Comments on: Liberal Fascism — Chapter 3

By: reelman

reelman — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 21:05:47 +0000

REDEFINING: NATIONAL DEMOCRATS
This is my unique approach to fighting the democrats…they are secular socialists, they vote that way…why use any names?

Just tell people you oppose secular socialism and its supporters.
Yes, I can explain those 2 words to and for anyone in simple terms. Why do we use terms the socialists want us to use?

I simply oppose secular socialism. If anyone votes or speaks that way…names are not needed, they are a distraction.
Bills, laws, movements and so on that continue the secular socialism should be opposed.
We are called a half dozen names but we should unite behind the term “secular socialism” and use it daily when attacking or defending.
When ANY issue arises…your 1st question should not be who or what Party or what cost…it should be..”does this promote secular socialism or reduce it”?

This terminology stuff is important and so is staying on offense.
Try saying ” I oppose secular socialism” to anyone versus any traditional response.

Without fail the person or persons will ask you what secular socialism is…then you go from there.
(Surely you know secular means against faith and family…and surely you know socialism means a huge high tax gov-meant running your life…
do you not?…then just say it).

Its way past time to JUST SAY IT.

http://conservablogs.com/theconservativecrawfish

By: Warrior

Warrior — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 20:10:39 +0000

Apprx 175,000 according to Goldberg.

And the notion that the Libs are never accountable for their voluminous failures has stuck in my craw for quite some time. As I mentioned in my RS diary on Chapter Three:

“And as liberal academic historians airbrush the past, such shenanigans as these [Sedition Act, the Palmer Raids, the arrests, etc.] are always put down as failures of America in general – no particular ideology is discussed. Whereas, any alleged “conservative” failure is attributed directly and unequivocally to them and is considered proof positive that any future power in the hands of conservatives will also result in disaster res ipsa loquitur. Such is the power of revisionist history…” [for more see www.redstate.com/warrior/ ]

Also, Thomas Sowell, in “The Vision of the Annointed”, does an excellent job of cataloguing, in highly readable fashion, the multitudinous and devastating miscalculations (for the country anyway) of the Lib Dems from the middle of the last century to the book’s publishing date.

By: Warrior

Warrior — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 19:44:32 +0000

socio-political antecedents to the Third Reich is found in Karl Schleunes’ “The Twisted Road to Auschwitz”.

By: Flagstaff

Flagstaff — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 19:12:35 +0000

Thanks.

By: The_Gadfly

The_Gadfly — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 15:58:36 +0000

in this chapter or another in which Goldberg makes a strong case that the current healthcare mess is the result of precisely these fascist policies. With the government controlling all the wage rates, the only means of competing for workers was “benefits” so some companies started paying for healthcare as a means of effectively raising wages.

This stuff isn’t just useful to eggheads, it has actual consequences.

By: vassar

vassar — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 12:53:02 +0000

(By the way, it’s nice to see a site that works from the G3 side of politics vs G2. Most conservative blogs are narcissistic. Yours is filled with knuckles bared.- Cheers)
We (Sands Institute) that “Nazi Seizure of Power” (revised edition) by William Allen to be invaluable, as it details how other competing groups stood by. The early days, before power was won is VG, as is calculating the speed at which they hit the ground running once AH got the Chancellorship. You’ll also like “The 12 Year Reich” by Grunberger.
Not that I’m going on about Nazis, but this takeover is fascist, not communist, in nature…to date. Only when things break down completely is there communism. There has to be ashed with communism.
You might also enjoy our (my) little chapter on “The Mother of All Liberalism” (a definition of why liberals are liberals) at Least Men Standing (vbushmillsblog.townhall.com)
Vassar

By: Butifarra

Butifarra — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 11:55:54 +0000

The last chapter in Crichton’s “State of Fear” also mentions the Progressive era and the incredible naivete demonstrated by the elite in following the Wilson model and eugenics.

It seems that it’s always the *educated* elites who succumb to the political pressures of the time. For a good example read the chapter on the Kennedy era in “Liberal Fascism.”

By: liddleun

liddleun — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 01:49:46 +0000

“The war…made possible for us the solution of a whole series of problems that could never have been solved in normal times.”
Adolf Hitler

“….never let a good crisis go to waste…”
Rahm Emanuel

By: redneck_hippie

redneck_hippie — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 01:30:11 +0000

said the government currently controls 30% of the private sector economy, and that with passage of Obamacare would control 48%. So we’ll be only 48% socialist. Perhaps Obama won’t get us all the way. But what will the leftists elect next time? Just because Obama is too weak to consolidate all power to himself, doesn’t mean someone who comes along later won’t try.

By: MacAoidh

MacAoidh — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 01:19:45 +0000

…but most of Wilson’s agenda was rolled back VERY sharply after the 1920 election when Warren Harding – who ran on a “return to normalcy” – met a severe economic depression with a tax cut and a 30 percent reduction in government spending.

By August of 1921, the depression was over and the American economy entered into a decade of staggering economic growth as described by libertarian historian Thomas Woods.

By: Tbone

Tbone — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 01:17:22 +0000

around here.

http://www.redstate.com/dan_perrin/2009/10/30/every-republican-senator-signs-ltr-to-reid-wheres-the-bill-whys-its-text-secret/#comment-2121

Unless, of course, you believe facism is not a form of totalitarianism democracy.

By: MacAoidh

MacAoidh — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 01:09:32 +0000

…can be found here.

By: Joe_Cor

Joe_Cor — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 00:08:52 +0000

was how Wilson’s agenda got rolled back after WWI. Was Wilson just too incapacitated because of his health breakdown? Was it due to less hegemony in the print media back then? Did Republicans have backbones? The how and why would be very interesting, and potentially useful, to know.

By: livingfortruth

livingfortruth — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 23:41:52 +0000

With the fed taking over smaller (competition) banks, and their claiming paper being counterfieted, and the need to track everyone, it comes as no suprise they are now building the facility to house the computer to do so. Don’t believe the “cyber warfare” aspect. They can harden the system they have now.

http://livingfortruth.wordpress.com/2009/10/30/prophecy-on-the-coming-mark/

By: redneck_hippie

redneck_hippie — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 23:39:13 +0000

I didn’t get past the first couple of pages.

Liberal Fascism is 100 times more interesting.

By: kyle8

kyle8 — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 23:35:31 +0000

I grade on a curve. And after class there is a keg party!

By: Flagstaff

Flagstaff — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 23:21:17 +0000

By: Flagstaff

Flagstaff — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 23:19:55 +0000

I was ready to start on The DaVinci Code, but I’ll get into Liberal Fascism instead.

I needed the nudge, anyway.

By: kyle8

kyle8 — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 23:19:46 +0000

I have enough semester hours in history to get a second degree and I studied the progressive era in two classes. Nevertheless, there were things in this chapter that I did not know. I knew a little about the first red scare and how some communists and Marcus Garvey were deported, but I never knew the full extent of the jailing of dissenters.

It almost makes me feel a little better about the anarchists who were around at that time. EVERY COLLEGE student should be required to read this book. But of course, that will never happen.