Liberal Facism

College Confidential Community
21

<p>

Oh, I’m sorry, I didn’t realize that you were the primary source when it came to definitions. I would have thought it would have been Merriam-Webster. And, last I checked, a lot of liberal still support FDR’s New Deal which was, last I checked, in the 20th century.</p>

<p>

Your definition of conservative is wrong. I really don’t mean this to sound harsh, but it’s going to come out that way: have you ever taken a class on government? You’re lacking the very fundamentals of an education in politics. It’s chapter one of the AP Government text book that I used back in high school. Picture this: a grid with four quadrants. The vertical represents freedom versus equality, with freedom being on the bottom and equality on the top. The horizontal represents freedom versus order, with freedom being on the left and order being on the right. Libertarians fall in the bottom left, saying they favor freedom over both equality and order. That is Ron Paul. Liberals are in the upper left, favoring equality over freedom but freedom over order. Communitarians fall in upper right, favoring both equality and order over freedom. Conservatives fall in the bottom right, favoring order over freedom and freedom over equality. He ran as a Republican because third parties in the American system of government have a slim to none chance.</p>

<p>

  1. Regulation != control. 2. The regulation is generally geared to prevent people from being locked into the same socioeconomic level as their parents, to grant them the ability to advance in life.</p>

<p>

Er… what?</p>

<p>

What does that have to do with censorship at all? And Bush is NOT a social liberal.</p>

<p>

No… no, we haven’t.</p>

<p>

I suppose it depends on how you define nationalism. When I used it earlier, what I meant was “a sense of national consciousness exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups” (from the dictionary). Using it that way, they do not support it. If you mean it just as pride in your nation, they do.</p>

<p>

The only social program that you could even come close to supporting racism is affirmative action. That’s the only one out of many.</p>

<p>

Yes, I said lack of liberalism, but that is not what I intended to say. Saying liberalism doesn’t support liberalism is completely nonsensical - you probably should have realized that. I meant to say “nationalism,” not “liberalism”.</p>

<p>

Yes. :)</p>

22

<p>@nbchris
we are debating American politics.</p>

<p>@jarn</p>

<p>I never said I was the primary source, but if you have researched the topics you know that fascism has never been given a proper definition. As for the dates I meant 19th instead of 20th sorry about that.</p>

<p>If you are talking about the Political spectrum, I know all to well and by your definition you are actually wrong. If we go by lets say here <a href=“http://www.thelibertypapers.org/wp-images/spectrum/pol_matrix.png[/url]”>http://www.thelibertypapers.org/wp-images/spectrum/pol_matrix.png&lt;/a&gt;
Ron paul would be a little bit in from the Bottom most right Corner.</p>

<p>As for me taking govt classes, i have taken about 80% of a political science majors classes. </p>

<p>As per my definition of conservatism, comes directly from Barry Goldwater.</p>

<p>Regulation does equal control and wll thats how they do control. What do you think the word regulate means, to </p>

<p>reg·u·late<br>

  1. to control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.: to regulate household expenses. </p>

<p>would ya believe it.</p>

<p>Err watch the videos.</p>

<p>if you knew what neoconservatism is then you would have to agree that bush is a social liberal. since you don’t you obviously have no idea of the definition and this need to go back and learn what it means. </p>

<p>So when they approve wiretapping and grants to telecom companies, im sure we aren’t loosing any liberties. </p>

<p>Obama was a member of one of the most influential Black nationalist churches in American history. again you are wrong.</p>

<p>How many govt classes ave you taken, your getting kind of foolish. you don’t even know the definition of conservatism or neoconservatism yet liberalism. you get your knowledge from wikipedia instead of reading books and academic works. I offer you 2 books, books that are hugely respected in their fields and because of your own ignorance you completely negate them and try to argue on wikipedia definitions and bull crap you learned in hs. The Book was a NYT best seller and all criticisms of the book the author has openly challenged on is website. You choose not to read the book as you feel you must be right, its utterly foolish. You people tell me to go read some left wing stuff, well you wont even come close to reading anything else mentioned. I own copies of books from marx and rousseau, i study the left more than I do the right. you then tell me I have no idea of what I am talking about when you are getting definitions wrong and saying stuff like Ron Paul is not a conservative. Ive been to see Ron Paul speak, ive met the man on his campain. Ive read all of his books and he idolizes Barry Goldwater. How much more of a conservative can you be. you just think that Bush is a conservative, but you are wrong. Neoconservatism is much closer to social liberalism than conservatism or classical liberalism.</p>

23

<p>

Demonstrably false. It has a definition in the dictionary. Q.E.D.</p>

<p>

I can’t view the site because it has exceeded its CPU usage, but I am assuming that it uses the same axes as [this</a> picture](<a href=“http://politicalcompass.org/images/bothaxes.gif]this”>http://politicalcompass.org/images/bothaxes.gif), from the political compass website. That uses a different set of axes than the graph in my old book, but the bottommost right corner, as you describe, is the same as the bottommost left corner I described in my book, advocating freedom over both order and equality which is defined as libertarian.</p>

<p>

Yes, I suppose I misunderstood. I assumed you meant control entirely, i.e. fascism or communism. Regulation is a much more soft-handed form of control.</p>

<p>

Incorrect. I know very well what neoconservatism is and it is not a social liberal. I believe that you have an incorrect definition. Here, let me help:

</p>

<p>

The Democratic congress has not approved wiretapping. What they have done is prevented us from suing the wiretapping done… under Bush. They have not allowed more.</p>

<p>

Black nationalism is not the same as nationalism and just because he was a member of it doesn’t mean he agrees with all their policies. The church I attend believes that women can’t hold decision-making positions in the church hierarchy. Does that mean I believe it? No, I think it’s wrong.</p>

24

<p>Like I have said if you have read academic works you would know that there is no know definition of fascism that political historians and theorists can agree on. Please do.</p>

<p>LIbertarian would be just Center bottom of the picture you posted. It would not be in any corner. Going to a corner would be a conservative. </p>

<p>Like I said before, since there is no direct definition of fascism it cant be properly defined. Control by placing regulations on a sector vs full out govt control has little to no difference and are both incredibly social.</p>

<p>Ive had the debate on neoconservtaism so many times here because people just have no clue what it means. Neoconservatism stands for these 2 pillars.</p>

<p>1.Big Govt
1.Policing the world
2.Spreading democracy.</p>

<p>The 3 pillairs are the same in social liberalism. I ask you to look up the origin of neoconservatism. you will notice it was liberal jews whom started neoconervatism. or look at my prior posts, ive done it maybe 20 times, i cant again.</p>

<p>[House</a> approves overhaul of wiretap laws - CNN.com](<a href=“http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/20/congress.wiretaps/index.html]House”>House approves overhaul of wiretap laws - CNN.com)
<a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/20/washington/20fisa.html?fta=y[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/20/washington/20fisa.html?fta=y&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>They can stop it, but they allow more of it. </p>

<p>Black nationalism is infact the same thing as nationalism, your white guilt just makes you feel differently about it. Again if you were to read the book I mentioned on the topic by Shelby Steele. People think nationalism of the nazis is so much different than that of the black panthers. Its not, they are quite similair</p>

25

<p>Im going to stop because you are unreasonable.</p>

26

<p>

Do you know what a libertarian is? A libertarian is, again, someone who favors freedom over both order and equality, economic and social freedom. In the picture I posted, that is the bottom right.</p>

<p>

You are simply wrong. Simply because some people don’t like a definition doesn’t mean it’s not true. Maybe there is no SPECIFIC definition, but there is a GENERAL definition, which is dictatorial control. If there is no definition than your ENTIRE thread is pointless because it purported that liberal = fascism, and with no definition of it anyone can say anything. I could, for example, say that conservative = fascism with as much justification.</p>

<p>

There are three pillars there. And you forget “conservatism,” hence the name “neoconservative”. Social liberalism has a different pillar, “liberal.” Neoconservatism forms from the REJECTION of social liberalism. The “liberal jews” that started neoconservatism rejected liberalism. The word was originally used as a derogatory term for liberals who moved right, for chrissake. To say that it is liberal is dishonest.</p>

<p>

You’re kidding, right? Nationalism is the desire for your country to rule the world. Black nationalism is the desire to separate from whites. And who are you to say that I have “white guilt”?</p>

27

<p>I’m unreasonable? You reject the dictionary, history, and the basics of politics in your unreasoning, illogical hatred of liberalism. It is, frankly, ridiculous. I have soundly refuted every single point you have made, using unbiased and authoritative sources and all you have been able to come up with the entire time is that “you’re wrong.” I find a definition of fascism in the dictionary and you say it’s wrong and that academics have been unable to find a definition with no proof but your own word. To quote you from a different thread, “proof? your word means jack ****.” You’re arrogant. That is all you are.</p>

28

<p>

</p>

<p>No a libertarian would be dead center in between the ideologies of eight and left libertarianism. There is social libertarianism, read noam chomsky.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>The point is that there are different interpretations and the only interpretation is not by Mussolini. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>neoconservatism in no way rejects social liberalism it embraces it. It is in the essence the same thing. They may differ on a few topics but on foreign policy they are incline, along with size of govt.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Look up the definition of nationalism again. It means that nationality is the most important aspect of one’s identity and this in that a country can be stronger when it has similar identity of one. The Nazis were nationalists. The black Panthers were nationalists.</p>

29

<p>

</p>

<p>I have rejected nothing, ive embraced everything you have said. you have refuted none of my points and what sources have you provided? I see none Ive provided well known books and other references and you have given opinion.</p>

<p>the argument on definition of facism is to long. rent and read te first 5 pages of book. Go into Borders and read the first 5 pages next time in mall.</p>

<p>Like I have said before, just read the book. if you think you have the answers to all, id email Jonah Goldberg he is pretty receptive.</p>

<p>I have no further reason to debate a person who is unreasonable and doesn’t at least want to take the book into consideration. I am reading your 58 page pdf. your like the same people who say hitler was not a socialist, even when he sates that he was in mein kampf</p>

30

<p>

If you want to make this a battle about sources, we can. Let me quote you again: “Proof? Your words mean jack ****.” I’ve already provided a source, though I didn’t state the name. Now I will. The Challenge of Democracy. 8th Edition. Copyright 2005. Authors Janda, Berry and Goldman. (For what it’s worth, Wikipedia agrees with me.) What’s your’s?</p>

<p>

Okay, how about the definition of libertarianism? I tell you what my textbook says. All you have said, over and over, is that it’s wrong. You are pitting your word against a textbook. Sources, please.</p>

<p>

Sources, please. I provided one. The dictionary. (as a refresher, the dictionary says “a former liberal espousing political conservatism” and “a conservative who advocates the assertive promotion of democracy and United States national interest in international affairs including through military means”). Pit something against my source and we can talk. Until you provide a source it is useless to argue.</p>

<p>

Yes, there are different interpretations of fascism - I have not disagreed with this - but they all share one thing in common: dictatorial authoritarianism. Again, I have used the dictionary as a source. Pit your source against mine. Find a source saying fascism is undefined. If it is undefined, how can we call anything fascist? We don’t know what it is.</p>

<p>

I quoted the definition of nationalism, I think I know what it means. The dictionary defines it as “a sense of national consciousness exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups” while black nationalism is defined as “a member of a group of militant blacks who advocate separatism from the whites and the formation of self-governing black communities.” Similar, yes. The same? No.</p>

<p>

The Challenge of Democracy, 8th edition. The dictionary. What have you provided? The National Taxpayer’s Union is your only source. Well-known books? The only book you have even mentioned is the one in the first post in the thread. Seriously, quote from this thread where you have mentioned another book. I will readily admit that I am wrong.</p>

<p>

I don’t need to e-mail Jonah Goldberg. Looking up reviews of the book, he’s already been told by people much more famous than I that it is “based on weak, tenuous connections” (The Nation), “incoherent…one of the few things that historians will readily agree upon is [Fascism’s] overwhelming anti-liberalism” (The American Prospect), "Not only does Goldberg misunderstand liberalism, but he refuses to see it simply as liberalism…Liberal Fascism reads less like an extended argument than as a catalogue of conservative intellectual clich</p>

31

<p>(back to the original point of this thread :p) It sounds like an interesting read-I might give it a look…</p>

32

<p>Good, like I said its a incredibly hard point to debate. Its a huge book</p>

33

<p>[Liberal</a> Fascism!! what the..???/](<a href=“http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4788106431016278751&q=big+brother+big+picture&ei=6QSVSJL3OYyqiwLgtvHpBQ]Liberal”>http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4788106431016278751&q=big+brother+big+picture&ei=6QSVSJL3OYyqiwLgtvHpBQ)</p>