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.

American Fascism by Ace all a bunch of Fascists! At least that's what the left keeps calling everyone who attempts to reason from the classical conservative perspective. Yourea bunch of Fascists! At least that's what the left keeps calling everyone who attempts to reason from the classical conservative perspective. But the issue of who is a Fascist can't be addressed by any measure from the modern philosophical left because their fundamental tenet is the lie. For them, thats the first principle of the art of war. They use it, they excuse it, and they in fact worship at its feet. They are the masters of deception, the political prestidigitators of the modern age. War is peace, freedom is slavery, and ignorance is strength. And one of the truly clever feats of magic the left has perpetrated was convincing John and Jane Q. Public that Fascism is necessarily a product of the popular definition of the "far right." "Clinton's an unusually good liar. Unusually good. Do you realize that?" Senator Bob Kerrey, as Chairman of the Democrat Senatorial Campaign Committee, Esquire Magazine, January 1996 And of course we can argue definitions from now to eternity and never get anywhere if we reason from the contemporary post-modern perspective. Whether we use the Nolan analysis to determine political positioning, the French memory of left and right chambers of government, or the anarchy-to-dictatorship continuum, we still wallow around in the rhetoric of abstraction. In the real world of non-revisionist history, the problem of politics has always been the diametric polarization of the individual and a governing elite. It's been a battle over who has ownership of human rightswho possesses innate sovereigntythe individual or the state. And the state has most often won this argument by virtue of either deception or sheer force. "The use of the word royalty, as fee to a proprietor for the exploitation of a work or property, derives from the period when the sovereign assumed title to all wealth of the realm. It was the struggle for freedom from these encroachments of the state that chiefly marked the Nineteenth Century, and established everywhere constitutional regimes of limited authority. In the Twentieth Century, however, we have witnessed a gradual and almost unrestricted movement back to state authoritarianism, primarily in the economic sphere, accompanied by the spread of state monopoly and intervention."Elgin Groseclose, Money and Man: A Survey of the Monetary Experience Groseclose was right. But since he wrote that back in 1961, the advocates of the Collectivist State have significantly expanded their hold on power beyond the economic sphere. Almost daily they claim eminent ownership of some new aspect of our lives. While they're still perfectly willing to license these plundered liberties back to us as a privilege and for a fee, the bipartisan, politically correct, authoritarian American left has finally begun to behave like the Fascists they actually are. But we dare not admit this openly, for the phenomenon of mass denial has become our very own sacred cow. Dont touch it. Dont question it. Just do it. So trudging along through the lowland of cultural mediocrity, most on the Democratic left are no longer even aware of the grand deception, or that others before have made almost the same miscalculation. And also completely buried in the doctrinal deception, a majority of those on the Republican right also have no idea they have long subscribed to the same paradigm. They smugly deny that the illusory quagmire of collectivist quicksand has dragged down the minds of great individuals with an almost blind indifference. Responding in ignorance and addicted to the fraud of the "free lunch," the public has taken to opposing the only prescription in history that has ever even remotely remedied Fascism, which in fact is the traditional American conservatism of the classical constitutional republic. That is the ideology of the so called "far right," where the individual makes the sovereign claim to all basic human rights, and empowers the collective state only by consent and practical limitation to manage, police, and protect those rights. Fascism: Any program for setting up and centralizing an autocratic regime with severely authoritarian politics exercising regulation of industry, commerce and finance, rigid censorship, and forcible oppression of opposition. Webster's Unabridged Dictionary Writing in The New Australian on January 24th, 1999, James Henry noted that, "The state of American education being what it is, the vast majority of people are totally incapable of recognizing a fascist economic program, even when it is used to slap them in the face. This is because they have not been taught that fascism means state direction of the economy, cradle to grave social security, complete control of education, government intervention in every nook and cranny of the economy  and the belief that the individual belongs to the state." And just in case you think you aren't included in that latter chattel, consider that the popular expression used to describe labor these days is human resources. Members of the executive committee of the White House Health Project under Hillary Clinton's failed effort to monopolize medicine were even excited about proposals for the mandatory implantation of livestock identification micro chips in your body. If you didn't submit you wouldn't qualify for any licensed health care. Now admit it. Weren't there any myopic advocates on the left that even momentarily felt like sheep at that proposal? And in a January 26, 1999 piece for WorldNetDaily, Joseph Farah wrote in "Moving Toward a Police State" that, "President Clinton has declared more 'states of national emergency' than any of his predecessors. And he's done it in an era he boasts about as the freest, most peaceful and most prosperous time in recent American history. President Clinton has issued more executive orders than any of his predecessors. His top aides have even boasted of using them as a political strategy to go over the heads of the legislative branch of government. Stroke of the pen, law of the land, boasted Paul Begala of the plan. Pretty cool, huh?" Pretty cool all right. If there's any sensible readers from the left still with us, they're probably beginning to squirm uncomfortably by now. So let's step back and broaden our perspective. Where do we get the word Fascism anyway? Isnt it associated with the Roman "fasces," the bundle of wooden rods covering the battleaxe Roman magistrates used as a symbol of their authority? And wasnt Benito Mussolini the man who took as his symbol the "fasces" of classical Rome, and in doing so gave the modern world the term, "Fascism"? And what was the political slant of Mussolini? Was he a republican constitutional conservative, a product of the "far right?" Or was he a socialist like Adolph Hitler? "At first the claims of the propaganda were so impudent that people thought it insane; later, it got on people's nerves; and in the end, it was believed." Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf Liberal revisionists insist that Mussolini was a product of the political "right wing." In fact, theres strong indication that he was for years an orthodox Marxist, who (like Hitler) came to power through democratic means. His dictum was "Everything for the State, nothing outside the State, nothing above the State." So its a little unnerving that the symbol of the fasces also appeared on the reverse of the "Winged Head of American Liberty" or "Mercury" dime in 1916. That just about coincides with the period the Marxist tenet of progressive income tax became an American institution and the Federal Reserve Corporation was inserted as a central banking monopoly inside the American banking system. The schizophrenic symbolism of the Liberty Head obverse and the fasces reverse on that design of the American 10-cent coin reflects the very disturbance of opposing forces in American culture that we are discussing. And what do we really remember of Mussolini and Hitler from todays university history? Do we remember that socialist icon George Bernard Shaw highly praised Mussolini for his collectivist policies, or that the venerable Mahatma Gandhi called him a "superman?" Gandhi's term became the catchword description of Mussolini for the cultural elite of his day. And weve forgotten that the chairman of the U.S. House Foreign Relations Committee told his colleagues in 1926 that Mussolini "is something new and vital . . . It will be a great thing not only for Italy but for all of us if he succeeds." And we for some reason cant remember that in the 1930's prominent banker Otto Kahn said that the world owes Hitler "a debt of gratitude." Or that Arnold Toynbee thought he was a "man of peace," or that the French intellectual Andre Gide said that he "behaves like a genius . . . Soon even those he vanquishes will feel compelled . . . to admire him." Neither can academia recall that in 1934 the president of Hunter College in America declared that Hitler was "destined to go down to history as a cross between Hotspur and Uncle Toby and to be as immortal as either." Well, Hitler went down to immortal history all right. That much we all agree on. And yet, in a fit of modern denial, collectivist apologists compulsively and erroneously distance themselves from the age of Neville Chamberlain. They blithely forget the doublespeak of Giovanni Gentile, one of Fascist Italy's leading philosophers stating that, "The maximum of liberty coincides with the maximum of state force." Once again they fail to remember that Mussolini's thesis was: "If historic fact exists it is this, that all of the history of men's civilization, from the caves to civilized or so-called civilized man, is a progressive limitation of liberty." Somehow our educational system fails to remind them that the collectivist advocate Herbert Matthews, a New York Times writer who was instrumental in bringing Castro to power in Cuba, claimed that he was "an enthusiastic admirer of Fascism." The quasi-intellectuals of the left boldly proclaimed that the 1996 Republican presidential candidate Bob Dole was a "Fascist" for criticizing violent, sexist rap music. But dont ever point out that Mussolini was fundamentally a socialist, or make any reference to Hitler at all. For if you do, they insist that you lose the argument by default. Then they either smugly pick up their toys and march home, or arrogantly shout you down. Sorry, kids, but Fascism is historically associated with National Socialism, and National Socialism was a centralized, collectivist federal authority. Fascism is an institution of statism, and unbridled statism is antithetical to the true conservative thought of those on the "right." And as much as tight-eyed crypto-Marxist intellectuals on the collectivist American left many try to deny it, Marxism is unbridled statism. "Basically National Socialism and Marxism are the same." Nobel laureate Friedrich A. Hayek F. A. Voigt, after years of close observation as a foreign correspondent prior to and during WW2, wrote that, "Marxism has led to Fascism and National Socialism, because, in all essentials, it is Fascism and National Socialism." After spending twelve years in Russia as an American correspondent only to have his own socialist ideals shattered, W. H. Chamberlin concluded "socialism is certainly to prove . . . the road not to freedom, but to dictatorship and counter-dictatorships, to civil war of the fiercest kind." According to author John Toland, Hitler himself said, "We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic . . . system." But the children of the lie, those on the modern left, know that perfectly well. The idolaters of the collectivist icons Emperor Clinton and Empress Hildabeast just want the next collectivist dictatorship to end up under their control. Their god is power, not truth. "We are the priests of power-do not forget this, Winston-always there will be the intoxication of power . . . If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human faceforever." O'Brien, Inner Party member of the collectivist oligarchy and brain washing specialist in the final scene of Orwell's 1984 Can't you hear them barking, "Oh, but get real! Were not National Socialists. Were International Socialists!" Wellexcuse me. But if we rub the sleep from our pretty little eyes, what do we remember of International Socialism? Besides Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and Kim Ill Sung of course. I know, I know. Its bad enough to have brought Mussolini and Hitler into the argument, but completely unfair to bring the litany of International Socialists into the picture as well. For years, if you dared to point out liberal inconsistencies by analogy to certain historic personalities, your own argument was painted an ad hominem, illogical appeal to passion. But the times are a-changing. Even ultra-liberal Jewish Harvard law professor and O.J. Simpson defender, Alan Dershowitz, publicly stated before an assembly at Yale that he'd defend Adolph Hitler. Furthermore, he insisted, he'd win. So relax and consider concert pianist Balint Bazsony, author of Americas 30 Year War. He survived not only National Socialism under the Germans, but International Socialism under the Stalinists as well. And heres what he tells us about his years in America after escaping collectivist Hungary. "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." Thats all very well and good, but Bazsony's students were just children of the sixties. So be serious. What could America under Liberal Democracy possibly have in common with the Fascist, dictatorial policies of National or International Socialism? Well not much, I suppose. Unless you include centrally monopolized banking, militantly enforced progressive income tax, the involuntary military draft, affirmative action for special cultural, racial, or political groups, oppressive regulation of the environment, oppressive regulation of business, oppressive regulation of commerce, a call to national service, a call for a national identity system, a call for nationally monopolized health care, a progressively intense call for a ban on private ownership of firearms, a call for state assisted euthanasia, a call for legalizing post-partum infanticide (can you imagine people dragging their toddlers down to the "State Euthanasia Center for Baal Worshipers," complaining that "this brats got a bad attitude?"), a call for a national police force with Pentagon assistance, the creation of statutes by centralized executive order, nationalized public education emphasizing radical collectivist and politically correct propaganda, a centralized and progressively unaccountable central government, personal and real asset forfeiture for all manner of infraction, interest bearing State-monopolized fiat money, a two-tiered legal system (one emphasizing an apologetic waiver for cultural icons and bureaucrats on the left, and quite another for "conservatives" on the right and the common man), a phalanx of central ministry "alphabet soup" agencies attacking everyone from licensed physicians to health food store proprietors, political assassination, government cover-ups, Gramscian destruction of dissenting traditional culture, disregard for the constitutional rule of law by the appeal of popular propaganda or "democratic" expediency, a shouting down of dissenters and objectors, redefinition of political terms to suit the power elite, a call for the popular globalization of these "progressive" institutions, and well I dont know. As I said, not much. Except that every one of these proposals appears to be fact. "For government consists in nothing else but so controlling subjects that they shall neither be able to, nor have cause to do it harm." Nicolo Machiavelli 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? And if we are, then denial herself is the brutal, silent, black leather-clad dominatrix of the entire affair. History would suggest she is an indifferent whore, much to the tragic sadness of those throughout the ages who insist on getting involved with her. She's just as likely to strike down her most powerful despots and ideological advocates as she is the powerless and innocent. Still, no matter how much you try, you can never backtrack after considering these notions. There's a legitimate contention for reasonable limitations to the possible abuse of central power. That goes for the most justifiable causes, including nationally or internationally homogenized education, health care, or militant police protection. 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. "In order to become the master, the politician poses as the servant." Charles de Gaulle While to a certain degree the views presented here may be considered an over-simplification, or hyperbole for the benefit of illustration, they still color every further thought we might have about government. The worst thing about seeing our aging collectivist king without his clothes is that you can never get his fat, hairy, greasy image out of your mind again. -30- from The Laissez Faire City Times, Vol 3, No 6, Feb. 8, 1999

1 Posted on 07/17/2001 12:06:52 PDT by Coyote

To: Coyote

Outstanding and timely....

(good to see you)

2 Posted on 07/17/2001 12:08:28 PDT by OWK

To: Coyote

Good read..Welcome back...

3 Posted on 07/17/2001 12:13:20 PDT by Stand Watch Listen

To: Coyote

Good read..Welcome back...

4 Posted on 07/17/2001 12:13:22 PDT by Stand Watch Listen

To: OWK

When they begin to call Freepers Fascists, point them to this piece and see if their arguments can stand up. Denial is really a very powerful opiate.

5 Posted on 07/17/2001 12:21:28 PDT by Coyote

To: Coyote

War is peace, freedom is slavery, and ignorance is strength.

Don't forget the Klinton Klassic Eatin' ain't Cheatin'

6 Posted on 07/17/2001 12:21:35 PDT by hang 'em

To: Coyote

Well said!

7 Posted on 07/17/2001 12:25:27 PDT by sheik yerbouty

To: Coyote

Outstanding!!!

Great to see you back posting.

Stay well - Yorktown

8 Posted on 07/17/2001 12:26:26 PDT by harpseal

To: hang 'em

The term "politically correct" first came to my attention through the writings of Anton Semionovich Makarenko, Leninís expert on education. Adolf Hitler preferred the version "socially correct."

You say Po_ta_to and I say Po_tah_to...

10 Posted on 07/17/2001 12:26:44 PDT by Coyote

To: Coyote

National Socialism was a centralized, collectivist federal authority.

If there was one thing National Socialism was not, it was "federal." They believed strongly in the unitary nature of the state and erased all traditional boundaries within it.

Of course, "federal" is usually used today as a synonym of "national," (in this country) and that they were.

11 Posted on 07/17/2001 12:28:24 PDT by Restorer

To: harpseal, fod

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? And if we are, then denial herself is the brutal, silent, black leather-clad dominatrix of the entire affair. History would suggest she is an indifferent whore, much to the tragic sadness of those throughout the ages who insist on getting involved with her. She's just as likely to strike down her most powerful despots and ideological advocates as she is the powerless and innocent.

Can you say...DARKNESS AT NOON? I'll bet Congressman Condit can....

12 Posted on 07/17/2001 12:31:11 PDT by Coyote

To: Coyote

It's been a long time. Welcome back in a big way.

Are you still wrangling?

God Bless you and your family.

13 Posted on 07/17/2001 12:35:09 PDT by shotabug

To: Coyote

So itís a little unnerving that the symbol of the fasces also appeared on the reverse of the "Winged Head of American Liberty" or "Mercury" dime in 1916. That just about coincides with the period the Marxist tenet of progressive income tax became an American institution and the Federal Reserve Corporation was inserted as a central banking monopoly inside the American banking system. The schizophrenic symbolism of the Liberty Head obverse and the fasces reverse on that design of the American 10-cent coin reflects the very disturbance of opposing forces in American culture that we are discussing.

The Fasces symbolized the many people acting as one, or, the government of the people, as opposed to the Senate of Rome which was a government of the elite. The Fasces are appropriate with the Liberty head, the axe in the fasces is not as it symbolized the wartime power of the people as a group over the lives of individuals, and in particular the right to kill for the benefit of the state. In Rome, the axe could not be carried in the fasces within the city walls at anytime. In military crises, it could be carried with the fasces outside the city.

The fasces are closely connected to decimation. As practiced by the Romans, it was both a punishment and a training process. In the process, every tenth man was counted out of the legions, and then the other nine of his compatriots were responsible for beating him to death.

In the era of the liberty head coin, conscription was instituted, and for the first time in the history of the US, men who had volunteered for State militia's were directly drafted into Federal armies with no right to object. This followed the troubles with Mexico, but was really part of Wilson's war plans in Europe.

14 Posted on 07/17/2001 12:45:05 PDT by Luella

To: Coyote

Copied to distribute to young people for anti-left education. Thanks

15 Posted on 07/17/2001 12:45:12 PDT by dixierat22

To: Coyote

This is one of the best articles I've read about the fallacy of the "liberal left"!

16 Posted on 07/17/2001 12:45:14 PDT by TheBlueMax

To: WilliamPitt

.

17 Posted on 07/17/2001 12:45:48 PDT by VinnyTex

To: Luella

Re: the fascis.... Thanks for that. I had been wondering about that schism for some time now. A very nice addendum, and a most interesting look at history.

18 Posted on 07/17/2001 12:51:25 PDT by Coyote

To: Coyote

Thank you.

19 Posted on 07/17/2001 12:52:08 PDT by KC_Conspirator

To: Coyote

Glad to see you back. It's been a long time. But now Noumenon's gone missing.

20 Posted on 07/17/2001 12:52:39 PDT by Publius

To: Coyote

Excellent read Bump!

21 Posted on 07/17/2001 12:53:04 PDT by PogySailor

To: KC_Conspirator

Just point 'em to it and watch 'em begin to squirm and rationalize. In the end, the hardcores will call you a Fascist with even more vemom and zeal, while a few will actually open a new eye, at least for a moment or two.

22 Posted on 07/17/2001 12:54:18 PDT by Coyote

To: Coyote

The only difference between facism, socialism and communism is who (theoretically) owns things. All have the same common feature - government control.

23 Posted on 07/17/2001 12:55:09 PDT by jimt

To: Publius and Coyote

But now Noumenon's gone missing.

Lurker too.

24 Posted on 07/17/2001 12:56:03 PDT by OWK

To: OWK

Noumenon and Lurker are still arround but both have family and it is summer when the chance to be with one's children is a brief opportunity that can not be just bypassed. Should a crisis arise they will be there.

Stay well - Yorktown

25 Posted on 07/17/2001 13:01:41 PDT by harpseal

To: harpseal

Thanks my friend.

26 Posted on 07/17/2001 13:02:40 PDT by OWK

To: Publius

It's a very difficult and costly proposition to be permanently active. Noumenon is probably very tired of arguing with people, pointing out the obvious. I've been just too busy to keep it up myself. But a few things are going on today that deserve at least some attention. Klamath for one. Condit and the extremely important Freeper publicity, especially today, for another.

So I reposted the Fascism piece not so much to detract from those threads. But as a piece that Freepers can point toward when the many liberals who will be visiting FR because of the publicity appear. When they begin to call Freepers 'Fascists,' people can point them to this piece.

Again, most will fall face down into spiteful denial. But that's the primary proposition of the Left. That's the first paragraph hook of the article. Their tenet is the LIE. The ends justify the means. Do anything, say anything, to get your way. Tsun Tsu. The Art of War. It's the heart throb pulse of the Power Freaks. And from at least one perspective, the modern Left really appears little more than a spiteful power grab than anything else. But expect them to typically deney it with great vehemence. To them the truth is always relative.

27 Posted on 07/17/2001 13:06:31 PDT by Coyote

To: Luella

In Rome, the axe could not be carried in the fasces within the city walls at anytime.

The axe was carried in the fasces within the sacred limits (pomerium) of the city (not exactly the same as the walls) when the lictors were attending a Dictator, such as Sulla or Caesar. This was because the Dictator supplanted all other authority in Rome during his term of office.

Appointing a Dictator was originally a perfectly constitutional and logical way of dealing with a crisis that threatened the life of the State. A dictator was not necessarily tyrannical, but did have the power to cut through Roman red tape, which sometimes made our own system look incredibly efficient.

28 Posted on 07/17/2001 13:06:44 PDT by Restorer

To: Coyote

Great read!, thanks.

29 Posted on 07/17/2001 13:10:17 PDT by okie_tech

To: Coyote

During the waning days of the Wiemar Republic absolutely no one could have imagined the nightmare that National Socialism would bring. With the exception of a few who frequent this web site and some others most are engaging in the gramatical fictions of Rubshov before the final chapter.

Stay well - see you at the next Yorktown

30 Posted on 07/17/2001 13:12:15 PDT by harpseal

To: Coyote

Dude. How ya been? Thanks for bringing by a hit of Ace for the newbies. ;-)

31 Posted on 07/17/2001 13:12:50 PDT by an amused spectator

To: harpseal

Stay well - see you at the next Yorktown

Yep. I pray the outcome goes as it did at the previous one.

32 Posted on 07/17/2001 13:32:12 PDT by Coyote

To: Coyote

Welcome back. Are you planning to post the rest of the Provincial Proverbs?

Jim's server ate them.

33 Posted on 07/17/2001 13:59:22 PDT by nunya bidness

To: Coyote

A interesting as well as informative read.

"Maybe a good time to remind those calling Conservatives 'Fascists,' just exactly what Fascism is, and just what side of 'Left' it actually comes from."

No thanks. Tried it & called a liar, too; by both sides.

People believe precisely what they want to believe; no more & no less.

Mere words assembled from & into facts will never change their "truth" one bit.

34 Posted on 07/17/2001 14:07:12 PDT by Landru

To: nunya bidness

Are you planning to post the rest of the Provincial Proverbs?

Well, all but one or two are over at Laissez Faire. I suppose they could be reposted here too. I've been pretty busy, but I just threw this up when I saw some newbie, probably arrived in with the influx from MSNBC and the Condit rally, calling Freepers Fascists. It seemed that he/she ought to rethink the political direction he/she uses when he/she points that modifier.

35 Posted on 07/17/2001 14:07:43 PDT by Coyote

To: RLK

FY perusal...

36 Posted on 07/17/2001 14:08:06 PDT by Landru

To: another1

FYI: This article as a timely response to your sincere question(s) posed to me on the Ritalin thread? OK?

Thanks to the Coyote, btw.

37 Posted on 07/17/2001 14:12:20 PDT by Landru

To: Coyote

Pulling it all together, what we have right here in our own country are all of the ingredients necessary for a totalitarian police state. We have a federal government that nobody in his right mind would trust, which lies to us incessantly, uses illegal force against its citizens with impunity, and collaborates with totalitarian dictators under cover of a massive propaganda campaign conducted by our supposedly free press. Our major information media are dominated by closet totalitarians who pay lip service to democracy while covertly promoting the interests of communist despots. The political opposition is made up largely of cowards who are so intimidated by our totalitarian propaganda media they are unable to offer effective resistance to even the most egregious violations of civil liberties by the... corrupt Clinton regime. They have become, in the fullest sense of the term, Weimar Republicans(nazi enablers). And finally, we have that which makes it all possible, a listless, docile, dumbed-down public who gape mindlessly at all of the above phenomena without the slightest glimmer of comprehension, and prattle the latest propaganda cliches dumped into their empty heads by the mainstream media.

The Elian affair has truly given us a glimpse into the abyss of tyranny. The message that comes through loud and clear is that the system isn't working. The question that remains to be answered is whether we still possess the intelligence and fortitude necessary to fix it.

Edward Zehr can be reached at ezehr@capaccess.org

Published in the May. 22, 2000 issue of The Washington Weekly

Copyright 2000 The Washington Weekly.

38 Posted on 07/17/2001 14:14:23 PDT by f.Christian

To: Landru

No thanks. Tried it & called a liar, too; by both sides.

That's a fact. But I don't think the point is to win. Many are called, few are choosen. A person here, a person there. Hell, I was once a hard core liberal myself. Thank God a few took the time to provide a different perspective. Who and what represented the turning point? Probably Solzhenitsyn.

Still, I understand your feeling about it. And IMHO, you're correct. Some are gonna' holler bloody murder when thier world gets a little shake. It's painful to get slapped in the face. And it's painful to get slapped back.

39 Posted on 07/17/2001 14:15:47 PDT by Coyote

To: WilliamPitt

"Basically National Socialism and Marxism are the same." óNobel laureate

Friedrich A. Hayek

The Socialist Roots of Naziism

40 Posted on 07/17/2001 14:16:11 PDT by VinnyTex

To: Coyote

I know many leftist, and one particularly intelligent fellow has taught me the following take on this article. This article is bogged down in the definition of a concrete. The term 'fascist' means reactionary ... as in the reaction against the movement towards socialism. Either you are for the dictatorship of the proletariate (capitalism) or you are for the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie (socialism).



He was a professor and a friend ... or else I would have told him he was an idiot.

41 Posted on 07/17/2001 14:22:47 PDT by gjenkins

To: Coyote

Germany's President Von Hindenburg was the enfeebled maitre d' who unhooked the velvet rope and announced, "Hitler. Party of one." (History footnotes, with his faltering will he did manage to exact one promise from Adolph, asking, "When I'm gone, do whatever you want with Germany, but donít let Frau Hindenburg drive my zeppelin.") Whether Bush is another Hindenburg is a matter of suspicion. That Clinton and his rabble are ready to... usurp his Presidency(link)---is a certainty, reconfirming, Satan works his will, not through the strong, but through the weak, more often through the rabbit than the rottweiler.

Still, the rabbit has sufficient character(roadkill) to run rather than cajole a wink and a nod from the rottweiler(tractor-trailer).

42 Posted on 07/17/2001 14:23:49 PDT by f.Christian

To: Coyote

Excellent post...a little reading for the Koolaid drinkers.;^)

43 Posted on 07/17/2001 14:24:14 PDT by headsonpikes

To: Restorer

A dictator was not necessarily tyrannical, but did have the power to cut through Roman red tape, which sometimes made our own system look incredibly efficient.

Yes, that is correct. Like Lincoln.

44 Posted on 07/17/2001 14:24:16 PDT by Luella

To: Coyote

The Lies Of Socialism

Once you accept your completely correct statement that all Socialists employ the Big Lie, as a virtue, you are well on your way to understanding the Twentieth Century. For all of its technological break-throughs, may we never see its like again! We should dedicate ourselves that the Twenty-first prove very different.

William Flax

45 Posted on 07/17/2001 14:25:45 PDT by Ohioan

To: VinnyTex

I found the following book somewhat enlightening also. Of coarse it is an 'objectivist' analysis.



http://www.peikoff.com/op/home.htm

46 Posted on 07/17/2001 14:31:00 PDT by gjenkins

To: Coyote

"It's painful to get slapped in the face. And it's painful to get slapped back."

Sure it is; but anyone seeking the truth, even at the risk that finding said truth might mean their own interests will be compromised, should be more than willing to take a punch. Maybe even two.

Look: my former neighbor, an Ass't Prof of Political Science (no less) was the one calling me "liar" the loudest; over this very issue of "Facist," "Nazi" & the true roots from which they were derived, btw.

If not for my size & the fact I've been known to hit back?

He might've opted on that occaison to beat his "truth into me, I do believe.

(if the look in his eyes counted for anything.)

Anyway, an excellent read & my thanks.

Ciao.

47 Posted on 07/17/2001 14:36:01 PDT by Landru

To: Coyote

I really enjoyed that. I learned something today. I now better understand what that "sick" feeling is whenever I consider our current status as americans.

This is not becoming a "fascist" state... I was born into a state that was already fascist, and progressing towards irrecoverable fascism... a long time ago.

Degaulle's quote was so telling... Jesus said to be exalted you must become humble... politicians say to become the master of others, you must PRETEND to be their servants. We need a lot more servants who are willing to lead when asked... and a lot fewer pretenders, that WANT TO BE the masters... whether we ask them to or not.

"we only wanna hep you...." comes to mind.

48 Posted on 07/17/2001 14:41:58 PDT by Robert_Paulson2

To: Luella

Interesting that "symbol" is in the house of representatives chamber, RIGHT in the middle above the podium.. and taking up the whole wall as well..

Speaks volumes...

49 Posted on 07/17/2001 14:43:23 PDT by Robert_Paulson2

To: Luella

Or just about any other American wartime president.

50 Posted on 07/17/2001 14:43:54 PDT by Restorer

To: Coyote

Amen Coyote. Good post. This guy has put into simple words that which I find hard to express. He is absolutely right in everything he wrote there. Good Job, finding this and posting it!

51 Posted on 07/17/2001 14:44:30 PDT by morque2001

To: f.Christian

Pulling it all together, what we have right here in our own country are all of the ingredients necessary for a totalitarian police state.

I think you're precisely correct. And I think we're very close to witnessing that end. The willful, political thrust of this is not new, but in the making for at least a century, if not more.

What amazes me is the almost smooth, methodical transition up to this point. Therefore I don't necessarily expect the next move to be an abrubt change. Just more of more of more of the same.

I imagine the next major left wing move in this country will nail the coffin of the old Constitutional Republic, and we'll see something, at least in terms of political law, very much like the Fascism of the German National Socialists blended with the Totalitarianism of the Stalinists. What I expect next, over a period of one or two Presidential Administrations, are the serious use of internal passports and an effective disarming of the civil order (we'll get to keep our modern, inline hunting muzzle loaders for at least one more generation). Then a complete fall of the Fourth Amendment, and then the First. All of this will very likely be accepted by the public at large, while lip service continues to the old Republican traditions. In other words, no one will really believe that the First Amendment has effectively been evicersted, even after it's long gone. It'll always be those demonized by the power elite that have to have their mouths sealed for 'crying fire in a crowded theatre.' Everyone else will keep on pretending. That's just my take on it, though. Let's hope, by some miracle, that I'm just plain wrong.

52 Posted on 07/17/2001 14:47:26 PDT by Coyote

To: OWK

Saw Lurker here just the day before yesterday... or as late as last night...

53 Posted on 07/17/2001 14:52:54 PDT by Robert_Paulson2

To: Robert_Paulson2

Our house of representatives look at this every day???

54 Posted on 07/17/2001 15:04:22 PDT by Robert_Paulson2

To: Coyote

Thanks for the excellent article. As someone who grew up in the SF Bay Area, I am quite used to these tactics being used to slowly destroy California.

55 Posted on 07/17/2001 15:29:03 PDT by GoreIsLove

To: LiberalDisruptor

.

56 Posted on 07/17/2001 15:35:37 PDT by VinnyTex

To: Luella

I agree. We spend way too much time and energy sticking our nose where it doesn't belong.

However, if you consider the Col War to have really been a war, and it's hard to see what else you can call a period when utter destruction was literally less than an hour away at any moment, we've been at war continuously from 1941-1980 or so.

The Presidency has great inherent (and necessary) powers in time of war which is doesn't and shouldn't have in time of peace. Some of the turmoil we see in the governmental structure is a resistance of many to a return to peacetime division of powers between the branches of government. Lots of people like the idea of government by executive order, for example. (If it's their side issuing them, anyway.)

59 Posted on 07/17/2001 17:30:42 PDT by Restorer

To: Coyote

Thanks for connecting a few more dots, Coyote. The archway to tyranny will crumble when the keystone is removed, and essays such as this scrapes away the mortar holding it in place.

60 Posted on 07/17/2001 17:34:35 PDT by Eastbound

To: Coyote

their fundamental tenet is the lie

Thanks for reposting this! (I'm adding it, of course.)

You may be interested in a piece I excerpted here.

61 Posted on 07/17/2001 17:44:10 PDT by Askel5

To: Luella

I think a lot of the environmental wacko nonsense is an attempt to regain that wartime feeling of living on the edge, of being really important on a cosmic scale. It's so much more exciting to be saving the world from total destruction than to recognize yourself and your friends as just more links in the long chain of human existence.

63 Posted on 07/17/2001 17:58:34 PDT by Restorer

To: Coyote

A bump for the new Freepers.

64 Posted on 07/17/2001 19:00:59 PDT by shotabug

To: Lurker

.

65 Posted on 07/17/2001 19:09:53 PDT by nunya bidness

To: Coyote

Sorry, kids, but Fascism is historically associated with National Socialism, and National Socialism was a centralized, collectivist federal authority. Fascism is an institution of statism, and unbridled statism is antithetical to the true conservative thought of those on the "right." And as much as tight-eyed crypto-Marxist intellectuals on the collectivist American left many try to deny it, Marxism is unbridled statism.

Thank you for this article, Coyote. Perhaps if enough of us repeat the truth we'll win this debate on merit in a few decades. I will gladly post the above paragraph (w/link) on liberal websites and to Dem. journalists.(^:

66 Posted on 07/17/2001 19:21:21 PDT by Ragtime Cowgirl

To: Sgt Dogwood

FYI & perusal, Sarge.

-BTTT-

67 Posted on 07/18/2001 08:14:50 PDT by Landru

To: ChaseR

In case you've not seen this?

FYI; & records.

68 Posted on 07/18/2001 08:44:02 PDT by Landru

To: Landru

Just walked in the door...thanks, bookmarked.

69 Posted on 07/18/2001 12:56:35 PDT by ChaseR

To: Landru

"But the issue of who is a Fascist can't be addressed by any measure from the modern philosophical left because their fundamental tenet is the lie......While they're still perfectly willing to license these plundered liberties back to us as a privilege and for a fee, the bipartisan, politically correct, authoritarian American left has finally begun to behave like the Fascists they actually are."

Right on the money!

70 Posted on 07/18/2001 12:59:48 PDT by ChaseR

To: ChaseR

"Right on the money!"

Yea. I thought this wmight just resonate loudly with you; amoung other tasty nuggets contained within?

I think I'll ping Aloha Ronnie over to this piece.

The thing is required reading for anyone placing themselves in the front line of this cultural war & helps in understanding the essence of the Left's psych attack, beginning with our language .

71 Posted on 07/18/2001 13:07:09 PDT by Landru

To: ALOHA RONNIE

Say Sarge?

Grab yourself a piece of pineapple & sit down & read this.

You won't be sorry you did, my friend.

72 Posted on 07/18/2001 13:09:46 PDT by Landru

To: Landru

Yes, ping Ron cuz we are "in the front line of this cultural war" Steadfastly.

73 Posted on 07/18/2001 13:18:43 PDT by ChaseR

To: ChaseR

"in the front line of this cultural war"

...and we're at the best internet site to do battle with the left.

74 Posted on 07/18/2001 13:20:04 PDT by ChaseR

To: Coyote

bump for later...

75 Posted on 07/18/2001 15:54:06 PDT by MrConfettiMan

To: dirtboy, tex-oma

FYI

76 Posted on 07/18/2001 18:04:54 PDT by MadameAxe

To: Coyote

"Their tenet is the LIE."

So sad, but so true my friend.

Lately it seems that it isn't that the truth isn't just unimportant, but that it has become totally irrelevant. Almost noone is willing to take that long, hard look in the mirror, let alone ask themselves what they have become.

It isn't just our liberty which is being stolen from us. What's being stolen from us is the ability to tell the difference between freedom and slavery.

Oh well, it isn't like we haven't been warned or anything. The inestimable Alexander S warned us, in no uncertain terms what we would be in for if we continued down the road we travel.

We are about to find out what American Fascism will be like.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Regards,

L

77 Posted on 07/18/2001 21:08:08 PDT by Lurker

To: OWK

Hey, I am no intern.....

L

78 Posted on 07/18/2001 21:10:06 PDT by Lurker

To: Luella

The last thing in the world you want is an 'efficient government'.

L

79 Posted on 07/18/2001 21:12:16 PDT by Lurker

81 Posted on 07/19/2001 15:36:47 PDT by Harley_hog

To: Ragtime Cowgirl

#66 ... Did you get response?

To stir the thought process is possible and necessary.

Give the feed back as a subject of interest, please.

82 Posted on 07/20/2001 12:37:22 PDT by Countyline

To: Countyline

Unfortunately, no. Not even a knee-jerk, media/PR-created response. Sometimes a tiny nugget of truth becomes lodged in these not-so-fertile brains, and rises to the surface during a future awakening - triggered by an Elian, WACO, impeachment type event. We will keep working on them. (^:

83 Posted on 07/20/2001 16:43:33 PDT by Ragtime Cowgirl

To: Lurker

It isn't just our liberty which is being stolen from us. What's being stolen from us is the ability to tell the difference between freedom and slavery.

That was their general intent, IMHO. But then, you already knew that.

84 Posted on 07/21/2001 09:18:30 PDT by Coyote

To: Coyote

Which of Alexander S. writings changed your thinking? Gulag?

In education it is a must read; which, of course, it isn't required reading in our system. Too bad.

85 Posted on 07/22/2001 11:30:54 PDT by Countyline

To: Countyline

"In education it is a must read; which, of course, it isn't required reading in our system."

All one can ask is, why ? (~it's not being required/taught.)

Motive, motive, motive.

"Too bad."

Too bad for most; while too good for a few.

In any event...BTTT.

86 Posted on 07/22/2001 11:40:53 PDT by Landru

To: Landru

One thing history teaches is ... we do not learn from history.

... and so it goes.

87 Posted on 07/22/2001 11:53:39 PDT by Countyline

To: Countyline

"One thing history teaches is...we do not learn from history."

Ain't that the truth.

We as a nation traded our horse-sense country wisdom for a college degree; & ever since that time, the forrest has never been more obscure amoung the trees.

So yes, permit me the privilege of reiterating what you've so eloquently already said, "...and so it goes."

88 Posted on 07/22/2001 12:00:06 PDT by Landru

To: Coyote

BUMP.

89 Posted on 07/22/2001 12:40:50 PDT by conservatism_IS_compassion

To: Landru

Recently (a month ago), there was a human interest story in the Raleigh Sunday paper about an ecentric kind of guy ...

He put up signs in his yard ... to aggravate his neighbors, who had complained about him sleeping on his front porch in his boxer shorts ... to the best of my memory that went ...

No man is defeated until he takes down his own flag.

Reminded me of another quote ...

Never give up, never give up, never, never, never, give up ... Winston Churchhill ...

Good motto's, don't you agree?

... and so it goes.

90 Posted on 07/22/2001 13:11:23 PDT by Countyline

To: Ohioan

all Socialists employ the Big Lie, as a virtue

. . . which is why the FCC is a logical point of conflict. We should be pressuring the FCC to outlaw broadcast journalism on the grounds that it is detrimental to rather than contributing to the public interest .

The Constitution is designed to give us a government which is adequately honest and efficient. The Constitution was designed on the assumption that the people would not be up-to-date on the minutia of government. Such will always be the case no matter what technology is applied, since the people do not care to invest the time and energy necessary to actually be in the know. The institution of broadcast journalism feeds the illusion of actually being in the know, and its real-time criticism of our institutions insinuates that we are in imminent danger of needing a fast update on national politics.

The public is forbidden to carry campaign signs in the vicinity of the voting booth, yet broadcast journalism is allowed to announce to voters that the result of an election is known before the polls close--that their votes don't count.

The FCC will not correct the abuse that is broadcast journalism voluntarily, and the president and the Congress are politically unable to do so. It requires action by the courts, which can only happen if a civil suit is brought against the FCC and its licensees over the FL election debacle and the broadcasting of criticism of the SCotUS decision which ended Gore's effort at election theft. Print media and the Internet can criticize that at will-but the government (the FCC is part of the government) has no right to allow broadcast journalism to question the legitimacy of our president.

91 Posted on 07/22/2001 13:13:56 PDT by conservatism_IS_compassion

To: Countyline

Which of Alexander S. writings changed your thinking? Gulag?

Absolutely. Gulag, in the original three volume, 1800 page, unabridged release. One long summer later, I knew I could never go back. I saw that the battle was REAL. I became convinced that the entire movement of the sixties, the one that produced bonehead liberals like my own former incarnation, was a grand, viscious deception. I was, in fact, quite ashamed to have been suckered in. Quite heart broken.

92 Posted on 07/22/2001 14:54:32 PDT by Coyote

To: Coyote

The essence:

"...What could America under Liberal Democracy possibly have in common with the Fascist, dictatorial policies of National or International Socialism? Well not much, I suppose. Unless you include centrally monopolized banking, militantly enforced progressive income tax, the involuntary military draft, affirmative action for special cultural, racial, or political groups, oppressive regulation of the environment, oppressive regulation of business, oppressive regulation of commerce, a call to national service, a call for a national identity system, a call for nationally monopolized health care, a progressively intense call for a ban on private ownership of firearms, a call for state assisted euthanasia, a call for legalizing post-partum infanticide (can you imagine people dragging their toddlers down to the "State Euthanasia Center for Baal Worshipers," complaining that "this bratís got a bad attitude?"), a call for a national police force with Pentagon assistance, the creation of statutes by centralized executive order, nationalized public education emphasizing radical collectivist and politically correct propaganda, a centralized and progressively unaccountable central government, personal and real asset forfeiture for all manner of infraction, interest bearing State-monopolized fiat money, a two-tiered legal system (one emphasizing an apologetic waiver for cultural icons and bureaucrats on the left, and quite another for "conservatives" on the right and the common man), a phalanx of central ministry "alphabet soup" agencies attacking everyone from licensed physicians to health food store proprietors, political assassination, government cover-ups, Gramscian destruction of dissenting traditional culture, disregard for the constitutional rule of law by the appeal of popular propaganda or "democratic" expediency, a shouting down of dissenters and objectors, redefinition of political terms to suit the power elite, a call for the popular globalization of these "progressive" institutions, and Ö well I donít know. As I said, not much. Except that every one of these proposals appears to be fact..."

We all need to do some dead reckoning to establish our bearings. I don't know about the other readers' reactions but when I started reading this paragraph I had to catch my breath and I felt my pulse quicken.

93 Posted on 07/22/2001 20:16:43 PDT by Enough is ENOUGH

To: Enough is ENOUGH

...catching your breath

Yeah, well, I know what you mean. I suppose you don't know you've painted yourself into a corner until you look up and realize there's no way out without getting your feet wet. While in many ways It's spiteful NOT to admit we're pretty darn free, the framework is well in place to manage any one or group of us, as they please, at their will. So we're free unless we become a liability. Then we become an expendable. The rest is lip service.

94 Posted on 07/22/2001 20:46:40 PDT by Coyote

To: Coyote, ALL

I miss articles like this.

ALL- THIS is how FR was back when I started lurking here back in '98. I miss the old FR

Sigh...

95 Posted on 07/22/2001 23:27:42 PDT by Mr_Magoo

To: Mr_Magoo

"I miss the old FR."

Why? That's silly.

You're the "new" FR; so have at it because by tomorrow, it'll be old enough.

-BTTT-

96 Posted on 07/23/2001 05:50:30 PDT by Landru

To: conservatism_IS_compassion

I think that you would have a major problem outlawing broadcast journalism, by any device. But I strongly advocate making it a criminal offense for anyone to try to interview a voter, right before or after he has voted--the basis for the network election projections.

This simple reform can be easily justified on the grounds that it prevents one of the most obvious methods used to inimidate voters. (This is no stretch at all. There are some neighborhoods, where it could be very dangerous to have voted incorrectly. The mere presence of the exit polster, may serve a function of policing the intimidated voter.)

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site

97 Posted on 07/23/2001 14:37:09 PDT by Ohioan

To: OWK

"Lurker too."

Lurker was posting in one of the Klamath threads over the weekend.

98 Posted on 07/23/2001 14:59:26 PDT by editor-surveyor

To: Luella

"War is the least efficient activity man ever thought of..."

But certainly the one where he is most at ease.

99 Posted on 07/23/2001 15:14:08 PDT by editor-surveyor

To: Ohioan

advocate making it a criminal offense for anyone to try to interview a voter, right before or after he has voted

According to Bill Sammon (At Any Cost--How Gore tried to steal the election--an excellent read), the dirty little secret is that in most places that's already true. He says that the "sample precincts" are "scientifically selected" mostly on the basis of where they can get away with exit polling.

I repeat:

The public is forbidden to carry campaign signs in the vicinity of the voting booth, yet broadcast journalism is allowed to announce to voters that the result of an election is known before the polls close--that their votes don't count.

My answer to McCain-Feingold is not restriction on moneyraising, but the virtual elimination of the place to put it. How much print advertising do you really think would help you? How many political signs, bumper stickers, and campaign pins can you really use? How much travel budget? You could virtually eliminate the effect of "the mother's milk of politics"--money--by outlawing the broadcasting of political discussion and of push-polling.

And I'm not really advocating the elimination of sound bites and such, generically. I'm advocating the elimination of them from radio and TV--the Internet can still do it. But of course the Internet is diffuse; you can't saturate it with ads on 3 "major" networks.

In truth what I object to in the FCC is the fact it gives certain people's speech the imprimatur of the government as well as preferred addresses easily accessible via the simple devices known as radios and TVs. If everyone had equal access to addresses to which they could broadcast--it would be the Internet. "http://www.freerepublic.com on an ISP-connected PC" is a complicated and expensive address compared to "Channel 4 on a TV." At this technological stage, that is the difference, and it still yet is discriminatory. Of course in the pre-internet days, the difference was much more than that.

100 Posted on 07/24/2001 06:37:53 PDT by conservatism_IS_compassion

To: Mr_Magoo

I miss the OLD FR....

You don't need to. Of course, there was a small atmosphere when there were less than 2000 registered posters, compared to the current 60,000 - 70,000 or so. And it was cozy then, while maybe not so much today. But the tradeoff looks pretty promising. The sheer size of today's FR actually appears to make it a viable political force. And that's what everyone was after in the beginning anyway, although most of what we did then was just talk about it. Now it's actually happening as people imagined it could in the early days.

101 Posted on 07/24/2001 14:18:37 PDT by Coyote

To: conservatism_IS_compassion

Just trying to FIGHT BACK at all the deceipt perpetrated during the past two or three generations. The would-be ruling elite are a minority. They prosper in the "free world" by very clever propaganda, attempting to convince the majority that they're not really being ruled, but voluntarily choosing a better way through central means. That's the message of the modern "left."

But because they're a minority, they're always terrified of the public at large. So they push the public to endorse their totalitarian methods, ostensibly for the "common good," but in reality because they are truly in fear. That makes them vulnerable, and it may well be their achiles. Neither miles of razor wire, a phalanx of body guards, or an army of taste testors, can protect these people indefinitely and against all possibilities, as history has consistently shown. Something for us all to bear in mind.

102 Posted on 07/24/2001 14:30:17 PDT by Coyote

To: Ragtime Cowgirl

I will gladly post the above paragraph (w/link) on liberal websites and to Dem. journalists.

I saw that you had no response from your effort. It may not mean that you didn't ruffle some feathers though. BTW, there's several more where this came from, if you're interested.

103 Posted on 07/24/2001 14:32:59 PDT by Coyote

To: Inspector Harry Callahan

There's a couple more of the old ones that are not too terribly dated. Maybe Hollywood Magic, The Fifth Estate, and Original Sin. When they were originally posted here, there were maybe 2000 - 3000 registered posters. I think there are more than 65,000 now. New eyes to open?

105 Posted on 07/24/2001 14:41:48 PDT by Coyote

To: Coyote

BTW, there's several more where this came from, if you're interested

Yes. There are books and brilliant essays written in professor-speak which require serious thinking, analysis, and an expansive vocabulary. To reach the masses, we need a hook - clear and simple explanations, and soundbites that inspire a response and further dialogue. I am very grateful to find well-written essays that liberals will at least be able to read, perhaps even understand. (^:

106 Posted on 07/24/2001 18:53:10 PDT by Ragtime Cowgirl

To: Ragtime Cowgirl

To reach the masses, we need a hook - clear and simple explanations....

Well, that was probably the intention of the ACE series. If you can use them, here's a few more set up to reinforce the right, and provoke the left with their very own methods. I believe the first one was intentionally written with the hope that a few on the left might rethink their position.

Original Sin

April Fools

Hollywood Magic

The Fifth Estate





107 Posted on 07/24/2001 19:23:21 PDT by Coyote

To: Coyote

Thanks for the links my friend.

Our old friend Ace and his writings should be available to the new crowd.

If I were into 'requiring' people to do things, I would call his stuff 'required reading'. LOL

It's great to see you again.

L

108 Posted on 07/24/2001 19:32:51 PDT by Lurker

To: Coyote

Just how have I been missing all of your activity these days. Great to see you have been sticking around. As you can see we are in great need of you.

109 Posted on 07/24/2001 21:11:09 PDT by Revel

To: Coyote

"Then a complete fall of the Fourth Amendment, and then the First. All of this will very likely be accepted by the public at large, while lip service continues to the old Republican traditions. In other words, no one will really believe that the First Amendment has effectively been evicersted, even after it's long gone. It'll always be those demonized by the power elite that have to have their mouths sealed for 'crying fire in a crowded theatre.' Everyone else will keep on pretending."

Brilliant. Ok I will not keep responding, but I could read your comments all night because they are so real to me. I can relate to them so intensly and they are so well stated. BTW I am glad to see that Jim put your graphic back online.

110 Posted on 07/24/2001 21:22:23 PDT by Revel

To: Lurker

Oh, man. The truth is that I'm barely there. The weight of this awareness is sometimes overwhelming. Makes me wish I had learn to dance instead of learn to read, to had been interested in sports rather than civics, and cars rather than conscience. Then I'd be just like the rest of America. If only ACE would wake up. I think they guy's just back there on the couch asleep with the dogs!

111 Posted on 07/24/2001 22:23:02 PDT by Coyote

To: Revel

Look at all the trouble Askel5 went to. Makes me feel stupid for being so concerned about the rent. I swear though, my wife was about to pitch a fit if I kept on spending all my time following the thread of our downfall.

112 Posted on 07/24/2001 22:26:54 PDT by Coyote

To: Coyote

"Fascism" is simply the new liberal fearmongering spin word to replace the worn out and discredited label of "Nazi". The true meaning and application of the term "fascist" is both irrelevant and unknown to these political morons and hacks. If conservatives were truly fascists, liberals would all be rounded up, imprisoned, and killed. Now that's an idea....

113 Posted on 07/24/2001 22:29:51 PDT by rebelsoldier

To: rebelsoldier

he he he...

114 Posted on 07/24/2001 22:46:54 PDT by Joe Hadenuf

To: Coyote

Just thought I would add my sentiments. Hope you show up more often than you have the past year and a half. Your insight is always good food for thought. As far as I'm concerned you're a legend on this board.

115 Posted on 07/24/2001 22:47:46 PDT by Enough is ENOUGH

To: Enough is ENOUGH

As far as I'm concerned you're a legend on this board....

Whoa. That's a tough act to follow. And it's not that there are things that are really more important than trying to preserve the traditions of liberty and responsibility, it's just that there are things that are so much more pressing. And like playing tennis, you have to keep in shape to keep it up. So after nearly ten years of pressing on it constantly, I had to give it a rest for the benefit of my family, and perhaps my sanity. There are others who are pretty dog gone good at it though. Let's just hope all the work we've done, all the soldiers fallen in in these culture wars, will not end up in vain.

116 Posted on 07/24/2001 23:04:07 PDT by Coyote

To: Coyote

Thanks...I missed that. Yes it is exhausting to keep on the subject. A point can be made that it is the will of God to let man prove to himself that without God he will come to no good. Or even continue to exist. So why fight the will of God. On the other hand if it were not for the efforts of our founders then America would not be here today. One question is just when it is that you declare the battle is lost.

In any case I guess you can't spend all of your time thinking about it or else you can have no Godly Joy. To everything there is a season(Turn Turn Turn). Keep the balance. And I thank God that in the end..He is in control.

If Ace ever feels up to it then there must be a lot of new material for a grand article. That is of course also assuming that this could be managed within the peaceful bonds of matrimony.

117 Posted on 07/24/2001 23:10:10 PDT by Revel

To: Revel

One question is just when it is that you declare the battle is lost....

Well, I'm really not qualified to say. But if I had to guess, it's not the battle(s) that count so much as the war. And maybe it's not even the war(s) so much either. Because in the very end, somehow I feel, there's going to be a long line up, and a call for accountability. I'm not sure how, or what the manefestation will be. I just suspect it's a fact beyound my comprehension. That's when I'm going to have to take off my hat and confess that, "Yep. I'm just as guilty as the rest of them. But I'm truly sorry and I want to come home now."

119 Posted on 07/24/2001 23:28:03 PDT by Coyote

To: Coyote & Revel

I've read Harold Pease and Anthony C. Sutton. They fill in the blanks on multicorporatism and globalism that you will not find in our history text books. After reading them I also concluded that the elitist have a pretty good running start on us. One of the authors suggests that the written history should be rewritten to include all of the government disclosures that have been uncovered so that the truth be known. He suspects however that it will never happen.

Pease quotes Solzhenitsyn throughout his article entitled The Communist-Capitalist Alliance to corroborate how the U.S. has rescued the Communist Regime in Russia several times since it has taken power. He asks the question why the U.S. financially bailed out the Russian Communist system so many times.

Good question.

Does anyone know the names of any investigative authors who have written about U.S. business history during the early 20th century? I could find only one article by Harold Pease which was excellent. Sutton has also produced some very interesting works. I also ran across the FBI's accounts of Armand Hammer in PDF which has literally hundreds of pages.

Coyote, you've laid the groundwork now it's up to the rest of us to carry the torch.

120 Posted on 07/25/2001 00:58:29 PDT by Enough is ENOUGH

To: Coyote chookter ctdonath2

Another "deathcamps and boiling frogs thread"

Thanks for this great post Coyote!

121 Posted on 07/25/2001 12:19:21 PDT by headsonpikes

To: headsonpikes, ctdonath2, coyote

Another "deathcamps and boiling frogs thread"

Actually, it's not.

It is well reasoned and not full of American Deathcamps, black helicopters and chemtrails paranoia.

No one even brought up the hackneyed slippery-slope or boiling frog false analogies.

It is indeed a good article.

122 Posted on 07/25/2001 12:36:02 PDT by chookter

To: chookter

"It is indeed a good article."

The "Toward a Disidentification Movement" thread is not "full of" chemtrails and black helicopters either.

Don't let the occasional 'boiled frog' spoil your day.;^)

123 Posted on 07/25/2001 13:01:28 PDT by headsonpikes

To: headsonpikes

Yeah it was.

From the article on that thread:

But is that why such numbers are now mandatory for your kids before you can claim them as a deduction? Is that why a trial balloon was floated a while ago to have that number tattooed on the bottoms of their little feet? The truth is, all that number guarantees is that a place will be reserved for you in the next generation of deathcamps.

Hoo boy...

124 Posted on 07/25/2001 13:04:50 PDT by chookter

To: chookter

"Hoo boy"

Frankly, I don't share your blase attitude towards the tattooing of ID #s on children.

This is where the frogs come hopping in!;^)

125 Posted on 07/25/2001 13:14:35 PDT by headsonpikes

To: headsonpikes

Frankly, I don't share your blase attitude towards the tattooing of ID #s on children.

Yeah... You believe that?

How about chem trails? Believe in those? What about UN tanks infiltrating Amerika? The Illuminati? Yes?

126 Posted on 07/25/2001 13:19:41 PDT by chookter

To: chookter

Tattooing? Yes, that was proposed.

Chemtrails, etc.?..No, no, and no!:^)

127 Posted on 07/25/2001 13:40:46 PDT by headsonpikes

To: headsonpikes

Tattooing? Yes, that was proposed.

I'm dyin' to see some back-up info on that--some source or something....

128 Posted on 07/25/2001 14:08:06 PDT by chookter

To: Luella

Coincidently, the Mercury dime was abolished in 1940 under Roosevelt, (replaced with liberty torch) when the propaganda against Mussolini was starting to reach its height.

Having fasci on the back of an American coin, at this time, might cause people to ask questions.

129 Posted on 07/25/2001 14:27:45 PDT by laconas

To: chookter

Tattooing? Yes, that was proposed.

I'm dyin' to see some back-up info on that--some source or something....

Still waiting..............

130 Posted on 07/25/2001 15:03:35 PDT by chookter

To: chookter

Just wait for the knock on your own damned door.

131 Posted on 07/25/2001 15:07:29 PDT by headsonpikes

To: headsonpikes

Are they going to show up with tattoo guns, or real guns?

I already have a couple of tattoos and I've got some guns too...

I guess I would have to see some samples of their 'work' before I let them ink me.

132 Posted on 07/25/2001 15:14:14 PDT by chookter

To: chookter

Well, in your case, I'm guessing a stun-gun would be superfluous.;^)

133 Posted on 07/25/2001 15:21:02 PDT by headsonpikes

To: Coyote

Thanks for a very illuminating post. Although I do not weigh in as often as I did several years ago, I believe that sometimes the best insight is gained from reading the enemy's own criticism of itself. In that context, everyone should re-read George Orwell's great works Animal Farm and 1984. Orwell (pen name for Eric Blair), was a British socialist who fought for the International Socialists in the Spanish civil war. This battle was a training ground for WWII and provided a preview of the propaganda battle for the "hearts and minds" of the working classes under the guises of "fascism" and "communism". In reality, both are forms of socialism, with the only difference lying in whether the state owns all capital and real estate or merely controls (i.e. regulates) it. Both are totalitarian.

To set the table, Eric Blair was a disillusioned marxist who had bought into the idea of international socialism. When he discovered that Hitler and Stalin were merely using socialist propaganda as a cover for state run authoritarianism, he wrote both books to riducule both false manifestations of socialism.

The real value in these two books is that Blair showed a rare insight into the use of power by the ruling classes in the 20th century to gain control of popular opinion. Devices such as Newspeak (where white is black and good is bad), together with constant monitoring of movement by TV and total control of mass media (3 minute hates). Blair knew the methods and practices of totalarian control (which the article you quote obliquely references). By gaining control of popular opinion, the sheep can be led to pasture for fattening and then willingly to slaughter all the while not realizing that they are being controlled and manipulated.

When I was in school in the 1960s, no one really believed that the books's premises could come true in the western (i.e. non-communist world). The books were taught to ridicule communism. The shear genius of the plan is that, even after Blair spelled it out in the 1940s, the ruling elite have been able to implement it in the second half of the 20th century.

I guess it is true that the best place to hide something is in plain sight. There are lessons to be learned from the children's stories of Chicken Little and Little Red Riding Hood (i.e. if you cry out warnings and nothing visible happens, people no longer hear you). (Take car alarms for example.)

The ruling elite are not geniuses, they are merely bold--- they pee on our leg while they pat our heads. One perfect example of 1984 type brainwashing by the government schools and mass media is that most people do not believe that the Bill of Rights was enacted to protect the states and citizens of the states from tyranny by the newly created federal government. People just cannot believe that they need protection from government when government is the benevolent provider and protecter.

In conclusion, it is truly ironic how the meaning of words has been twisted (a la Newspeak), so that now socialists tar conservatives by calling them fascists or nazis which are really two types of national socialists! This irony is wasted on all but the few who are aware. IMHO this is the true value of FR--- to cause others to become aware of the true nature of the world while nuturing hope over dispair.

134 Posted on 07/25/2001 15:49:47 PDT by res ipsa loquitur

To: res ipsa loquitur

Excellent post.

It is extraordinarily difficult for fish to be aware that they're wet.

135 Posted on 07/25/2001 16:48:11 PDT by headsonpikes

To: res ipsa loquitur

An extraordinarily remarkable insight, and an excellent set of comments. Thanks for taking the time to share them.

You wrote: To set the table, Eric Blair was a disillusioned marxist who had bought into the idea of international socialism. When he discovered that Hitler and Stalin were merely using socialist propaganda as a cover for state run authoritarianism, he wrote both books to riducule both false manifestations of socialism....

And I quote: ď...meanwhile there was the book...A heavy black volume...the inscription on the title page ran: THE THEORY AND PRACTICE OF OLIGARCHICAL COLLECTIVISM. Chapter 1, IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH...Throughout recorded time...there have been three kinds of people in the world, the High, the Middle, and the Low...The aims of these three groups are entirely irreconcilable...by the fourth decade of the twentieth century all the main currents of political thought were authoritarian...After the revolutionary Fifties and Sixties, society regrouped itself...But the new High group, unlike all its forerunners...knew what was needed to safeguard its position. It had long been realized that the only secure basis for oligarchy is collectivism...The so-called Ďabolition of private propertyí...meant, in effect, the concentration of property in far fewer hands than before. At the apex of the pyramid comes Big Brother...Ē -- from the fictitious book attributed to Emmanuel Goldstein, object of Oceaniaís Hate propaganda in George Orwellís 1948 masterpiece, 1984

The ruling elite are not geniuses, they are merely bold--- they pee on our leg while they pat our heads.

That's a fairly graphic image. I find myself looking down at my wet pants.

136 Posted on 07/25/2001 16:53:18 PDT by Coyote

To: Coyote

Late to the game here, but this is an outstanding post.

What is most disturbing to me is that the other guy is a fascist, but "we" just want law and order," a "moral society," to "preserve our way of life," etc.

They all - left and right, conservative and liberal - fight for control of the hammer, instead of throwing it down in disgust and walking away.

137 Posted on 07/25/2001 16:56:26 PDT by Storm Orphan

To: Coyote

Bump.

138 Posted on 07/26/2001 08:37:14 PDT by headsonpikes

To: headsonpikes

Hope it enlightens. BTW, who DOES own individual sovereignty? The individual, or some licensing authority? Are we the chattel (cattle) property of some ruling elite, or do we belong to ourselves? Where is the line drawn? How is it tested? How is it brought back into balance, if an imbalance is believed to be present? Just a few questions for the insomniac? Or true pivotal foundation between liberty and tyranny?

139 Posted on 07/26/2001 11:17:08 PDT by Coyote

To: Storm Orphan

You wrote: They all - left and right, conservative and liberal - fight for control of the hammer, instead of throwing it down in disgust and walking away.

Maybe it depends on how these things are defined. I think the author attempted to qualify that here: While they're still perfectly willing to license these plundered liberties back to us as a privilege and for a fee, the bipartisan, politically correct, authoritarian American left has finally begun to behave like the Fascists they actually are.

And you wrote: What is most disturbing to me is that the other guy is a fascist, but "we" just want law and order," a "moral society," to "preserve our way of life," etc.

That's reasonable point, but I suspect a successful culture has to be VERY careful here. Consider this comment:

"European democracy was originally imbued with a sense of Christian responsibility and self-discipline, but these spiritual principles have been gradually losing their force. Spiritual independence is being pressured on all sides by the dictatorship of self-satisfied vulgarity, of the latest fads, and of group interests." --Alexander Solzhenitsyn

140 Posted on 07/26/2001 11:41:24 PDT by Coyote

To: Coyote

I'm not at all concerned about preserving a "culture" of any sort if the survival of same is dependent on sacrificing the individual for the "greater good," regardless of how "greater good" is defined or who defines it.

I certainly respect Alexander's opinion - I was entranced by his books - but I can never countenance violation of an individual's rights for any reason.

No faction is immune from this immoral desire to rule - not Christians, lefties, conservatives...not no one.

Again, outstanding post.

141 Posted on 07/26/2001 12:57:17 PDT by Storm Orphan

To: Storm Orphan

No faction is immune from this immoral desire to rule - not Christians, lefties, conservatives...not no one.

Well, I guess that includes me too. Excellent point, and IMHO, axiomatic. Still, because those posing under the popular definition of "left" seem to have had the ball and be running with it for some time now, I'm cheering on the "other" side for a touchdown or two. But that's my perogative. At any rate, good comments.

142 Posted on 07/26/2001 13:10:02 PDT by Coyote

To: Coyote

I have had the same thought about 1984 for years myself. I recently reread it (this past May). I wonder if its an inside joke and that I'm one of the middle (Outer Party). Oligarchical Collectivism as described in the book is really indistinguishable from Fascism as described in the posted article.

143 Posted on 07/26/2001 13:59:56 PDT by Loopy

To: Loopy

Yeah. I reread it after 30 years and it hit me square between the eyes. It was so much more prophetic than most can even fathom, IMHO.

144 Posted on 07/26/2001 14:07:30 PDT by Coyote

To: headsonpikes

It is extraordinarily difficult for fish to be aware that they're wet.

Yes, just as it is difficult for the general populace to see that their true condition is more akin to zoo animals or fish in a bowl, than truly free.

Until an animal realizes that it is in a cage, it cannot even contemplate escape.

145 Posted on 07/26/2001 15:50:56 PDT by res ipsa loquitur

To: Coyote

But the new High group, unlike all its forerunners...knew what was needed to safeguard its position. It had long been realized that the only secure basis for oligarchy is collectivism...The so-called Ďabolition of private propertyí

Yes there are many jewels like these buried amid the pages of 1984. It would be hard to condense the book for fear of omitting an important insight into the nature of the ruling elite.

The use of the name "Goldstein" shows how the ruling elite try to divide us into special interest groups by teaching us that other groups either want what we have or have what we want. This goes on while the elected puppet leaders decry statehood and individualism as evils that need to be overcome by one world authoritarian collective statism. The media never points out the obvious contradiction that the "politically correct" liberal socialists are the very ones who thrive by sementing the population into groups beholden to big government for their livlihood and protection. Just another example that people have been conditioned by the media and government schools not to see the obvious.

BTW, isn't their a poster on FR whose screen name is Emmanuel Goldstein?

146 Posted on 07/26/2001 16:13:18 PDT by res ipsa loquitur

To: res ipsa loquitur

Very interesting insights. VERY interesting. I don't know of an Emmanual Goldstein posting here, but I do remember this old piece.

147 Posted on 07/26/2001 16:50:53 PDT by Coyote

To: Coyote

This book was given to him by O'Brien himself to test Winston's loyalty to Big Brother and set him up for the final brainwashing that would forever subordinate him to the system. Orwell had O'Brien intentionally allow Winston to discover the truth. Then when Winston thought about freedom and began to consider telling others, he exposed himself. O'Brien was able to pick him out for a little re-education-a "new paradigm." It was a technique Orwell had the authorities use to discover and correct dissention!

I have considered the implications of this paragraph many times before I ever posted on FR. Yes, I know even paranoids have enemies. However, this forum would be a unique method to root out the disloyal like Winston Smith so they could be segregated, re-educated or irradicated.

BTW, you're real name is O'Brien, is it?

148 Posted on 07/27/2001 08:55:39 PDT by res ipsa loquitur

To: res ipsa loquitur

BTW, you're real name is O'Brien, is it?

O'Brien, Goldstein, Smythe, what's the difference? One good thing about this age of communication is that you can make yourself alomst invisible under a virtual alter ego under a virtual alter ego under a virtual alter ego. It makes it a little more work for those who can ALWAYS find out who you are if they want to, and MUCH more work, if not completely impractical, for those who are not actually positioned by authority. I doubt VERY much that any of us would be singled out unless we actually said or did something really stupid, and we all pretty much know what will ring their bell. At least I imagine so. I'm certainly not going to iterate them here!

But the one worry we might have is that the situation can change drastically at any time, and perhaps retroactively. One little nuclear or bio-chemical act of terrorism out there and a single executive order could put even the pretense that we are living under fair honor to the Constitution in a dark vault somewhere.

That's what happened to Solzhenitsyn. If you recall, they arrested him on the front line while serving as a Major and fighting the Germans during WWII, for a letter he had written to a friend TEN years earlier! I've had a few hot flashes of paranoia during the Clinton years, with all the criminal crap and the conflict between the people and the government. And it really looks like a few people did get whacked. But not on a large scale, or for merely speaking out. The administration, even the ruling clique behind them, simply didn't have the resources to chase down everybody. You never know about the next time though.

But if you have a conscience, if you even hope to have a little honor left, you have to speak your mind from time to time. Wouldn't you say?

Regards, O'Brien.

149 Posted on 07/27/2001 11:18:22 PDT by Coyote

To: Coyote

But if you have a conscience, if you even hope to have a little honor left, you have to speak your mind from time to time. Wouldn't you say?

In the words of the immortal bard,

"I see nothing. I hear nothing. I know nothing." Schultz, Hogan's Heroes"

150 Posted on 07/30/2001 10:23:09 PDT by res ipsa loquitur

To: res ipsa loquitur, Manny Festo, Lee'sGhost, Liberty Belle, MadIvan, LiberalDisruptor, mikesmad

FYI. Thunk.

151 Posted on 08/02/2001 11:31:25 PDT by Coyote

To: TheGrimReaper, McGruff, R.W. Wacko, newgeezer, d14truth

FYI. Thunk.

152 Posted on 08/02/2001 11:33:58 PDT by Coyote

To: jimt

The only difference between facism, socialism and communism is who (theoretically) owns things. All have the same common feature - government control.

My favorite definition was posted here and I copied it. I can't remember who posted it or I would give attribution. It goes like this;

ďFascism is an economic and social theory that property, though privately owned, is subject to government control.Ē

ďCapitalism asserts that property is privately owned and privately controlled; communism says property is commonly owned and government controlled.

153 Posted on 08/17/2001 13:24:22 PDT by ThomasJefferson

To: Coyote

Repost?

154 Posted on 08/19/2001 15:14:17 PDT by Coyote

To: Coyote

You say Po_ta_to and I say Po_tah_to...

You say either and I say either...

Youíre all a bunch of Fascists!

snicker...

155 Posted on 08/19/2001 22:35:58 PDT by philman_36

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.