Posted on 10/13/2022 1:37:37 PM PDT by gitmo
Even a tyranny will collapse if the tyrant doesn’t have men motivated to fight for him.
You’re right.
Ultimately no tyranny can resist without the cooperation of the people. Although this might change in the age of automation of the enforcers using AI.
It’s a sign, to me at least, that Christ’s coming cannot be too far off because there will be nobody to save if the elites are successful in their automation of enforcing their desires upon mankind.
All the other political positions you called out are ideologies and will fail as they require humans to fit into inhumane schemes.
With regard to excess freedom being used to eliminate freedom:
In most every other language there is only one word for 'freedom' and 'liberty'. In French, for example, the word for freedom is liberte. However, in America we often mean different things when we talk about freedom and liberty.
Liberty, when it is distinguished from freedom, is often described as a higher form of freedom. The freedom to do what we ought to do, rather than the freedom to do whatever we can. Liberty is often used in a religious context, some will say that a person is not entirely free if he is enslaved by sin, and so in order for there to be liberty a nation must put in place laws to discourage and/or criminalize the most egregious sins.
Libertarians would strongly disagree. They would say that people should be free to do whatever they can so long as they don't violate the NAP. It is up to each individual to be the best they can be.
Conservatives, on the other hand, recognize that humans are fallen creatures and the activities of some reprobates may impact other citizens; that too much freedom can lead to less liberty overall.
I'm not up on the exact details of the rise of the Nazis, but I don't think it was primarily about creating chaos and then claiming to be the antidote to that chaos. There was already a lot of chaos in Germany due to the extreme economic and social punishments inflicted by the Treaty of Versailles.
The worst that can be said about the libertarians is that they can end up being useful idiots as they lobby for open borders and unrestrained capital. Their intentions are not to participate in some secret conspiracy to help a cabal of fascists into power. Their intentions are to create a free society, that unfortunately is too free and atomistic for the average human and leads to chaos.
This chaos doesn't always lead to fascism. It could lead to communism, democratic socialism, welfare state capitalism, or something else.
It could even lead to a monarchy with a state church that would act to focus the efforts of its citizens toward living holy and productive lives. That is, a nation with less freedom but greater liberty.
In history, most tyrants have met a bad end.
Power goes to their heads, and something goes around their necks or through their amygdalas.
Conservatism and liberalism are ideologies, because they mean something. If I asked every conservative what the word means, I would get a largely unified answer with only a little bit of variance. Same with liberalism. They are ideologies. An ideology is simply another way to say what you believe the best way for society to function.
Fascism and socialism and communism are all just subsets of socialism. They all came out of the Austrian school of economics at the same time. They are competing left-wing ideologies fighting to determine the best way for government to control society.
Do not buy into the idea that fascism is right-wing tyranny. It is not. You have right-wing (individualism) and left-wing (statism) everything political is a continuum between those two points. The only way that fascism can be right-wing is in relation to other ideologies, of which only communism is more left-wing. So, anybody who says that fascism is right-wing, they are telling you that they are communist because it is right-wing to them and not in an absolute sense.
There are two types of libertarians, the ones who want you to be free to live your life on your terms and the fascists who use libertarianism to show that it cannot work and the only thing that can work is some level of government control. The latter ones see libertarianism as a means to cause chaos and pain so people cry out for government. They are not real libertarians. As I said, they use the libertarian arguements to hurt people, so those people become supporters of the government. They are not interested in letting you live your life freely as long as they get to do the same.
Real libertarians don’t use their freedom to hurt other people. They just want to live their lives and they let you live your life. The fascists that use freedom to drive the arguement for strong government are not libertarians, regardless of what they say. They are fundamentally oligarchs. They want strong government to control and they use the so-called freedoms to destroy people to make the argument that strong government is the only real option for societal sustainability.
National-libertarianism works. It was what the Founders wanted. Within the country, a very light touch by government. But towards the world, the federal government would not hesitate to project power.
You have to understand that there are real-libertarians and then there are those that claim to be, but really want a socialist government and they use the libertarian arguments to the extreme to drive the debate their way.
Like being chased by a griz and shooting the other hunter in the knee?
That’s a good way to put it.
Conservatism is not an Ideology
Also libertarianism:
Libertarians: the Chirping Sectaries
Also, a reasonable take on fascism:
I can plow a field all day long
I can catch catfish from dusk ‘til dawn (Yeah)
We make our own whiskey and our own smoke too
Ain’t too many things these old boys can’t do
You may refer me to anybody you want, but I have personally studied the issue and contended with people about it for a long time.
Again, there are those libertarians who want to live their lives and they will let you live their lives and there are those who claim to be libertarians but only want to use libertarians by driving it to its extremes in order to make the argument for socialism. If you do not understand this paragraph, you’re not understanding at all. The Koch Brothers are an example of this. They claim to be absolute libertarians, but want to drive libertarianism to the point where it gets debunked so that you beg for big government to protect you.
They are the sons of fascists. That should give you a clue as to their true idealogy. They aren’t believers in freedom, except for themselves.
All forms socialism are about self-salvation, whether it be socialism, fascism or communism. It is a fulfillment of II Tim 3:5
The creed of fascism and communism are very nearly the same. That should give you a clue that they are related.
Communism - From all, according to their ability. To all, according to their need.
Fascism - From all, to the state. From the state, to all.
The proclaimed end of fascism is all citizens living in an ethnically or culturally homogenous state under a totalitarian government that controls all aspects of their lives. These citizens could still live as they always had so long as they were part of the ethnic and/or cultural majority.
Fascism was developed after WWI. The socialists had hoped that after decades of communist and socialist agitation, that when the Great Powers decided to go to war the workers would unite, revolt and refuse to fight.
However, the workers did not unite. Instead they all became rabid patriots for their respective nations. Fascism was a way to unite socialism with ethnic and national affinities.
Nazism was a one-off. For some weird reason they thought they could conquer the world with a German-oriented ideology. There was nothing in it for the Slavs, Jews, or other Eastern Europeans. Franco's Spain made more sense as a fascist state as they remained in Spain with no global ambitions.
Communism is tied to a universal, materialistic, amoral idea of humans as cogs in a nihilistic world. Fascism is tied to a "blood and soil" respect for the ethnic/cultural basis of the society in which it is planted. However, they disrespect the individual by imposing their demands in a totalitarian fashion. Italy failed, in part, because Mussolini was trying to tie Italy to its Roman past rather than taking account of its Catholic nature.
This distinction holds today as most neo-Marxists are internationalists while most neo-Fascists are nationalists.
I may have a BS in Math (minor in Physics & Chemistry, U of Chicago), an MS (also U of C) and a PhD in Computer Science (MIT), but I also do “practical” work.
Over the years, I rewired much of our original house, wired the addition to that house, installed our latest dishwasher and kitchen faucets, and once even replaced brake pads on my Corvette (really messy!). Also, years ago, our next door neighbor was surprised that someone (me) with a white-collar job would himself manually dig the holes and install our post and rail fence.
But I drew the line last month. I hired people to cut down and trim some trees on our property, especially the half-ton branch overhanging our roof. (They had to bring a modest crane as well as the bucket lift for that.)
Anyway, my point is that being educated doesn’t require being contemptuous or preclude being practical (although my practical abilities now are limited by my being a month older than Hunter’s dad).
If they are drag-queening as libertarians for some nefarious purpose then they are just Machiavellians.
I've always thought that a smart, resourceful, and persistent person could live as a libertarian in any society from anarchy to totalitarian. In a sense, Stalin lived like a libertarian in the Soviet Union because he could do whatever he wanted.
I would only count a person as a true libertarian if he wanted for others what he wanted for himself. The person "living as a libertarian" rather than being one is someone like McAfee who came into a bunch of money from his software and then went on one heck of a crazy spree, or someone like the Wolf of Wallstreet and his hanger-ons, or the former KGB agents who morphed into Russian oligarchs.
Learning how to survive was an old boy scout thing.
I can weld, wire electrical circuits, do basic plumbing, basic carpentry, skin a deer, cook a brisket and fix a toilet.
Tried to teach my kids but to no avail. They had no patience.
That’s fine. We can make communism the theoretical end of the end. Theoretical, because you can never get there. THe moment the guns from socialism are removed, people start acting as capitalists.
That makes fascism the real end of the left side of the political spectrum. The ideas of Socialism, fascism and communism were all developed from the Austrian school of economics. Mussolini and Giovanni Gentile, the co-creators of fascism, both called fascism the perfect socialism. You think they were ignorant of their own creation?
Nazism was a distilled from, from an allegiance from one’s country to one’s heritage. Hitler was what is known as a traditionalist. A traditionalist is a person who believes that there was a time in the past when his society was at its best. He wanted to bring back Aryanism, because he thought that Germany was at its best when it was pagan and before Christianity. Nazism really wasn’t racial, as there were Nazis that were of all races and ethics. I could show you pictures of German blacks that were proud Nazis. Hitler wanted the pagan philosophy of Aryanism. He hated Judaism and he hated Christianity.
There is a quote I read just this week to illustrate how much Hitler had hated both faiths. It was his wish that Islam had beaten Europe so that it could have killed off the Jews hundreds of years ago.
Everything else is dross. Hitler was not a nationalist. It was his plan that, once he consolidated his win over Europe, he was going to start a war against the United States with the intent of returning America back over to the natives. Does a nationalist start another world war, with the intent of conquering a country overseas? He is only accused of being a nationalist by the internationalist left.
Nationalism is supposedly bad, but globalism is the anti-dote to nationalist. Does that sound familiar to you from the left today?
Hitler only nationalized the Unions in order to bring them under control of him, because they were asking for past payment due from having worked for many years for free to bring Germany out of its depression. The same with Big Business, he was planning on nationalizing private enterprise when he was able.
Whether Franco's Spain really was fascist has been much discussed.
I don't know that he really thought that far ahead.
If he was able to conquer Britain and Russia, he might have expected us to make peace with him.
Hitler was a racialist, but he was so obsessed with Germany that it's hard not to call him a nationalist.
You’re right, they aren’t really libertarians despite their claim to be. I’ve been saying that. Real libertarians are guided by natural law. The others just see it as a means to install fascism and socialism by deliberate misuse of individual freedom to abuse people to show freedom doesn’t work.
To them, libertarianism is a means to fascism. Fascists want strong government because they can get the government to give them their sector of the economy to control in exchange for enforcing government dictums.
As I said, libertarianism only works within a country, but it cannot be made to work as a one world government.
He had a vision for the world under him, even if hadn’t quite planned it out yet. He still had to consolidate his European gains before he could go farther.
I’m only making the point that he wasn’t really a nationalist. The left, of all kinds, have always believed in a one-world government. He was an aryanist. He wanted what he understood about Aryanism to be the philosophical bent of the German goverment. Nationalism, to him, was just a means to a greater end. He had no intent of being satisfied with a Europe that was ruled by Germany.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.