User Tag List

First 678910 Last

Results 71 to 80 of 117

  1. #71
    Intriguing.... Quinlan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    9w1
    Socionics
    Booo
    Posts
    3,005

    Default

    If I had the money I would make a personal library full of the weirdest and most random titles.
    Act your age not your enneagram number.

    Quinlan's Creations

  2. #72
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    I dont own a copy, I've got a couple of collected works of Marx and Engels, a book of their writings on religion, biographies of each and book of Marx's writings about mankind prefaced and edited by Eric Fromm and LK's big giant history of Marxism from beginning to end. All that and would you believe that I'm not particularly sympathetic to Marxsm, I dont like the right wing's opposition to it but that doesnt mean I need to like the thing itself.
    That was figurative. You're well within those bounds.

  3. #73
    Senior Member JHBowden's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3
    Posts
    201

    Default

    I couldnt consider your definitions correct JHB because by your definition the US government IS fascist and has at times been national socialist
    I accept this consequence, on both economic and social grounds, though the conceptual overlap isn't complete in foreign policy.

    Here in Chicago, we even have a street named after Mussolini's heir apparent, Italo Balbo. Mussolini was something of a rock star among progressives in the 1920s, much like Hugo Chavez is today, and FDR's NRA program even had the blue eagle as its symbol, based on the socialists in Germany.

    Another historical reality flushed down the memory hole by progressives happens to be the eugenics movement, of which Planned Parenthood is a disgusting atavism. John Maynard Keynes, H.G. Wells, George Bernard Shaw, Woodrow Wilson -- just about all the forward thinking progressives of the period supported eugenics. Margaret Sanger, our holy grandmother of women's rights (to slaughter undesirable children) even went to Ku Klux Klan rallies to spread the eugenicist word. G.K. Chesterton was thought to be a superstitious oaf, a conservative Palin-like ignoramus for concluding that eugenics was immoral.

    Environmentalism is also something pioneered by fascists, not classical socialists. Traditional socialists at least had the merit of believing in man's domination of nature, while fascists wanted some sort of pagan, mystic communion with it.

  4. #74
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JHBowden View Post
    FDR's NRA program even had the blue eagle as its symbol, based on the socialists in Germany.
    What's your source for this? The eagle is America's national bird, so forgive some skepticism on this.

    And Wikipedia states this:
    The design was sketched by Johnson, and based on an idea utilized by the War Industries Board during World War I.[1][3] The eagle holds a wheel, symbolizing industry, in its right talon, and bolts of lightning in its left talon, symbolizing power.[4]

    Blue Eagle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  5. #75
    Senior Member JHBowden's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3
    Posts
    201

    Default

    Hugh Samuel Johnson was an admirer of fascism as a socio-economic model.

  6. #76
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JHBowden View Post
    Here in Chicago, we even have a street named after Mussolini's heir apparent, Italo Balbo. Mussolini was something of a rock star among progressives in the 1920s, much like Hugo Chavez is today, and FDR's NRA program even had the blue eagle as its symbol, based on the socialists in Germany.

    Another historical reality flushed down the memory hole by progressives happens to be the eugenics movement, of which Planned Parenthood is a disgusting atavism. John Maynard Keynes, H.G. Wells, George Bernard Shaw, Woodrow Wilson -- just about all the forward thinking progressives of the period supported eugenics. Margaret Sanger, our holy grandmother of women's rights (to slaughter undesirable children) even went to Ku Klux Klan rallies to spread the eugenicist word. G.K. Chesterton was thought to be a superstitious oaf, a conservative Palin-like ignoramus for concluding that eugenics was immoral.

    Environmentalism is also something pioneered by fascists, not classical socialists. Traditional socialists at least had the merit of believing in man's domination of nature, while fascists wanted some sort of pagan, mystic communion with it.
    You know what's funny? Progressives changed. In fact, they have a tendency to be open to change in light of new evidence. That's sort of what makes them progressive.

  7. #77
    Senior Member JHBowden's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3
    Posts
    201

    Default

    Peguy-- after a few quick searches, I believe you're correct about the origins of the NRA eagle-- the FDR's NRA may have had a collectivist inspiration, but the eagle appears to be a homegrown design.

    onemoretime -- What are progressives trying to change? That's easy to answer: progressives want us to be less hostile toward despots, want to remove limits on government, and want to overthrow bourgeois social norms. Substantively this is coextensive with what fascists wanted, though it has different frosting. Socialists at least thought they were increasing freedom, choice, and self-actualization by eliminating competition; a fascist cares more about authenticity and identity-politics than freedom. The fascists interpreted their views in a positive, manly, and dominating fashion, while today's progressives are anti-everything, feminized, and submissive. So we've changed from "we need change because we're the best" to "we need change because we are the bad people, and the Other is always good."

    In addition, progressives dismiss all principles as ideology, which is more like the fascists than the traditional socialists. The time for talk is over, the time for change is now! A classical socialist ran set plays; fascists had the pragmatic third way and ran a hurry-up offense. Progressives, more focused about change than outcomes, call their causes "movements," since they want to destroy and tear down without any concern about what happens next.

    I'm not saying progressives are fascists; I am saying they share a lot of conceptual and historical overlap, which is ironic given how the word is frequently used to slur conservatives, traditionalists, and skeptics of change. We can thank Trotsky for the fascism=big business duping the petite bourgeois claptrap that's always rammed down our throats.

  8. #78
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JHBowden View Post
    onemoretime -- What are progressives trying to change? That's easy to answer: progressives want us to be less hostile toward despots,
    Such as the King of Saudi Arabia?

    want to remove limits on government,
    Such as warrantless wiretapping and prohibitions on torture?
    and want to overthrow bourgeois social norms. Substantively this is coextensive with what fascists wanted, though it has different frosting.
    So wanting change in any capacity makes you a fascist? Impressive redefinition of the word; makes it practically meaningless.

    Socialists at least thought they were increasing freedom, choice, and self-actualization by eliminating competition; a fascist cares more about authenticity and identity-politics than freedom. The fascists interpreted their views in a positive, manly, and dominating fashion, while today's progressives are anti-everything, feminized, and submissive. So we've changed from "we need change because we're the best" to "we need change because we are the bad people, and the Other is always good."
    Umm, no. More like "we need change, because there are problems, and they aren't going to fix themselves if we just ignore them." It's not that what we have is bad, but that there are bad parts about what we have. It's a fundamentally positive message, because it says we can fix it.

    In addition, progressives dismiss all principles as ideology, which is more like the fascists than the traditional socialists. The time for talk is over, the time for change is now! A classical socialist ran set plays; fascists had the pragmatic third way and ran a hurry-up offense. Progressives, more focused about change than outcomes, call their causes "movements," since they want to destroy and tear down without any concern about what happens next.
    Just because you say something doesn't make it true. For one, progressives, being a big-tent, don't all agree on what their causes are. Second, not having a telos doesn't make a political effort meaningless; sometimes it's better to take on the problems as they come. Assuming that the outcome of a given action is set in stone is what characterizes an ideological mindset, "principled" as it may think itself.

    I'm not saying progressives are fascists; I am saying they share a lot of conceptual and historical overlap, which is ironic given how the word is frequently used to slur conservatives, traditionalists, and skeptics of change. We can thank Trotsky for the fascism=big business duping the petite bourgeois claptrap that's always rammed down our throats.
    Yup. He was right, too. Italian fascism = entrenchment of heavy industry within the traditional ruling structure (state-church). German fascism = subsummation of the republic by the interests of industry (do you really think Hitler had any control over the board of IG Farben? He knew where he got his dinner from: Germans would tolerate the Nazis as long as they had jobs).

  9. #79
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,540

    Smile The Inspector of Books

    Quote Originally Posted by Quinlan View Post
    If I had the money I would make a personal library full of the weirdest and most random titles.
    Yes, I like to marinate in the Stacks.

    In the Stack section of my library I never know what I will find. I tremble in anticipation and my breathing becomes shallow. I breathe in the aroma of thousands of thousands of books all sitting there patiently waiting me to take them down from their shelf so they can tell me everything they know.

    It is quiet in the Stacks with just the barest rustle of sound - a background that tells me everything is alright - the air conditioning is working and the lights are on and the library is open.

    Sometimes I have become so engrossed I have stayed all night - waiting for the library to open in the morning so I could go for coffee and a warm roll.

    And sometimes I am tempted to steal. It is almost as though the book is saying, "Take me, take me", as I take the magnetic strip out of the spine, and walk out the door as though I owned the book, although of course the book has owned me.

    My ambition is to become the Inspector of Books and I will reinstate the Index of Banned Books. Of course I will have to read every last one of them, and there they will sit, inviolate, virginal, known only to me.

  10. #80
    Priestess Of Syrinx Katsuni's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    3w4?
    Posts
    1,238

    Default

    Well this is... I wanted to say silly, but I think 'pathetic' may be the more appropriate term.

    Srsly.

    It's the WHITE HOUSE LIBRARY. That means political information on yeur enemies, on yeur allies, and everything in between, not just personal reference material to whot yeu yeurself believe.

    If yeu're going to go to war with communism, yeu want to have accurate information on communists, so yeu know how to bend the propaganda towards the masses. If yeu don't have a basic starting point to work from that yeu can exaggerate, yeu can't use it as proper propaganda. So yeah, I'd imagine pretty much every major politician that's heavily against communism has copies of communist works in their possession, simply to ridicule or deconstruct them.

    In terms of the white house having socialist books, wouldn't that make sense? To understand whot people complain about, and to find out the truth?

    Canada's a socialist country. Yeu haven't gone to war with us yet over it. Actually, a large part of the states is socialist, they just don't know whot it means >.<


    Here's the simple breakdown:


    Communism: Yeu own nothing. The government owns everything. All needs are taken care of for yeu, yeur taxes are through the roof, yeu work and are expected to work hard. Yeu need not worry about food, shelter, or other basic needs. (Ideally; depending on the government, this can just be an excuse to add in a totalitarian dictatorship. There has never been a 'true' communist regime EVER in any country's history. They might CALL themselves communists, but they aren't. It's like the USA calling itself a democracy; over half the votes in yeur country have no effect. If a 'blue' in a 'red' state votes, their vote is essentially invalid. There is no purpose in voting. Just because yeu call it something, doesn't mean it is)


    Socialism: The middle point between communism and capitalism. Yeu pay fairly high taxes, but basic things are covered, that are required for survival, but only in bad scenarios. Yeu have the option to work, and earn more money to buy more stuff; yeu can improve yeur lifestyle, upgrade yeur basics, and need not rely on the basic bare minimums. Ideally, a socialist country should look like a capitalist one, but will have safety nets to catch those who are crippled, or who just fall through the cracks, or need a helping hand to get back on track. If yeu're disabled, they'll help fix it or help mend it, however, preferably, these services need not be used regularly. Yeu get basics like shelter and food, but it's pretty low quality stuff; yeu have the right to upgrade though. Certain things like utilities are owned by the government; yeu have no say if they want to upgrade yeur water lines or internet cables.


    Capitalism: Yeu own everything. The land yeu're on, the food yeu eat, all of it. None of it is provided by the government. If yeu can't afford a hospital bill, yeu die. If yeu can't afford shelter, yeu die. If yeu can't afford food, yeu die. Yeu have 100% control of yeur fate financially... in theory. If something goes wrong, yeu loose yeur job, the company yeu work for goes bankrupt, etc... yeu are screwed. There are no social safety nets. There is no bare minimum of survival; if yeu run out of money yeu are dead. On the other hand, taxes are significantly lower, which makes it easier to afford better 'stuff'. Utilities and such, are privately owned, however. If yeu want to get better internet service, then yeu have to get everyone in the entire area to agree, since the cable company does not have any access to change things without yeur permission, which can mean that the retirement home refuses to let them do construction within 600 yards of their building, no faster internet for yeu. Yeu can rise to the top easier, but fall to the bottom easier; there's no support structures in place, and nothing to smooth transitions between extremes. In a truly capitalist society, everything is based on yeur absolute control as a citizen to cover yeur wants and needs. Yeu pay less taxes, but don't really get anything out of it.



    In short... the USA is not capitalistic, but it's not truly socialistic either; it's in between already. There have never been any truly 100% capitalist nor communist countries on the face of this planet, just varying degrees of socialism.

    As such, the incessant fear of socialism americans display always astounds me that they can be so ignorant. They already ARE a socialist society. They have been since the country was born. They always will be. Communism can't realistically exist outside of groups larger than 20-30 people tops, as communism ONLY works if there's no single leader to the country, and only if there's no corruption present. This isn't possible outside of very small, controlled groups.

    Same thing with capitalism, it can't exist on a large scale, because too many people die who shouldn't've. If there were a truly capitalistic society, if yeu gained a heart condition, yeu'd be living on the street and die there. Of course the streets wouldn't exist anyway, because those require alot of money, and yeu'd have to pay for those... oh wait, yeu don't cover those because paving roads is a socialist tendency. So is plowing them when there's snow. So is government aid in disasters. Also, anything involving a bailout or safety net of any kind for anyone.

    Fact is, the states is a socialist country already. They just try to pretend they're capitalist without even knowing whot the difference between the two are.

    If the states were TRULY capitalist, there would be no christianity there. There couldn't be. The only god that can be allowed to rule in a capitalist society, is the almighty dollar.

Similar Threads

  1. What blogs do you read?
    By wolfy in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 05-29-2009, 04:02 PM
  2. What's you read:post ratio?
    By ajblaise in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 10-05-2008, 01:59 AM
  3. BBC: You Are What You Eat
    By Bella in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-01-2008, 11:24 PM
  4. You are what you eat?
    By ThatGirl in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 08-11-2008, 01:10 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO