Wednesday, October 19, 2011

America's Last Stand

The 2012 elections are the last stand.  For progressives as well as small government conservatives and libertarians.  It is America's Last Stand
The economy will not improve
The situation of ordinary citizens will become even more parlous, and government will be forced to "DO SOMETHING!"

That something depends upon which party is in power.  Liberals see the mess we're in and blame free market capitalism, ignoring the fact that we haven't seen that rare bird in a hundred years.

Yeah, we had some variants and hybrid strains, but it's not been a free market, but rather a very locked-down and expensive one.  Just ask entrepreneurial outsiders trying to pole vault in over the regulatory walls governments have erected at the behest of the insiders.  Progressive "solutions" will only make it worse.

Welcome to The Crisis

We are in a crisis, and the progressives see it has their last, best hope.  Hence the desperate cry, "The revolution is here!"   No, it's not, but progressives will keep asserting it, telling the big lie long enough until it becomes the truth.  The Obama campaign, flush with Wall Street Cash and it's own fat cat bankers and plutocrats (Daley, Immelt, etc), will demagogue the Occupy Wall Street protests to its own political advantage

This sums up the Occupy Wall Street agenda pretty well:
But the dominant feature is a fierce hatred of anything capitalistic-individualistic profit seeking, large scale enterprise, banks, joint-stock companies, department stores, "international finance and loan capital," the system of "interest slavery" in general; the abolition of these is described as the "basis of the programme, around which everything else turns."

[...] it is not a proletarian but middle class socialism, and that it is, in consequence, inclined to favour the small artisan and shop keeper and to set the limit up to which it recognizes private property somewhat higher than does communism.

[...] In the case of the wealthier capitalists, state control and restriction of income will leave little more than the name of property, even while the intention of correcting the undue accumulation of wealth in the hands of individuals has not yet been carried out.
That was written by Friedrich Hayek in 1933, and he wrote it about Hitler's socialist party.

They aim for modern-day Germany, but their agenda is from National Socialist Germany

It's scary enough that they aim for present-day Germany as their model, where government takes over half of what you make and spreads it around, and puts a lot more rules on you like no gun ownership and mandatory recycling.  Imagine paying $6 for a gallon of gas and living in half the space you live in now.

Only our government is not efficient like Germany's, so we will end up performing a sclerotic slide reminiscent of post WWII Great Britain, only without the sharp musical mockery of a Pink Floyd or the cultural parody of Monty Python...

... And we'll continue sliding all the way back to 1933...

Public-private partnerships, with governmental panels drawing up business plans and picking winners and losers will be the norm.  Free-market capitalists, libertarians, Christians and other free thinkers will not be marched off to gas chambers; we will instead be either broken to the will of the state or branded enemies of the Brave New Society, unable to find work or participate in the government-controlled marketplace.

Laugh if you want to, but that is where collectivism always leads, without exception.  Again, Hayek explains:
The inherent logic of collectivism makes it impossible to confine it to a limited sphere. 
Beyond certain limits, collective action in the interest of all can only be made possible if all can be coerced into accepting as their common interest what those in power take it to be.
At that point, coercion must extend to the individuals' ultimate aims and ideas, and must attempt to bring everyone's Weltanschauung into line with the ideas of the rulers.  (Hayek - Nazism is Socialism)
* - Hat tip to Fuzzy Slippers for sparking this post.  I am a Hayek fan but had forgotten his short essay on why Nazism is socialism.  Please go read her blog post on this subject here:  Fuzzy Slippers - Everything Old is New Again


Anonymous said...

Hayek was spot on. This is why we should not take Obama's class warfare war lightly. We must turn it against him.

Unknown said...

The class warfare will be played out during the 2012 by the DNC and Obama.
He has nothing to run on. No record of domestic success and the only weapon he has in his arsenal is the demonizing of the "1%"

Anonymous said...

Yes. Yes. Yes.

But I have been contending for years that in essence Communism, Socialism, Naziism, Feudalism and Theocracy are the SAME, despite the differences in style and myriad other fine distinctions among them with which label-making academics love to confuse us so that we become incapable of seeing the forest for the trees.

How are they the same?

Why are they the same?

the answer is very simple: All are forms of Authoritarianism, thus all are TOTALITARIAN in nature.

SO, the enemy we must eventually confront, and hopefully defeat is NOT Marxism, or Fascism or Religious Fundamentalism, it is our OWN, ever-present tendency to want to fob responsibility for ourselves onto someone ELSE.

Life is a pain-in-the-ass much of the time. It's confusing, threatening, frustrating, disappointing, daunting, depressing -- sometimes terrifying. We want, therefore, to return in some magical way to the days when our MOTHER took CARE of us -- fed us, clothed us, wiped our bottoms and changed our diapers for us, kept us warm, kept us sheltered from the wind and weather -- MADE ALL OUR DECISIONS FOR US.

But what happened to those lovely carefree days?

As we grew and became aware of the world and all its attractions fatal and otherwise, we grew WEARY of being constantly SUPERVISED, and eventually we REBELLED and went off on our own, and did all sots of things contrary to MOTHER'S GOOD ADVICE.

Then things got tough. We landed in the soup, and MOTHER started to look very appealing again.

SO utopian theorists like Marx and Authoritarian LEADERS and pseudo-Messiahs like Lenin, Hitler, FDR and Barack Obama became in effect our SURROGATE MOTHERS.

The difference, of course, is that the great TYRANTS of the TWENTIETH CENTURY -- like the emperors, kings and aristocrats of old -- did NOT have our best interests at heart. They only SAID they did so they could ENSLAVE US and TRAP us into serving the dictates of THEIR WILL.

It's much harder to rebel against an ALMIGHTY STATE than it is to turn against your MOTHER, so we become VICTIMS of our OWN emotional, psychological and spiritual IMMATURITY.

What we need, of course, is to get wise to ourselves, and to realize that COLLECTIVISM (i.e. the mythical return to carefree childhood) is TYRANNY and that the resultant SLAVERY is the END of CHOICE and the extinguishing of all HOPE, JOY, LOVE and MIRTH.

An oversimplification?


We could spend all eternity drowning in a sea of minutiae or wandering through a dense forest of statistics and never get to see the Big Picture -- never come to grips with the underlying PRINCIPLES that CAUSE our misery.


So it turns out that Walt Kelly might have been the "Savior" we've been looking for all along. I wonder if he knew it?

~ FreeThinke

PS: Maybe we all ought to revisit Emerson's essay on Self-Reliance? That would make a good start on finding the Road to Recovery. - FT

Anonymous said...

Exactly how is it class warfare when Obama is part of that class?

Also, the marginal tax rate for society's upper crust in the 1950s was over 90%. Does that mean Eisenhower was perpetrating class warfare? Now you might say that it wasn't, because most of that money went towards building up our infrastructure, but still, the tax increases that legislators are talking about are nowhere near 90%. Hell, I think the Democrats last proposed maybe a 10% increase? That's a drop in the bucket, and it's not going to make them stop investing.

If you were a multibillionaire and had to pay an extra 10% in taxes, would you stop investing? I wouldn't, because making investments means I can potentially make more money.

It's disappointing that so many of you fall for the ridiculous rhetoric that your politicians WANT you to buy into. Toting bandwagon phrases like "class warfare" and "Occupy (Insert Location)" is exactly what they want you to do, because it imprisons your mind by destroying any chance of looking at anything objectively.

Silver, you're right that we've got a problem, but a tax hike on the wealthiest Americans is hardly going to create a Nazi Germany here in America. The things that should give you pause, however, are things like wiretapping people without warrants, torturing prisoners (yes, waterboarding is torture no matter what the NEWSPEAK gurus want to call it), and as you mentioned banning the possession of weapons.

Ducky's here said...

I've always been confused by the contention the the Nazis were socialists. The first German concentration camp was built to hold socialists, unionists and communists.

An excellent study of the rise of Nazism is Richard Evans' trilogy. Give it a try. Evans is a good deal more accomplished historian than Hayek.

Anonymous said...

Authoritarianism is not a form of totalitarianism, nor vice versa.

Anonymous said...

Nazi was short for the National Socialist party wasn't it?

They hated the communists.

Anonymous said...

Here are Hitler's own words regarding Socialism. Hope this clears things up for you!

‘”We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions.” –Adolf Hitler

(Speech of May 1, 1927. Quoted by Toland, 1976, p. 306)’

Anonymous said...


What evidence could you produce that proves your assertion that Authoritarianism is not Totalitarianism?

Never mind the pettifogging terminology dreamt up by academics to make themselves appear smarter and more significant than they are. What does your GUT tell you might be the difference between two words that express the same concept?

There's little to be gained from making unsupported assertions. And by that I don't necessarily mean quoting chapter and verse from some authoritative tome or statistic mill. I mean what is it in your thinking that might substantiate your contention?


Naturally Ducky would recommend any book that reinforces his biases and inclinations over a writer like Hayek who seems vigorously and eloquently to oppose them. Don't we all do that to one extent or another.

Wo among the forces of modern American Conservative-Libertarianism favors Howard Zinn's or Noam Chomsky's view of history?

Who among honest, thoughtful, intelligent observers would support David Barton's version of history either for that matter?

Truly observant people learn quickly to spot an agenda from miles away. How do they know?

The STENCH gives it away.

~ FreeThinke

Jersey McJones said...

I love the way you guys can't differentiate rhetoric from reality, and how simplistic labels carry so much weight for you.



Silverfiddle said...

So differentiate it for us Jersey. Help us out.

Ducky's here said...

^Read ecc102's post. Should be easy to take it from there.

You're the Fox news/rabies radio soundbite true believers. A couple quotes, a passage from Hayek and complicated issues are resolved.

Anonymous said...

Authoritarianism and totalitarianism are styles of government that have completely different means of "controlling" the masses.

Authoritarians generally seek to achieve order and stability through the strict application of law, particularly strict law. The authoritarian doesn't seek to necessarily control the masses, but moreso try to keep them from plunging everything into chaos and moral depravity.

America can be authoritarian at times. There are people who want to limit people's choices on abortion and marriage, and those who want to limit what people can eat so that they can be healthy. Modern China would be considered authoritarian.

Totalitarian governments are entirely different. They don't seek to control people, they seek to dominate their minds. And they don't do it through the strict application of set laws. In fact, in a totalitarian regime, it's not uncommon for the laws to change. The whole point of a totalitarian regime is to completely devalue the human, and keep them constantly guessing. Authoritarians rule through the intimidation of law and punishment.

In a totalitarian society, the people are ruled through absolute fear. You don't know what will get you in trouble, because the law and its application are purposely arbitrary. There can still be a sense of human worth in authoritarian societies, but all human worth is destroyed in totalitarian regimes.

Nazi Germany was definitely totalitarian, as was the USSR. China is authoritarian.

This comes from studying the subject a bit in depth. I largely draw on Hannah Arendt for this stuff.

Silverfiddle said...

Ducky: Resolved? Who said anything about anything being resolved?

I'm simply pointing out similarities. If they make you that uncomfortable and squirmy, I must have struck a nerve.

Infidel de Manahatta said...

A very depressing yet very prescient post.

Trekkie4Ever said...

Hayak got it right. And, "Nazism is Socialism" pretty much sums it all up in a not so nice package.

Libertarians, conservatives, Independents, need to combine our forces and stop this travesty from happening.

Anonymous said...

Ducky, admit it you secretly love Hayek's works.

Anonymous said...

Again, Nazi is short for "National Socialist Party."

Not sure why Ducky thought otherwise.

Ducky's here said...

Jack, do you believe Nazism has any relationship to Democratic Socialism?

No Trestin, I don't love them. I do admit they have value. Now admit that you have a pretty limited range.

The three requirements for happiness are selfishness, stupidity, and good health, but without stupidity, the others are useless.

John Carey said...

Great post Silver. You nailed it when you said we haven't had capitalism driving our economy for some time now. Government regulation has dismantled much of the capitalistic mechanisms we once had. Now we have some sort of mixed system and we continue to sputter on. As for OWS crowd, I refuse to give them an ear as long as they stand hand-in-hand with the communists and socialists.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for taking the time to answer, Jack. Hannah Arendt would not be a source to whom I would want to go for answers, however. I had hoped to get your personal interpretation rather than something you learned from a book.

The differences you outlined between totalitarianism and authoritarianism are largely academic. They seem more akin to the differences between McIntosh and Winesap apples, between Temple Oranges and Navel Oranges. Both pairs are still either apples or oranges, despite the subtle differences between them. And so I continue to believe it is with Authoritarianism and Totalitarianism.

Finntann assured me the other day that Fascism bore no resemblance to Marxism whatsoever.

I can't accept that, because no matter how you slice it, both produce essentially the SAME result. And in my way of thinking results are all that count.

I still would insist the underlying motive that binds all these various "causes," "movements," and "isms" together is the overweening desire too many human beings have to acquire dictatorial power -- i.e. complete mastery over the lives of others.

This all too human urge to dominate -- to seduce, cajole, frighten, boss, bully, intimidate, blackmail, coerce others into doing your bidding -- poisons every group and gathering it touches from the family right on down through churches, schools, clubs, charities, service organizations, business organizations, legislatures, hospitals, nursing homes, etc.

Our enemy is nothing more or less than THE LUST FOR POWER.

~ FreeThinke

Ducky's here said...

Jack, why do you and the rest of the toy soldiers here discount the "National" in Nazism. You folks and folks like z are much more proponents of national exceptionalism complete with defamation of minority groups such as the scary Muslims.

You don't seem capable off differentiating a political system and an economic system.

I will say that the military folks here are the true believers most capable of becoming "good Germans".

Anonymous said...

The term "Democratic Socialism" is an oxymoron.

Another hare-brained theoretical construct of leftist academics conjured up in their ceaseless efforts to pollute and pervert the dictates of common sense. These invented terms are calculated to deceive by masking perversity and stupidity with bywords that sound "smart."

Emphaticalism, Indefatigablism, Mendacitism, Illogicalism, Antidisestablishmentarianism, Exploitation Science, Queer Studies, Beelzebubian Psychology, Meretriciousism, Mercurialisticism, Studies in the Correlation between Anthropogenic Rambunctiousity and Priapism, Studies in Vaginal Arcticism, etc.

Real or imagined every bit of that amounts to nothing more than a copious dose of Foetid Excrementalism.

Academia is apt to produce morbid, stupefyingly detailed tomes on subjects such as "Sedition: The Product of Alienation," "The Autistic Vagina," "Snoring as a Form of Passive Aggression," "The Anal Retentive Feline Personality Disorder Unmasked," "Salvation Through Putrefaction," "Invidious Pejoration," "The Road to Satisfaction Through Increased Statistification:"-- you name it.

All I can say is, "BAH! HUMBUG!"

Jersey McJones said...

"So differentiate it for us Jersey. Help us out."


Do you really believe modern day liberal Americans are somehow repeating the history of the Third Reich? Really?

Because if you do, you need serious medical attention.


Silverfiddle said...

Jersey: The economic plans sure look similar...

Ducky: Stop with the feigned ignorance. You make a horrible Socrates.

The "National" in National Socialism was to distinguish it from the international variety being driven at that time mainly by the communist Soviet Union. That brand was hated because it was foreign, and that is why the national socialists beat up the communists in the streets.

Mussolini did essentially the same thing with Italian fascism, which, once again, was a nationalist variant of socialism.

98ZJUSMC said...

Silverfiddle said...
Ducky: Resolved? Who said anything about anything being resolved?

I'm simply pointing out similarities. If they make you that uncomfortable and squirmy, I must have struck a nerve.

More likely SF, you put the lid on the box he put himself in.

As usual.....

98ZJUSMC said...

Ducky's here said...
I've always been confused by the contention the the Nazis were socialists

There's a shock.

98ZJUSMC said...

Do you really believe modern day liberal Americans are somehow repeating the history of the Third Reich? Really?

Well, coming from the Party that is even joking (sure, they are)about suspending elections and a President that has obvious disdain for the legislative process and openly talks about bypassing it....

It sure sounds that way to me.

98ZJUSMC said...

Ducky's here said...
Jack, why do you and the rest of the toy soldiers here discount the "National" in Nazism. You folks and folks like z are much more proponents of national exceptionalism complete with defamation of minority groups such as the scary Muslims.

That's the K-Mart version of weapons-grade stupis.

You don't seem capable off differentiating a political system and an economic system.


I will say that the military folks here are the true believers most capable of becoming "good Germans".

You have absolutely no idea how stupid that comment is. Outside of a smoke-filled dorm room, that is.

Isn't there a limit to the number of strawmen one can include in a post?

Anonymous said...


You said:
^Read ecc102's post. Should be easy to take it from there.

You're the Fox news/rabies radio soundbite true believers. A couple quotes, a passage from Hayek and complicated issues are resolved.

So to assist you in your confusion as to why folks associate Nazis with Socialism, I posted a direct quote from Hitler to shed light on the issue for you.

You, in turn, then equate me to some FOX News parrot. Why would you do this? I don't even know who Hayek was until this blog showed me. I quoted Hitler, not a FOX News anchor.

I fear you have nothing to add to this conversation. Disappointing, to say the least. You post here very often, but...meh.

Finntann said...

FT: No, Finntann never said "Fascism bore no resemblence to Marxism".

I said that there are left and right wing variants of socialism.

The Nazis were indeed socialists but of the right-wing variety. Theirs was not the socialism of Marx but of Plenge and Drexler.

The Nazis did indeed round up Marxist socialists as they were the competition, advocating a different brand of socialism.

Whereas marxism exalts the worker, the right wing socialist exalts the state.

Whereas there are many similarities between authoritarian and totalitarian states it is naive to lump them together and claim their is no difference. What is the category anyway?

I'll take bad governments for $1200 Alex.

Despite there similarities no one would argue that the Soviet Union and China had the same government any more than the governments of the western democracies are all the same.

Progressive socialism with big government and elements of corporatism does indeed share many more similarities with German National Socialism than it does with Marx, Engels, and the Leninist/Stalinist movement.

Bd said...

Wow, your rants remind me of Glenn Beck. Take a bunch of unrelated information, drive it into the ground and conclude with wacko stupidity, lol!

Ducky's here said...

Silverfiddle, you are claiming that Hitler was not an Aryan Nationalist?

The nationalism was not a major part of his philosophy?

Really, remember, when you hear that sound again it's your cornermen yelling "Stay down !"

Kid said...

I agree. If 'America' vote for obama again, or vote for the useless sock puppet romney becuase 'they're afraid' a conservative can't win, then stick the fork in because this country is done.

And that is just step one. The Dept of Ed has to go. The EPA has to be downsized in the power they wield on a major scale, and any attempt to restore their powers must be through constitutional amendment.

Thank about that. The EPA is the most powerful branch of government. Yea, 4 branches, not 3. How the F did that happen?
Checks and Balances? Puhleeease...

Jersey McJones said...

I can't believe you Righties can compare kids protesting Wall Street with the Brown Shirts. It's just so fuckin' stupid.


Kid said...

Jersey, I personally don't compare them to brown shirts. That'd be a compliment. I point to them as social misfits who can be 'proud' that 90% of 5th graders are their betters.

Silverfiddle said...

Jersey: Coming from a person who thinks Obama is a good president, I take your last comment as a compliment.

Ducky: Non-sequitur. I just explained national socialism. You are having a hard time swallowing the socialism part. Eat it. Own it. You've adopted his agenda.

And professor Jersey, please enlighten us and tell us what philosophical well spring feeds the OWS movement.

Silverfiddle said...

Yeah, Jersey, who said anything about brownshirts? Beside you?

Silverfiddle said...

ecc102: If you like Hayek, you'll love The Ludwig von Mises Institute

The greatest endorsement is that Ducky hates it.

Anonymous said...

Okay, Finn, so different tyrants COMPETE with one another for dominance.

I have known for a long time that Hitler was a enemy of Communism. One of the great ironies of history is that WE were ALLIED with Uncle Joe Stalin and the Soviets against Hitler.

If I had to choose which was the worst of the bad guys I'd choose Stalin and Mao over Hitler any day.

I do understand YOUR point very well, but apparently no one understands mine which is that TYRANNY is still TYRANNY no matter what LABEL it uses, or what BANNER it parades under.

I think my two different apples are still apples parallel is perfectly apt. We could quibble forever about which apple is better, worse, taster, sweeter, firmer, softer, larger, smaller, better for eating, better for cooking, but when all is said and done apples are still APPLES.

I don't give a damn whether a totalitarian system wants to sell itself as glorifying "the workers" or whether it wants to sell itself as glorifying "the state." The result is the same in either case -- i.e. the PEOPLE get SCREWED.

If Red China is not a totalitarian state, I can't imagine what would be. I'll never forget Tienanmen Square. There are differences in cultural STYLE among all these despotic regimes to be sure, but the ESSENCE of all of them is CENTRAL CONTROL -- and that spells DESPOTiSM. Even a "benevolent" dictator is STILL a dictator.

"Communism" is a MYTH. The proletariat have never for an instant "dictated" to anyone. They have always been -- and will always be -- dictated TO by a rigid, authoritarian hierarchy that places itself above the people and micromanages their lives into a state of utter misery.

The same thing (ever greater amounts of CENTRAL CONTROL) has been creeping up on us for a very long time. I don't care whether we call it Marxism, Communism, Socialism, Fabianism, Progressivism, Liberalism, Fascism, Despotism, or Zanzibarbarianism. The process is EVIL MASQUERADING as GOOD, and the RESULTS always have been and always will be disastrous.

If you found yourself confined in a death camp, would it matter to you whether it was called a Gulag, a Concentration Camp, an Extermination Center, Treblinka, Alcatraz, Abu Ghraib, The Black Hole of Calcutta, or The Happy Valley Home of the Eternal Rest?

And when they come for you to walk that last mile, would it matter very much whether you are to be machine gunned into a bloody pulp, hanged, beheaded, electrocuted or gassed to death?


And slavery is slavery no matter how well your masters treat you -- or what name they require you to call them.

~ FreeThinke

Silverfiddle said...

@FT: I do understand YOUR point very well, but apparently no one understands mine which is that TYRANNY is still TYRANNY no matter what LABEL it uses, or what BANNER it parades under.

I do. Which is why I refuse to quibble over academic minutiae.

Ducky has never stumbled upon a pile of corpses rotting in the jungle, obscured by a cloud of flies so thick that at first you think you've think you're staring into some dark abyss. Then you get closer, and realize that you are.

Ducky's here said...

That makes as much sense s your "explanation" of National Socialism.

Hitler came to power primarily on a platform of Nationalism. You remember Bismarck. I mention that on the off chance you know any history at all beyond your military indoctrination.

What economic program he had was to boom up with military expenditure.

Now most Socialists are looking for a system that shares political power and adequately distributes wealth. That was not present in 30's Germany.

Now go find a minority to dump on, maybe Muslims or whatever turns your crank.

I've been in traffic accidents that had more bodies than you describe, hard guy.

Most Rev. Gregori said...

Under this present administration, America has already taken its first giant step on the highway leading to a tyrannical government. The only question now is: Can we reverse course before it is too late?

Finntann said...

Ducky, who said socialism can't be nationalistic?

Johann Plenge:

"the "ideas of 1789" that included rights of man, democracy, individualism and liberalism were being rejected in favour of "the ideas of 1914" that included "German values" of duty, discipline, law, and order

This National Socialism was a form of state socialism that rejected the "idea of boundless freedom" and promoted an economy that would serve the whole of Germany under the leadership of the state.

This National Socialism was opposed to capitalism due to the components that were against "the national interest" of Germany, but insisted that National Socialism would strive for greater efficiency in the economy.

Plenge advocated an authoritarian rational ruling elite to develop National Socialism through a hierarchical technocratic state

Oswald Spengler:

"The meaning of socialism is that life is controlled not by the opposition between rich and poor, but by the rank that achievement and talent bestow. That is our freedom, freedom from the economic despotism of the individual."

True socialism according to Spengler would be in the form of corporatism, stating that "local corporate bodies organized according to the importance of each occupation to the people as a whole; higher representation in stages up to a supreme council of the state; mandates revocable at any time; no organized parties, no professional politicians, no periodic elections."

Tha Nazi Party "National Socialist Program": that the State shall make it its primary duty to provide a livelihood for its citizens . . . the abolition of all incomes unearned by work . . . the ruthless confiscation of all war profits ... the nationalization of all businesses that have been formed into corporations ... profit-sharing in large enterprises ... extensive development of insurance for old-age ... land reform suitable to our national requirements.

Sound familiar?

Quotes from Goebbels: "in final analysis", "it would be better for us to go down with Bolshevism than live in eternal slavery under capitalism."

"the Nazi Party was a "workers’ party", "on the side of labour, and against finance"

Hitler spoke enthusiastically about the "National Socialist corporative idea" as one which would eventually "take the place of ruinous class warfare"(Mein Kampf)

Anonymous said...

Sorry to belabor this, but when I'm told I'm wrong --and I not wrong -- I feel a strong urge to DEMONSTRATE it. Words have always been extremely important to me, and I take great pains to use them with utmost care and precision.

Useful definitions from online dictionaries


1: of, relating to, or favoring blind submission to authority

2: of, relating to, or favoring a concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people


the belief that people with power should control what other people can do, or a situation in which this happens.


1: centralized control by an autocratic authority

2: the political concept that the citizen should be totally subject to an absolute state authority


In times of crisis, when a nation's people are frightened, there are often calls for totalitarianism

Synonyms: absolutism, autarchy, authoritarianism, autocracy, Caesarism, czarism (also tsarism or tzarism), dictatorship, totalism, despotism, tyranny


a form of government in which the ruler is an absolute dictator (not restricted by a constitution or laws or opposition etc.)


absolutism, authoritarianism, Caesarism, despotism, dictatorship, monocracy, one-man rule, shogunate, Stalinism, tyranny


police state - a country that maintains repressive control over the people by means of police (especially secret police)

autarchy, autocracy - a political system governed by a single individual

Thanks for your understanding, Silver Fiddle.

~ FreeThinke

Finntann said...

Stripping off the nationalistic/racial overtones of the 25-point program of the Nationa Socialist German Workers Party you are left with:

7. We demand that the state be charged first with providing the opportunity for a livelihood and way of life for the citizens.

10. The first obligation of every citizen must be to work both spiritually and physically. The activity of individuals is not to counteract the interests of the universality, but must have its result within the framework of the whole for the benefit of all. Consequently we demand:

11.Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of debt (interest)-slavery.

12. In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people, personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.

13. We demand the nationalisation of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).

14. We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.

15. We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.

16. We demand the creation of a healthy middle class and its conservation, immediate communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low cost to small firms, the utmost consideration of all small firms in contracts with the State, county or municipality.

17. We demand a land reform suitable to our needs, provision of a law for the free expropriation of land for the purposes of public utility, abolition of taxes on land and prevention of all speculation in land.

20. The state is to be responsible for a fundamental reconstruction of our whole national education program, to enable every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education and subsequently introduction into leading positions. The plans of instruction of all educational institutions are to conform with the experiences of practical life. The comprehension of the concept of the State must be striven for by the school [Staatsbuergerkunde] as early as the beginning of understanding. We demand the education at the expense of the State of outstanding intellectually gifted children of poor parents without consideration of position or profession.

21. The State is to care for the elevating national health by protecting the mother and child, by outlawing child-labor, by the encouragement of physical fitness, by means of the legal establishment of a gymnastic and sport obligation, by the utmost support of all organizations concerned with the physical instruction of the young.

So, are any of these points a far cry from what is being said at any Occupy# protest?

And no Jersey, no one is calling them Brownshirts.

Just saying the Progressive-Socialist left isn't really that far left and has many features of Corporatism (GM, Solyndra, et. al) and Syndicalism (the Gov't overriding contract and law and elevating the UAW above other debt holders in the defunct GM).

A number of historians regard fascism as a revolutionary centrist doctrine, a doctrine which mixes philosophies of left and right.

Mussolini promoted ambiguity about fascism's positions in order to rally as many people to it as possible, saying fascists can be "aristocrats or democrats, revolutionaries and reactionaries, proletarians and anti-proletarians, pacifists and anti-pacifists".

Would you like salt on those fries?

Oh wait a minute... no salt.

On second thought gimme back those fries they were cooked with trans-fats.

Now, whose not verging on authoritarianism?


Finntann said...

Yes FT, all Totalitarian States are Authoritarian, but not all Authoritarian states are Totalitarian.

A Democracy can be Authoritarian but not Totalitarian.

Socialist Democracies are socialist but neither Authoritarian nor Totalitarian.

The distinction between "Marxism, Communism, Socialism, Fabianism, Progressivism, Liberalism, Fascism, Despotism, or Zanzibarbarianism." is not mere mincing of words but intellectual precision. The end results may often have been the same but there are clear distinctions to be made between them.

Ducky's concept of socialism seems to be some kind of idyllic marxist workers paradise, thus apparently making him unable to make the distinction between left wing socialism and right wing socialism. (Ducky, please clarify your position if you feel I am way off base).

He sees socialism as a postive thing and the stigma of Nazi history precludes him from recognizing that while the German's weren't marxists, they definitely embraced many aspects of socialism, and even self-identified as such.

I can readily accede to Ducky that their are many positive aspects of socialism, the difference lies in that he believes it sustainable over the long term, whereas I don't.


Silverfiddle said...

Who know what Ducky believes?

He spews fatuous rhetoric, but brings no substance. He's a dyspeptic, discreditable mewler.

Anonymous said...

It's because people don't want to quibble over "academic minutae," that this country is full of idiots who think that the Nazis were not Socialists.

FT, the definitions you gave of totalitarianism are extremely watered down and vague, and don't even come close to describing what totalitarianism actually is.

Totalitarianism might have characteristics that are authoritarian, but then again a republic has characteristics that are democratic. A democracy has some characteristics that are republican. Is a Republic the same as a Democracy? Of course not.

A government does not need a dictator or an autocrat to be authoritarian.

Sure, GWB shared some similarities with Hitler. But don't we lambaste liberals who accused GWB of being like Hitler? Of course we do, because although there are similarities, that doesn't mean that one equates to the other.

Also, the results of an authoritarian society and a totalitarian one are NOT entirely the same. You can say "oh well they both control the people," but that's just scratching the surface.

Ideas ARE important, despite the fact that some people try to make it seem like the only thing that matters is tangible results. Human history is little but the results of ideas.

Anonymous said...

" Human history is little but the results of ideas."

YUP! And that's why it well behooves us to focus the on positive aspects of life on earth and work to discover new processes that might benefit all of us.

Arguing for the sake of argument is a waste of precious time. Over-intellectualization of concepts well known and well established leads to analysis paralysis. Games of one upsmanship are pernicious.

Have a nice day.

~ FreeThinke

Lisa said...

Ducky Said:

"Hitler came to power primarily on a platform of Nationalism."

Oh look at that Ducky says Hitler was well meaning. The end result is moot because the intentions were good.

Just remember the rode to hell is paved with good intentions.

Synonym for "good intentions" is -"Give me more Power"

But what really you end up with is an antonym .

Anonymous said...


Oh, I got one to add to that!

Good intentions=111th Democrat-controlled Congress under Barack Obama who spent more money than all the previous Congresses combined!

"Just shut up and let us do what we know is best for you, you filthy peasants!"

Sorry, Silver...I now this is off-topic, but I couldn't resist. Lisa made a good point.

Lisa said...

I meant road to hell not rode to hell

Lisa said...

although ecc I believe those intentions were only good for Obama and his puppet master.

Anonymous said...

I just spend several months in that hell hole. This much I'll

1. Only Africa can fix Africa
2. Don't believe anything the media tells you about Africa.