Posted on 05/21/2002 10:21:23 AM PDT by Stand Watch Listen
"During the late 1960s, I watched in despair as my brilliantly gifted [American] piano students suddenly began to speak as if someone had replaced their brains with prerecorded tapes. They spoke in phrases-repeated mechanically-which were neither the product of, nor accessible to, intelligent consideration. At first, these tapes seemed to contain only a few slogans about "love and peace." Fruitful conversation became impossible, but that was merely regrettable. The situation became alarming when the "tapes" began to include words and phrases that had become familiar to me in Hungary during the Nazi and Soviet occupations, and which contributed to the reasons for my decision to escape. Worse yet, the words and phrases were soon followed by practices of similar pedigree.
"Reactionary," "exploitation," "oppressor and oppressed," and "redistribution" were some of the words taken straight from the Marxist repertoire. The term "politically correct" first came to my attention through the writings of Anton Semionovich Makarenko, Lenin's expert on education. Adolf Hitler preferred the version "socially correct." Then came the affirmative action forms which classified people by ancestry-first signed into law in Nazi Germany-and the preferential treatment of specific categories, introduced by the Stalinist government in 1950."
Joseph Farah recently reminded us that, "America is not slouching toward totalitarianism, it is rushing headlong toward it. "And if so, are there any apologists that can sincerely argue that a people rushing toward a totalitarian police state aren't seriously flirting with that harlot we call Fascism?
There's a popular line of reasoning circulating these days arguing that governments are basically in the business of selling protection. Protection from poverty, foreign invaders, thieves and other common criminals, "class injustice," our "inability" to provide for ourselves, those who would insult us, environmental degradation, our propensity to drive without fastening our seat belts or ride without our helmets, anything and everything they can think of. So when they come to sell you this protection you may ask them what happens if you decline their monopolized services. What happens if you should like to shop elsewhere for these "necessities," in a more competitive market? What happens if even from a reasonable posture, you refuse to unilaterally allow the federal, state, or local authorities to take your money in exchange for limiting your freedom to negotiate with them?
Well, there's a strong possibility that they'll read you your "rights" and flat out tell you that then you'll need protection from them. That this fact so reminds any reasonable thinker of the protection rackets of organized crime should cause any rational person to look at the entire matter from a different perspective.
.
These are some of the particularly pertinent, and chilling, quotes I take from the article.
Same here. I really don't want my granddaughter to grow up in the world as it is going. I have (finally) convinced my daughter to put her in a private school when she is old enough, but my daughter tends to shrug off any other comments I make. I dread the day she wakes up and sees the truth.
There was some sort of falling out among the Laissez Faire City people.
A good example, Pataki commenting this week on the facial-scanning cameras installed at the Statue of Liberty. He likes them and wants them installed in a bunch of other places. Pretty sickening to hear. The interviewed people going through the lines, and they said it made them feel "safer". One person even said something along the line of "you have to give up some freedoms to keep other freedoms".
Truly disgusting how weak our country has become. Didn't we once fight a few World Wars and a Civil War and a Revolution?
Fascism rejects the theory of historical materialism. It believes that history is not determined by economic factors, but in "heroism and in holiness", as Mussolini says in "What is Fascism?". It places a strong emphasis on the role of individuals and mythology. Because it rejects historical materialism it also rejects that the class struggle is the dominant force of change in society, and even the existence of a continuous class struggle. Fascism rejects both of these things, which are the core of Marxist theory.
Another trait of Fascism is its strong emphasis on nationalism. Mussolini's dream was the recreate the Roman Empire, which was the origin of the salute used by both Fascists and Nazis. This is opposed to Marxism in that Marxism is an internationalist theory. Real Marxism believes that socialism cannot be established in one country because one country doesn't have the resources or the capacity to create a classless society. It believes in the necessity of a world wide revolution for the creation of socialism. Marxists believe that with the creation of a classless society there will be no more need for a state and it will whither away until it has disappeared. Fascism on the other hand places the importance of the state above all else.
Mussolini himself said that "Fascism [is] the complete opposite of Marxian Socialism . . . ." Since Marxism is a left-wing ideology it's opposite, Fascism, is a right-wing ideology.
"Q.E.D."
The rejection of the collectivist premise altogether, classical liberalism, is the true opposite of Fascism/Communism. The two big 20th century totalitarian cults differ only in their imagery and the personality types that find them attractive.
"The hammer and sickle is a swastika in drag."
Madison and Jefferson would say that sovereignty lies in the consent of the people and Liberals would say with the state. I think though, that sovereignty comes from and lies in God. If power isn't exercised in harmony with God's law then it isn't legitimate, no matter how many people consent to it.
I'm sure I'll be accused of being a theocrat, but by placing sovereignty in the people, rather than God and divine law, the framers of the constitution left the door open for any evil so long as it was justified by majority rule. Ultimately, therefore, the reason the constitutional system was perverted so quickly is not the fault of the governmental system set forth in the constitution, but rather it allows matters of truth and morality to become open questions, not anchored in divine law.
flame retardent on!
Here is a link to another thread where the path of socialism in Germany led to Fascism. Of course the socialists want to deny this and say that Fascism is reserved for the right wingers. Wrong Fascism is the ultimate goal of the elite socialists. Fascism enables the elite socialists to control the corporations and to live the elite life styles that the Germans, Italians and Spainards lived in the 1930's and 1940's. (Yes, the National Socialist Workers Party of Germany, otherwise known as the Nazi Party, was indeed socialist, and it had a lot in common with the modern left. Hitler preached class warfare, agitating the working class to resist ``exploitation'' by capitalists -- particularly Jewish capitalists, of course. Their program called for the nationalization of education, health care, transportation, and other major industries. They instituted and vigorously enforced a strict gun control regimen. They encouraged pornography, illegitimacy, and abortion, and they denounced Christians as right-wing fanatics. Yet a popular myth persists that the Nazis themselves were right-wing extremists. This insidious lie biases the entire political landscape, and the time has come to expose it. link)
Here are some key paragraphs in this article:
Nazism was inspired by Italian Fascism, an invention of hardline Communist Benito Mussolini. During World War I, Mussolini recognized that conventional socialism wasn't working. He saw that nationalism exerted a stronger pull on the working class than proletarian brotherhood. He also saw that the ferocious opposition of large corporations made socialist revolution difficult.
So in 1919, Mussolini came up with an alternative strategy. He called it Fascism. Mussolini described his new movement as a ``Third Way'' between capitalism and communism. As under communism, the state would exercise dictatorial control over the economy. But as under capitalism, the corporations would be left in private hands.
Hitler followed the same game plan. He openly acknowledged that the Nazi party was ``socialist'' and that its enemies were the ``bourgeoisie'' and the ``plutocrats'' (the rich). Like Lenin and Stalin, Hitler eliminated trade unions, and replaced them with his own state-run labor organizations. Like Lenin and Stalin, Hitler hunted down and exterminated rival leftist factions (such as the Communists). Like Lenin and Stalin, Hitler waged unrelenting war against small business.
Hitler regarded capitalism as an evil scheme of the Jews and said so in speech after speech. Karl Marx believed likewise. In his essay, ``On the Jewish Question,'' Marx theorized that eliminating Judaism would strike a crippling blow to capitalist exploitation. Hitler put Marx's theory to work in the death camps.
The Nazis are widely known as nationalists, but that label is often used to obscure the fact that they were also socialists. Some question whether Hitler himself actually believed in socialism, but that is no more relevant than whether Stalin was a true believer. The fact is that neither could have come to power without at least posing as a socialist.
bttt
Amen!
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.