So folks, which are we????
I'm about sick of the "aristocratic conservatism" as practices by today's GOP.
Seal the border, end the Great Society, cut spending, inspect shipping containers.......... oh well, no matter how frustrating the results may be, maybe if it's repeated enough something will be done.
Reminds me of this classical thread. Every time I hear or see "Fascist" I now think of this thread:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1574566/posts
Mordern liberalism is driven by fascism for at the very heart of the two the essence is the same.
The fascism of Hitler in some respects has much in common with todays radical left and neither can produce anything but destruction and death (Nazism doing so with direct intentions to achieve their goals, but often as a by-product of liberalism along the way to theirs) for at their common core is the arrogant mind-set of "superiority" and “elitism” that makes them both alike with the exception of what their ambitions look like and how they purpose to carry them out.
There are millions of people who have, and millions more who will suffer or die because of fascism, be it in under socialism, or communism, or pseudo-capitalism, for fascism can dwell within all of these societies.
Fascism is based on elitism and previously appeared most often with emphasis placed on nationalism and physical elements such as genetics and race. The fascism of modern liberalism is different in that it removes the boundaries of nationalism in favor of internationalism. The adversary then becomes not other nations or races who are considered inferior, but those that oppose the idea of an world government run by elitist who establish international law superceding those of the individual nations or states. The strong nationalism which was in past times used to drive fascism is replaced with internationalism. Superiority is no longer determined based upon race or nationality but upon conforming to a very specific liberal ideology so that those holding liberal ideology then become the "master race".
This liberal ideology in actuality is ideofascism and applies a Darwinistic approach to the mind. It is based on the illusion that by purging out "inferior" beliefs in society, and then replacing them with those which they judge to be superior, they will bring the whole world into a new and more perfect age.
For decades there has been great effort put forth by these elitist to hammer public mentality into form by labeling it “main stream” while demonizing everyone that was nonconforming. Hitler's quest for supremacy through the perfection of genetics has been replaced by others, who holding a different vision of the same dream, seek to impose upon all mankind by law what they believe to be an intellectual supremacy.
Egocentric elitism spawned Nazism, but it can no longer thrive in that past form which was made naked and therefore has mutated like a virus mutates to conceal itself in order to survive and spread. Although it has morphed offering a “new” idealistic vision for the world , it still runs parallel with occurrences during the reign of Hitler, albeit in a much softer form.
Liberal fascism is an effeminate fascism which has morphed by forsaking its masculinity to become a seemingly “nonviolent” movement that prefers seduction over brute force and is thus more marketable to the modern world than the fascism of yesterday which was segregated and held limited appeal.
It is a fascism with narcissistic appeal, universally adaptable to all people who will submit and therefore more dangerous than any fascism before it as it will find fewer opponents, and is already accepted by millions world wide. The "Final Solution" will be the attempt to legislate the conscience of man to conform to this neo-fascism. Nonconformist will be deemed intolerant and will not be tolerated.
Unlike the Nazis, Liberazis will not be centralized destroying only certain nations, but having an international presence they have the potential to bring humanity into bondage and destroy the world.
Point is, this public/private "partnership" is about as asymmetrical as it gets. Which parter is far more "equal"? Why, the state, of course. In fascism, the state finds allies in business and keeps the alliances alive, but only so long as business serves the state's purpose. Can the business terminate the state in fascism? Heck no! Can the state terminate the business? Oh, yeah! This is no partnership. It is really an interlocking government directorate. This, in essence, is EXACTLY the same as communism.
For years, people have puzzled, needlessly, over the "nuances" between fascism and communism, some going so far as to deem them opposites. In fact, they are merely the same emperor in varying "states" of dress (or undress).
How can you go through high school with the name Rod Long??
I guess he was philosophical about it!
Bump
We're both.
Corporatism and Communism are two sides of the exact same coin. Corporatism produces a communist reaction, and communism incites further insular actions on the part of corporatists. Leads to a sort of hi/lo welfare state, with the true entrepreneurs, and industrious middle-class being squeezed.
This country could seriously use a 3rd party, IMHO. America's being torn in half on purpose for the benefit of extremists and elitists on both sides.
A "corporate/fascist warfare/welfare state"?
(Couldn't resist)
tempted?
bump... ping
the life & times of carter/clinton
Then we have a mixture of fascism, communism and liberalism that some refer to as "the third way".
I think they call it that because it is not capitalism and not socialism. They are left-wingers who are all for "something different".
To me it looks like a new phrase to describe communism.
Liberalism vs. Fascism
I like fascism better; they're nationalistic AND they have better uniforms...
Hi. I'm not entirely sure how hthis thing works - I'm new. I just googled some conservative versus liberal stuff and ended up here. I'm starting to learn about political philosophy at school, and I'm curious. Conservatism sounds like a really good idea, I eman, everyone works hard and gets what they deserve. Those that don't work hard don't get! But I was thinking about people who are naturally disadvantaged - disabled, or born into a bad situation. Don't those people need a little help? I don't think I'm what you'd call a 'liberal', but I've been doing some thinking. And I'd really like someone to try and set me straight on this if they think they can. It seems that conservatives and liberals pretty much despise each other. liberals despise conservatives because they see them as selfish. Kind of understandable based on what i just said about the conservative ethos. Conservatives hate liberals, but I'm not sure why. it seems that the liberal ethos is just about helping everyone. I mean, I just don't understand how it can be in a liberal's own self-interest to act selflessly. I understand that people say a liberal government helps out all the sponges who lay around and claim benefit, but I don't understand what the government would gain from that. What would be their motive? As I said, I'm not very well versed, politically speaking. But this political philosophy course I'm taking is really very interesting. I hope someone can offer constructive, insightful criticism of that argument. I'm sorry if this shouldn't be posted here, but I'm not entirely sure how to use this forum thing.