Posted on 02/18/2002 2:19:04 PM PST by TLBSHOW
They encouraged pornography, illegitimacy, and abortion, and they denounced Christians as right-wing fanatics.
OK, they denounced Christians as right-wing dupes and fanatics all right, and they clashed with Christians over euthanasia (part of the Nazi agenda that leftists are pushing hard today), but I'm unaware of them "encouraging pornograhy, illegitimacy, and abortion". Can anyone enlighten me on this?
They encouraged pornography, illegitimacy, and abortion, and they denounced Christians as right-wing fanatics.
OK, they denounced Christians as right-wing dupes and fanatics all right, and they clashed with Christians over euthanasia (part of the Nazi agenda that leftists are pushing hard today), but I'm unaware of them "encouraging pornograhy, illegitimacy, and abortion". Can anyone enlighten me on this?
One can, however, equate the liberal idea of justice with the Nazi court system. Even in civil cases, German courts at the time judged guilt and assigned the degree of punishment based on 1.Race 2. Class 3. Gender.
All liberals add to that mix is sexual orientation.
The true living political spectrum is "command and control" on one side and anarchy on the other side.
Liberty and Freedom are just to one side of anarchy - definitely closer than most of us are comfortable with.
The struggle of control-freaks vs. those who would rule themselves is recorded throughout history.
Of course one needs a viable internal "moral code" to survive in Liberty. "Bad" people need to be ruled or...our old friend chaos arrives.
Interesting post, but you go a bit overboard. The NAZIs were less pornographic than the Weimar Republic they replaced. The NAZIs were usually nominally Christian, though their real religion was NAZIism.
The principle of the First Amendment is that we are entitled to our own opinions--and to publish those opinions on our own dime. The principle of "journalistic ethics" is that journalism on the high-speed printing press is too powerful to fall into the wrong hands, that it must be not someone's opinioon but objective. Sounds woonderful--we're entitled to the truth, so it claims--but the corrolary is that we are not entitled to publish because we might be wrong.
Thus the ethic of "objectivity" is directly at odds with the First Amendment. The distinction was somewhat academic before the advent of the FCC--but the FCC exists to censor out all but the few licensed broadcasters, and in principle to censor them (in that their licenses expire and require renewal "in the public interest" as judged by the FCC. The FCC created the broadcast bands by defining them and thereby defining the receiver characteristics which would pick up broadcasts.
The Internet breaks out of the mold of few-to-many defined by the FCC's licensing relatively few, relatively high-power stations instead of many, many low-powered ones. The Internet essentially gives all aspiring publishers a level playing field, and elitists have no great advantage. Like talk radio, the Internet is well suited to conservative commentary.
Do it for Lent. Not for Jimmy. He ain't worth it.
You haven't sworn off cheeseburgers have ya?
Don't get me wrong. Control freaks have their uses in functioning civilizations. I would just like the frustrated, powerless types to be more abundant.
Who knows how many people died because of that very passage and others like it.
We are better off pointing to the distinctions in order to conclude upon the similarities, rather than the other way around which will be rejected off-hand. The similarities have been well described here. Some distinctions:
- Nazism/fascism maintains private property;
- Nazism/fascism is nationalism whereas socialism / communism pretends [emphasis important here] to be borderless;
- Socialism/communism is a means whereas Nazism/fascism is an end.
We unfairly discredit our detractors and get no where with them if we ignore these distinctions. Rather than saying they are one in the same, I prefer to get the left itchy on its similarities to fascism by pointing to those aspects of the modern left which are more fascist than communist. It's easy for the left to deny being communists; they're not, no matter how much they are, for they haven't the power to be. However, they have undeniably approached the fascist state: nationalism.
The nationalist wants a public/private partnership. This is best expressed in Latin American dictatorships where business is an adjunct of government, just as it was under Hitler in Nazi Germany (Mercedes-Benz was a prime example). The Americans approached this earlier, in fact, during the progressive era, when Teddy Roosevelt's "New Nationalism" had the country headed towards a government-business partnership that would have yielded permanent monopoly status to the likes of Standard Oil and U.S. Steel.
Socialism/communism wanted the same thing but with public ownership. The progressives/nazis/nationalists allowed for private ownership, but under government guidance. We are far closer to nationalism than communism.
You are quite deluded.Perhaps. But unlike you, I know how to read.
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.