemitic. Learned controversies, reverberating for years on end in American magazines, have not even been able to determine whether or not Fascism is a form of capitalism. But still, when we apply the term ‘Fascism’ to Germany or Japan or Mussolini's Italy, we know broadly what we mean. It is in internal politics that this word has lost the last vestige of meaning. For if you examine the press you will find that there is almost no set of people — certainly no political party or organized body of any kind — which has not been denounced as Fascist during the past ten years. Here I am not speaking of the verbal use of the term ‘Fascist’. I am speaking of what I have seen in print. I have seen the words ‘Fascist in sympathy’, or ‘of Fascist tendency’, or just plain ‘Fascist’, applied in all seriousness to the following bodies of people:
Conservatives: All Conservatives, appeasers or anti-appeasers, are held to be subjectively pro-Fascist. British rule in India and the Colonies is held to be indistinguishable from Nazism. Organizations of what one might call a patriotic and traditional type are labelled crypto-Fascist or ‘Fascist-minded’. Examples are the Boy Scouts, the Metropolitan Police, M.I.5, the British Legion. Key phrase: ‘The public schools are breeding-grounds of Fascism’.
Socialists: Defenders of old-style capitalism (example, Sir Ernest Benn) maintain that Socialism and Fascism are the same thing. Some Catholic journalists maintain that Socialists have been the principal collaborators in the Nazi-occupied countries. The same accusation is made from a different angle by the Communist party during its ultra-Left phases. In the period 1930-35 the Daily Worker habitually referred to the Labour Party as the Labour Fascists. This is echoed by other Left extremists such as Anarchists. Some Indian Nationalists consider the British trade unions to be Fascist organizations.
Communists: A considerable school of thought (examples, Rauschning, Peter Drucker, James Burnham, F. A. Voigt) refuses to recognize a difference between the Nazi and Soviet régimes, and holds that all Fascists and Communists are aiming at approximately the same thing and are even to some extent the same people. Leaders in The Times (pre-war) have referred to the U.S.S.R. as a ‘Fascist country’. Again from a different angle this is echoed by Anarchists and Trotskyists.
Trotskyists: Communists charge the Trotskyists proper, i.e. Trotsky's own organization, with being a crypto-Fascist organization in Nazi pay. This was widely believed on the Left during the Popular Front period. In their ultra-Right phases the Communists tend to apply the same accusation to all factions to the Left of themselves, e.g. Common Wealth or the I.L.P.
Catholics: Outside its own ranks, the Catholic Church is almost universally regarded as pro-Fascist, both objectively and subjectively;
War resisters: Pacifists and others who are anti-war are frequently accused not only of making things easier for the Axis, but of becoming tinged with pro-Fascist feeling.
Supporters of the war: War resisters usually base their case on the claim that British imperialism is worse than Nazism, and tend to apply the term ‘Fascist’ to anyone who wishes for a military victory. The supporters of the People's Convention came near to claiming that willingness to resist a Nazi invasion was a sign of Fascist sympathies. The Home Guard was denounced as a Fascist organization as soon as it appeared. In addition, the whole of the Left tends to equate militarism with Fascism. Politically conscious private soldiers nearly always refer to their officers as ‘Fascist-minded’ or ‘natural Fascists’. Battle-schools, spit and polish, saluting of officers are all considered conducive to Fascism. Before the war, joining the Territorials was regarded as a sign of Fascist tendencies. Conscription and a professional army are both denounced as Fascist phenomena.
Nationalists: Nationalism is universally regarded as inherently Fascist, but this is held only to apply to such national movements as the speaker happens to disapprove of. Arab nationalism, Polish nationalism, Finnish nationalism, the Indian Congress Party, the Muslim League, Zionism, and the I.R.A. are all described as Fascist but not by the same people.
* * *

It will be seen that, as used, the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else.
Yet underneath all this mess there does lie a kind of buried meaning. To begin with, it is clear that there are very great differences, some of them easy to point out and not easy to explain away, between the régimes called Fascist and those called democratic. Secondly, if ‘Fascist’ means ‘in sympathy with Hitler’, some of the accusations I have listed above are obviously very much more justified than others. Thirdly, even the people who recklessly fling the word ‘Fascist’ in every direction attach at any rate an emotional significance to it. By ‘Fascism’ they mean, roughly speaking, something cruel, unscrupulous, arrogant, obscurantist, anti-liberal and anti-working-class. Except for the relatively small number of Fascist sympathizers, almost any English person would accept ‘bully’ as a synonym for ‘Fascist’. That is about as near to a definition as this much-abused word has come.
But Fascism is also a political and economic system. Why, then, cannot we have a clear and generally accepted definition of it? Alas! we shall not get one — not yet, anyway. To say why would take too long, but basically it is because it is impossible to define Fascism satisfactorily without making admissions which neither the Fascists themselves, nor the Conservatives, nor Socialists of any colour, are willing to make. All one can do for the moment is to use the word with a certain amount of circumspection and not, as is usually done, degrade it to the level of a swearword.
1944

THE END


____BD____
George Orwell: ‘What is Fascism?’
First published: Tribune. — GB, London. — 1944.
Reprinted:— ‘The Collected Essays, Journalism and Letters of George Orwell’. — 1968.
 
snfu73
#5
What is Fascism? Some General Ideological Features

by Matthew N. Lyons
I am skeptical of efforts to produce a "definition" of fascism. As a dynamic historical current, fascism has taken many different forms, and has evolved dramatically in some ways. To understand what fascism has encompassed as a movement and a system of rule, we have to look at its historical context and development--as a form of counter-revolutionary politics that first arose in early twentieth-century Europe in response to rapid social upheaval, the devastation of World War I, and the Bolshevik Revolution. The following paragraphs are intented as an initial, open-ended sketch.
Fascism is a form of extreme right-wing ideology that celebrates the nation or the race as an organic community transcending all other loyalties. It emphasizes a myth of national or racial rebirth after a period of decline or destruction. To this end, fascism calls for a "spiritual revolution" against signs of moral decay such as individualism and materialism, and seeks to purge "alien" forces and groups that threaten the organic community. Fascism tends to celebrate masculinity, youth, mystical unity, and the regenerative power of violence. Often, but not always, it promotes racial superiority doctrines, ethnic persecution, imperialist expansion, and genocide. At the same time, fascists may embrace a form of internationalism based on either racial or ideological solidarity across national boundaries. Usually fascism espouses open male supremacy, though sometimes it may also promote female solidarity and new opportunities for women of the privileged nation or race.
Fascism's approach to politics is both populist--in that it seeks to activate "the people" as a whole against perceived oppressors or enemies--and elitist--in that it treats the people's will as embodied in a select group, or often one supreme leader, from whom authority proceeds downward. Fascism seeks to organize a cadre-led mass movement in a drive to seize state power. It seeks to forcibly subordinate all spheres of society to its ideological vision of organic community, usually through a totalitarian state. Both as a movement and a regime, fascism uses mass organizations as a system of integration and control, and uses organized violence to suppress opposition, although the scale of violence varies widely.
Fascism is hostile to Marxism, liberalism, and conservatism, yet it borrows concepts and practices from all three. Fascism rejects the principles of class struggle and workers' internationalism as threats to national or racial unity, yet it often exploits real grievances against capitalists and landowners through ethnic scapegoating or radical-sounding conspiracy theories. Fascism rejects the liberal doctrines of individual autonomy and rights, political pluralism, and representative government, yet it advocates broad popular participation in politics and may use parliamentary channels in its drive to power. Its vision of a "new order" clashes with the conservative attachment to tradition-based institutions and hierarchies, yet fascism often romanticizes the past as inspiration for national rebirth.
Fascism has a complex relationship with established elites and the non-fascist right. It is never a mere puppet of the ruling class, but an autonomous movement with its own social base. In practice, fascism defends capitalism against instability and the left, but also pursues an agenda that sometimes clashes with capitalist interests in significant ways. There has been much cooperation, competition, and interaction between fascism and other sections of the right, producing various hybrid movements and regimes.

Matthew N. Lyons is an independent scholar and freelance writer who studies reactionary and supremacist movements. His articles have appeared in the Progressive and other periodicals. These paragraphs are adapted from Too Close for Comfort: Right Wing Populism, Scapegoating, and Fascist Potentials in US Politics (Boston: South End Press, 1996), which Lyons co-authored with Chip Berlet. © 1995, Matthew N. Lyons.
 
CDNBear
#6
Your point?
 
CDNBear
#7
Definitions of Fascism on the Web:
  • "A philosophy or system of government that is marked by stringent social and economic control, a strong, centralized government usually headed by a dictator, and often a policy of belligerent nationalism." (From The American Heritage Dictionary)
  • www2.truman.edu/~marc/resources/terms.html
  • The name comes from the Latin fasces – a bundle of rods with a projecting axe, which was the symbol of authority in ancient Rome. The term was applied by Mussolini to his movement after his rise to power in 1922. The Fascists were viciously anti-Communist and anti- liberal and, once in power, relied on an authoritarian state apparatus. They also used emotive slogans and old prejudices (for example, against the Jews) to bolster the leader's strongman appeal. ...
    www.channel4.com/history/microsites/H/history/browse/glossary.html
  • A social and political ideology with the primary guiding principle that the state or nation is the highest priority, rather than personal or individual freedoms.
    www.chgs.umn.edu/Educational_Resources/Curriculum/Witness_And_Legacy_-_Teacher_R/Glossary__Teacher_Resource_Boo/glossary__teacher_resource_boo.html
  • a totalitarian political system led by a single dictator who allows no opposition, promoting an aggressive nationalism and often racism.
    www.summit.org/resource/dictionary/
  • A system of government that promotes extreme nationalism, repression, anticommunism, and is ruled by a dictator.
    regentsprep.org/Regents/global/vocab/topic_alpha.cfm
  • A political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts the nation above the individual; characterized by a centralized government and headed by a dictatorial leader.
    library.thinkquest.org/13915/gather/glossary.htm
  • Political philosophy that became predominant in Italy and then Germany during the 1920s and 1930s; attacked weakness of democracy, corruption of capitalism; promised vigorous foreign and military programs; undertook state control of economy to reduce social friction. (p. 870)
    occawlonline.pearsoned.com/bookbind/pubbooks/stearns_awl/medialib/glossary/gloss_F.html
  • A political movement that reforms.
    students.ithsnyc.org/flor2550/globalvoc1.html
  • a term used particularly to describe the nationalistic and totalitarian regimes of Benito Mussolini (Italy, 1922–45), Adolf Hitler (Germany, 1933–45) and Francisco Franco (Spain, 1939–75).
    media.pearsoncmg.com/intl/ema/uk/0131217666/student/0131217666_glo.html
  • An extreme form of nationalism that played on fears of communism and rejected individual freedom, liberal individualism, democracy, and limitations on the state.
    www.comune.venezia.it/atlante/documents/glossary/nelson_glossary.htm
  • a political system in which all power of government is vested in a person or group with no other power to balance and limit the activities of the government. Fascist governments are often closely associated with large corporations and sometimes with extreme nationalism and racist activities. Modern fascism is often called "CORPORATISM".
    www.naiadonline.ca/book/01Glossary.htm
  • a political theory advocating an authoritarian hierarchical government (as opposed to democracy or liberalism)
    wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
  • Fascism (in Italian, fascismo), capitalized, was the authoritarian political movement which ruled Italy from 1922 to 1943 under the leadership of Benito Mussolini. Similar political movements spread across Europe between World War One and World War Two and took several forms such as Nazism and Clerical fascism. Neofascism is generally used to describe post-WWII movements seen to have fascist attributes.
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
  • Fascism is a book edited by Roger Griffin. It is a reader, in the Oxford Readers series, which assembles the writings of various authors on the topic of Fascism.
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism_(book)
  • Before and during World War II, many individuals and groups openly described themselves as Fascist. The term is relatively uncontroversial when applied to individuals such as Benito Mussolini, Adolf Hitler, and their direct supporters, and to states such as Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany. ...
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism_(epithet)
 
darkbeaver
Republican
#8
Don't worry about the definition of fascism. Dangerous rotten pricks. There that should be easier to remember.
 
tamarin
Conservative
#9
Fascism as a term, like language itself, is constantly evolving. The word's morphed. Its popular meaning today, the one that most people would recognize, is government or control by bullying. So it was that femi-nazi crept in years ago to describe the tactics of activists from the group. Neo-fascists are those on both sides of the political spectrum who see pressure politics as their way to victory and societal transformation. Strangely, fascism, a right wing term in its historical sense, is usually used of the left-wing today.
 
mabudon
#10
Okay, how the desire to have a liveable planet for generations to come is somehow a "fascist" concept is utterly beyond my ability to understand- that article in the OP is ludicrous editorialized propaganda of the most useless sort, I would venture
 
CDNBear
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by mabudon View Post

Okay, how the desire to have a liveable planet for generations to come is somehow a "fascist" concept is utterly beyond my ability to understand- that article in the OP is ludicrous editorialized propaganda of the most useless sort, I would venture

As is the pop culture of the pro AGW crowd, that feel it necessary to belittle, threaten and chastise(I see that as fascism) those that will not drink the Koolaid and fall in line with their ideology.

I see this as fear, based solely on the fact that their srguement wouldn't hold water in a court of law, if tried.
 
mabudon
#12
I don't need any politician or ANYONE for that matter to make me at LEAST sad for the way our planet is heading, whether it be warmer or cooler, the amount of CRAP in EVERYTHING from the water to the air to the land is more than enough

And this "rugged individualism"- you've never played in a band with anyone have you??? Any asshats who think that everyone can just do WHATEVER they LIKE will likely get unplugged PRONTO if I'm gonna take the stage with them- doesn't matter HOW good they might be as an "individual", if you can't actually work with the others in your group, you're USELESS, period.

"Individualism", in my mind, is a much cherished MYTH, and in this case it is being used as something that, in reality, most folks don't even appreciate- the article is threatening people with the loss of this phoney "construct" as if it would be FAR better to be a burned out planet of dead "Individuals" then to GODS FORBID actually work together to accomplish something truly worth fighting for
 
snfu73
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBear View Post

Your point?

My point is that facism is not really a defined thing...all stances within the political and social spectrum can be accused of facism, or having fascist elements based on someones point of view. There is fascist elements or idealogies across the left spectrum, within the centerist areas, and within the right. But, I back what Orwell said...fascism or fascist is a very overused term, and because it is used by so many as a blanket definition of pretty much anything that one does not like, it has lost it's power as a word...it's meaning...a meaning that was pretty wide open to individual interpretation anyway.
 
CDNBear
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by mabudon View Post

I don't need any politician or ANYONE for that matter to make me at LEAST sad for the way our planet is heading, whether it be warmer or cooler, the amount of CRAP in EVERYTHING from the water to the air to the land is more than enough

And this "rugged individualism"- you've never played in a band with anyone have you??? Any asshats who think that everyone can just do WHATEVER they LIKE will likely get unplugged PRONTO if I'm gonna take the stage with them- doesn't matter HOW good they might be as an "individual", if you can't actually work with the others in your group, you're USELESS, period.

"Individualism", in my mind, is a much cherished MYTH, and in this case it is being used as something that, in reality, most folks don't even appreciate- the article is threatening people with the loss of this phoney "construct" as if it would be FAR better to be a burned out planet of dead "Individuals" then to GODS FORBID actually work together to accomplish something truly worth fighting for

I'ld buy that arguement if the plans included addressing the whole of the environmental abuses issue. But it doesn't, therefore their motives are suspect at best.

btw, did you forget who you were talking to, I've worked in groups where individualism, gets people killed. So I understand the necessatiy of communal cooperation. But I'm not the one that made the issue centralized finite debate. The pro AGW crowd did. I want greater transparerency and cooperation among the scientists, they seek only to widen the divide by smear, slander and innuendo.
 
CDNBear
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by snfu73 View Post

My point is that facism is not really a defined thing...all stances within the political and social spectrum can be accused of facism, or having fascist elements based on someones point of view. There is fascist elements or idealogies across the left spectrum, within the centerist areas, and within the right. But, I back what Orwell said...fascism or fascist is a very overused term, and because it is used by so many as a blanket definition of pretty much anything that one does not like, it has lost it's power as a word...it's meaning...a meaning that was pretty wide open to individual interpretation anyway.

Still I ask...

What's your point???

If someone clarifies their definition/usage, where is the confusion? Especially when it seems to fit in amongst the varying accepted definitions of the word.

I explained my definition/usage of the word, and I did not title the article in the OP.
 
snfu73
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBear View Post

Still I ask...

What's your point???

If someone clarifies their definition/usage, where is the confusion? Especially when it seems to fit in amongst the varying accepted definitions of the word.

I explained my definition/usage of the word, and I did not title the article in the OP.

My point is exactly what I stated. What is the problem? Look specifically at what I am stating in the latter portions of my post.
 
CDNBear
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by snfu73 View Post

My point is exactly what I stated. What is the problem? Look specifically at what I am stating in the latter portions of my post.

And still I ask...

The problem would be that your comments do not reflect the fact that I provided full disclosure of my usage. Althought that doesn't surprise me.

It was not and never has been used by me to generalize, or blanket. I can pin point the reasoning behind its use by myself at all times.
 
snfu73
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBear View Post

And still I ask...

The problem would be that your comments do not reflect the fact that I provided full disclosure of my usage. Althought that doesn't surprise me.

It was not and never has been used by me to generalize, or blanket. I can pin point the reasoning behind its use by myself at all times.

Fine...YOU can...but what I am saying is, if you are trying to attack the left by stating that the left is fascist, it's not really a good attack, seeing as the term appears to be open to many different interpretations and can just as easily be used to describe your beloved right wing idealogies as it can be used to describe left wing idealogies.
 
CDNBear
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by snfu73 View Post

Fine...YOU can...but what I am saying is, if you are trying to attack the left by stating that the left is fascist, it's not really a good attack, seeing as the term appears to be open to many different interpretations and can just as easily be used to describe your beloved right wing idealogies as it can be used to describe left wing idealogies.

And still I ask...

Seeing as I hilited the actions of the left leaning AGW, that are infact fascist in nature, your arguement is null and void.

Quote: Originally Posted by Bear

But the pro AGW crowd, has now resorted to death threats, on top of the usual insults about those who question the validity of the AGW theory, ie: ignorant, limited highschool education, neocon shill, oil industry shill and so on.

When people start to threaten ones life over their sceptical position, or try to berate someones intellect until they acquiese, it's forced thought, by threat and coersion, that is fascism.

I'm still not holding my breath that you get that, all things considered.
 
mabudon
#20
Theres' bullies in every situation, just look at the "support the troops" crowd, and that there are nutjobs on pretty much EVERY issue has nothing to do with the marriage of the state and the corporations

Bullies and nutjobs and fascism are separate things

It is funny how applying the label "fascism" to anything right wing gets shouted down by the same folks who will dig it up and slap it on something more left wing and call it "telling"
 
snfu73
#21
I don't get it. I don't even understand the point of all this. Apparently the left are fascists because our environment is degrading at a scary rate, and they are proposing that we actually do something about it...and that makes them fascist in your eyes? Just because you and your right wing extremist buddies don't think that man has helped the escalation in global warming...something that makes PERFECT sense if you actually sit down and think about it...doesn't mean it isn't happening. And, the idea that because the left is proposing changed in our lifestyles in order to help the situation they are fascists is...well...idiotic. It's proposing a solution...and it's one that we might not have any choice in deciding, because it won't be up to governments or any individual group, we will have to as a race come together to do something about it. How much time do we have? Beats me. What will happen? I dunno. But it is clear that something big is going on...it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out. This is an issue that transcends left and right anyway...there are leftist governments and conservative governments across the globe who are working on this issue. And, the only thing that is going to make any difference is a drastic change in how humans live, and act, and use resources. And you can look at these changes as being unwelcome and those who deliver the message as fascists...or you can look at this as an exciting time of discovery, rebirth, redirecting, the moving towards a healthier society for all, a monumental time in the history of mankind that could very well prove to be known as a time when the human race was saved from itself. I look at it as the latter. The fact of the matter is...things change. If we stay stuck where you would like them to stay, society will never grow, society will never progress, and will become stagnint. Growth and change and evolution is important to man kind. If nothing changed, we would still be sitting in caves, grunting, and wearing loin clothes.
 
CDNBear
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by mabudon View Post

Theres' bullies in every situation, just look at the "support the troops" crowd, and that there are nutjobs on pretty much EVERY issue has nothing to do with the marriage of the state and the corporations .

I would be one of those "Support the Troops" crowd guys mabudon, . And yes I have been guilty of a bellicose nature, but I don't hide it or deny it either. I'm not blinded by some ideology, as many are.

Quote:

Bullies and nutjobs and fascism are separate things

I dissagree, IMHO, they are all one in the same, cept maybe nutjobs, I think the LPoC just needs medication(sorry, I couldn't resist).

Quote:

It is funny how applying the label "fascism" to anything right wing gets shouted down by the same folks who will dig it up and slap it on something more left wing and call it "telling"

But is there a difference if one uses it with proof or examples, varified by context of their difinition?
 
CDNBear
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by snfu73 View Post

I don't get it. I don't even understand the point of all this. Apparently the left are fascists because our environment is degrading at a scary rate, and they are proposing that we actually do something about it...and that makes them fascist in your eyes? Just because you and your right wing extremist buddies don't think that man has helped the escalation in global warming...something that makes PERFECT sense if you actually sit down and think about it...doesn't mean it isn't happening. And, the idea that because the left is proposing changed in our lifestyles in order to help the situation they are fascists is...well...idiotic. It's proposing a solution...and it's one that we might not have any choice in deciding, because it won't be up to governments or any individual group, we will have to as a race come together to do something about it. How much time do we have? Beats me. What will happen? I dunno. But it is clear that something big is going on...it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out. This is an issue that transcends left and right anyway...there are leftist governments and conservative governments across the globe who are working on this issue. And, the only thing that is going to make any difference is a drastic change in how humans live, and act, and use resources. And you can look at these changes as being unwelcome and those who deliver the message as fascists...or you can look at this as an exciting time of discovery, rebirth, redirecting, the moving towards a healthier society for all, a monumental time in the history of mankind that could very well prove to be known as a time when the human race was saved from itself. I look at it as the latter. The fact of the matter is...things change. If we stay stuck where you would like them to stay, society will never grow, society will never progress, and will become stagnint. Growth and change and evolution is important to man kind. If nothing changed, we would still be sitting in caves, grunting, and wearing loin clothes.

Your rant is just more proof you are having difficulty with reading. Try and keep up, go back and reread my posts, you obviously haven't.
 
snfu73
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBear View Post

I would be one of those "Support the Troops" crowd guys mabudon, . And yes I have been guilty of a bellicose nature, but I don't hide it or deny it either. I'm not blinded by some ideology, as many are.

I dissagree, IMHO, they are all one in the same, cept maybe nutjobs, I think the LPoC just needs medication(sorry, I couldn't resist).


But is there a difference if one uses it with proof or examples, varified by context of their difinition?

Isn't support the troops being blinded by some idealogy? Isn't raging against leftists being blinded by idealogy? Uhhhh...yes...it is. You can't even SEE a leftist perspective from your right wing elitist position. You just think right is right, and that's it. You are completely one hundred percent biased. You are completely blind. The only people as blind as you are the catholic folks who are so stuck in their ways in the other threads. Most of the crap you post is nothing but opinion articles, or you seek out the most extreme representations and go "SEE...SEE what those leftists do!". Dude...your blind.
 
CDNBear
#25
Not to mention snfu, you employeed several of the tactics I have out lined.

I'm brainwashed

I'm idiotic

I don't understand the issue

and so on.

Nothing like shooting yourself in the foot eh?
 
snfu73
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBear View Post

Your rant is just more proof you are having difficulty with reading. Try and keep up, go back and reread my posts, you obviously haven't.

What the hell are you talking about. I looked at the article. This is my response to part of what I read. I will go back and read, but I don't get where all this is going, or what you are trying to pull. All you are doing is presenting opinion articles and claiming they are fact. They aren't fact...in fact they are FAR from fact. But, I will go back and see what I missed here.
 
snfu73
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBear View Post

Not to mention snfu, you employeed several of the tactics I have out lined.

I'm brainwashed

I'm idiotic

I don't understand the issue

and so on.

Nothing like shooting yourself in the foot eh?

That would be because...it appears that you most definitly are. I did not say brainwashed...but, I do believe that you are very misguided. I don't think you are looking at the issue objectively, or allowing any other perspectives in. I think you are stubborn as hell. I think you are a dick. And so on.
 
snfu73
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBear View Post

A new fascist movement is on the rise, and proponents of individual liberty are losing ground.
Left-wingers often accuse conservatives of being fascists, but the reality is that fascism is simply another form of collectivism, like socialism and communism. The differences, such as they exist, are marginal between these collectivist ideologies when viewed from the perspective of Liberalism. Fascism idolizes the state, socialists idolize “society” and communists idolize “humanity” as a whole.


Davis Guggenheim shares his Oscar with former US Vice President Al Gore after winning an award for his documentary feature 'An Inconvenient Truth' at the 79th Annual Academy Awards in Hollywood, California, February 25, 2007. REUTERS/Gary Hershorn (UNITED STATES - OSCARS)


What holds these ideologies together is much stronger than what divides them: they are all dedicated to the proposition that the rights and desires of individuals are properly subsumed by the needs of the whole. Individualism is selfishness, rights are collective, and the “good” of the whole is the true measure of society.
Collectivism has been like a chronic disease in the body politic ever since the birth of Liberal Individualism in the 18th Century. For Locke, there was Rousseau. The American Revolution contrasted with the French Revolution and its guillotine. America had George Washington and Europe had Napoleon. Lincoln saved the Union as Marx was promoting Communism in Europe. . For the last 300 years we in the Western world have been living in the midst of a struggle between the forces of Liberal individualism and the forces of collectivism.
Communism and fascism dominated much of 20th Century history as the alternative to Liberal individualism and free markets. Democratic socialism is still eating away at European societies, which grow poorer and more sclerotic every year as they continue to declare the superiority of their model to American individualism.
Even here in America, the home of Liberal individualism, there is a constant assault on individual liberty. The steady growth of economic regulations, income redistribution, speech codes (New York just banned the use of a racial slur in public!), the ever growing tax code, and ridiculous limits to what we can eat, drink, or smoke.
Still, compared to most of the developed world, American is remarkably free for the moment. And that’s a nagging problem for the believers in collectivism.
So today we are witnessing the rise of a new version of the same old collectivist ideal; instead of the State or Humanity being elevated above individualism, it’s an idealized version of the environment or the “Earth.” Call it Nature, call it Gaia, or even call it Climate, the ideologists of collectivism are just trying to sell us a new reason to subsume our individual liberty to a collectivist whole.
The “crisis” of global climate change is a ridiculous on its face. The very concept is bizarre and illogical, if for no other reason than simply because there is not a default “standard” climate to compare any particular momentary climate state to. Compared to what, exactly?
Today’s climate is quite different from that of even a few hundred years ago, and once you go back a few thousand years—a blink of the eye in the lifespan of the earth—much of the earth that is farmland and cities was buried under thousands of feet of ice. If you could run the history of earth’s climate as a movie, it would be a constantly changing before your eyes. No one minute looking much like the next. Different climate, different species, even different arrangements of continents and oceans would dominate at any given moment.
Simply put, there is no permanent “state of Nature.” Nature, Climate, the Earth, or “climate”—whatever you want to call it—is not some permanent unchanging ideal. It’s so dynamic that even in the span of a few years or decades changes can render a landscape unrecognizable, fundamentally altered.
“Climate change” is not something induced by human beings or a “crisis” to be avoided; it is simply the reality of living on earth. To the extent that human activities may contribute to climate variability, the same can be said of termites, trees, and even the slow action of plate tectonics. It’s true, but what’s your point? Literally everything changes the state of the earth, all the time. Fighting change is like fighting gravity; good luck! Call me when you succeed.
The steady drumbeat of fear mongering has nothing to do with a “crisis” of climate change, because climate change is not a crisis. It was reality before human beings existed, and will be long after we are all buried.
However, it has everything to do with promoting the solution to the crisis of climate change: the demotion of individualism and liberty and the promotion of collective solutions and collectivism in general.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/c...01/2007&page=1

So...again..this is an opinion column. This is not fact. This is not news. This is opinion. And there is no reference to anything to really back up the assertations put forth in the column. There is nothing to back the claims this dude makes. Sooooo....what's the point? What are you trying to say with this thing? Are you trying to tell us that some lunatic right winger has a wacked out viewpoint? Greeeaaat...thanks for filling us in.
 
CDNBear
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by snfu73 View Post

Isn't support the troops being blinded by some idealogy?

Sure it is. I don't deny it. Blind loyalty for ones brothers and sisters in my ideology is honourable.

Quote:

Isn't raging against leftists being blinded by idealogy?

Umm, no, it's raging against their corruption lies and thievery.

Quote:

Uhhhh...yes...it is. You can't even SEE a leftist perspective from your right wing elitist position. You just think right is right, and that's it. You are completely one hundred percent biased.You are completely blind.

No I'm not and I can prove it, you can not prove I am.
Quote:

The only people as blind as you are the catholic folks who are so stuck in their ways in the other threads.

I can still prove you're wrong.

Quote:

Most of the crap you post is nothing but opinion articles, or you seek out the most extreme representations and go "SEE...SEE what those leftists do!". Dude...your blind.

No I'm not, I examine everything and build my position on facts and material at hand. I didn't blindly follow the anti GW warming folk, I made a consious decission, when the evidence was in, I changed my position, I believe it is happening, but I don't buy the motives or the theory of AGW.

The fact that I don't makes me somehow deficient in your eyes, and yet it is I that is blind? Really now!!!???
 
CDNBear
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by snfu73 View Post

That would be because...it appears that you most definitly are. I did not say brainwashed...but, I do believe that you are very misguided. I don't think you are looking at the issue objectively, or allowing any other perspectives in. I think you are stubborn as hell. I think you are a dick. And so on.

More proof that anyone that does not follow your theories and point of view is "wacked" out.

Really, you should stop handling firearms, if you don't know which end you should point at the enemy.
 

Similar Threads

0
I finally enter the 21st century
by Judland | Dec 3rd, 2006
0
Nursery Rhymes are changed for 21st Century
by Blackleaf | Nov 23rd, 2006
0
A 21st Century Robin Hood
by Blackleaf | Sep 24th, 2006
1
“The 21st century Nazis”
by moghrabi | Nov 25th, 2005