APP - Tea Party and Sympathizers, Please Read

T&A said:
Absolute bullshit. If you took "the world" and placed it in a futuristic setting where there are multiple planets involved in a political body, the terms "nationalist," "internationalist" and "intercontinental" would still have meaning. New terms would simply be added, such as "intrastellar" and "interstellar," "local" and "interplanetary," and so forth...
Click to expand...
Would Hitler have still been fascist if he had been successful in taking over the entire planet?

It is stupid to suggest that a larger "nation" of sorts could not exist. Describing a flavor of fascist doesn't change the accuracy of the term he coined. Is the activity fascist? Does it employ the same government/corporate conglomeration? Does some of the rhetoric match?

Coining a phrase is how the language expands, not by proclaiming the "impossibility"...

Is it an accurate description? One may argue that the rhetoric isn't the same and therefore not realistically "nationalistic" enough, but I think they'd be ignoring the propaganda poster for the paint. (Coining a new phrase here, kind of like "forest for the trees"...)
 
"The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names." Chinese Proverb

Interesting that no one read the piece. I found it interesting in the sense in which America was interesting when Clinton was elected. The same atmosphere presented itself and the same demonizing of the democratically elected president. Hopefully the tea party whiners do not stir up the likes of McVeigh, but the signs and slogans are about as hateful as hate comes.

http://www.ted.com/talks/philip_zimbardo_on_the_psychology_of_evil.html

But here is an interesting supposition suppose the tea party was Black? Can you imagine the difference in the reaction of the conservatives MSM in America?


http://cosmicnavellint.blogspot.com/2010/04/imagine-if-tea-party-was-black-tim-wise.html

"Imagine that hundreds of black protesters were to descend upon Washington DC and Northern Virginia, just a few miles from the Capitol and White House, armed with AK-47s, assorted handguns, and ammunition. And imagine that some of these protesters - the black protesters - spoke of the need for political revolution, and possibly even armed conflict in the event that laws they didn’t like were enforced by the government? Would these protesters — these black protesters with guns — be seen as brave defenders of the Second Amendment, or would they be viewed by most whites as a danger to the republic? What if they were Arab-Americans? Because, after all, that’s what happened recently when white gun enthusiasts descended upon the nation’s capital, arms in hand, and verbally announced their readiness to make war on the country’s political leaders if the need arose."

To ask any of these questions is to answer them. Protest is only seen as fundamentally American when those who have long had the luxury of seeing themselves as prototypically American engage in it. When the dangerous and dark “other” does so, however, it isn’t viewed as normal or natural, let alone patriotic. Which is why Rush Limbaugh could say, this past week, that the Tea Parties are the first time since the Civil War that ordinary, common Americans stood up for their rights: a statement that erases the normalcy and “American-ness” of blacks in the civil rights struggle, not to mention women in the fight for suffrage and equality, working people in the fight for better working conditions, and LGBT folks as they struggle to be treated as full and equal human beings.

And this, my friends, is what white privilege is all about. The ability to threaten others, to engage in violent and incendiary rhetoric without consequence, to be viewed as patriotic and normal no matter what you do, and never to be feared and despised as people of color would be, if they tried to get away with half the shit we do, on a daily basis.

Game Over."
 
Last edited:
Damocles said:
Would Hitler have still been fascist if he had been successful in taking over the entire planet?

It is stupid to suggest that a larger "nation" of sorts could not exist. Describing a flavor of fascist doesn't change the accuracy of the term he coined. Is the activity fascist? Does it employ the same government/corporate conglomeration? Does some of the rhetoric match?

Coining a phrase is how the language expands, not by proclaiming the "impossibility"...

Is it an accurate description? One may argue that the rhetoric isn't the same and therefore not realistically "nationalistic" enough, but I think they'd be ignoring the propaganda poster for the paint. (Coining a new phrase here, kind of like "forest for the trees"...)
Click to expand...

There would have to be a lot of sympathetic people out there advocating nazism the way international communism was preached. Not just pussy fifth column movements...
 
Damocles said:
Would Hitler have still been fascist if he had been successful in taking over the entire planet?

It is stupid to suggest that a larger "nation" of sorts could not exist. Describing a flavor of fascist doesn't change the accuracy of the term he coined. Is the activity fascist? Does it employ the same government/corporate conglomeration? Does some of the rhetoric match?

Coining a phrase is how the language expands, not by proclaiming the "impossibility"...

Is it an accurate description? One may argue that the rhetoric isn't the same and therefore not realistically "nationalistic" enough, but I think they'd be ignoring the propaganda poster for the paint. (Coining a new phrase here, kind of like "forest for the trees"...)
Click to expand...

If Hitler had taken over the entire world he would use it to promote the German nationality. It would only be through uniting the world under one nationality that everyone agreed with that world fascism could be possible, and that's obviously a ridiculous and impossible task.
 
Compassion said:
If Hitler had taken over the entire world he would use it to promote the German nationality. It would only be through uniting the world under one nationality that everyone agreed with that world fascism could be possible, and that's obviously a ridiculous and impossible task.
Click to expand...
Again, trading "German" for some other more international cause doesn't change that IF the activity is much the same and the way they go about it much the same as any other fascist government. It isn't "socialism", it's fascism regardless of its lack of perfect nationalism.

Language has never been set in stone as much as the people who reject this term want it to be, it grows.
 
Compassion said:
If Hitler had taken over the entire world he would use it to promote the German nationality. It would only be through uniting the world under one nationality that everyone agreed with that world fascism could be possible, and that's obviously a ridiculous and impossible task.
Click to expand...

The new character being promoted is one that despises any kind of loyalty besides loyalty to international bodies of authority. This kind of self hating anti-nationalism is just as perverse, nihilistic, and totalitarian as pan-germanism.

A new global culture may be bad if it means one must become immoral to embrace it. Like how neocons keep saying we must look the other way on foreign slave labor and we must buy the slave goods anyway. That's b.s too.
 
Hitler was only a fascist in the sense it was used then and in the overall historical definition of fascism. He was, like Stalin, a dictator, a demagogue who confused reality with his own insane self aggrandizement. Was Stalin communist, hardly, was Bush incompetent, yes. Did the Bush administration lean fascist, yes. Cheney is a ??? Ok someone define Cheney. All isms are only abstractions used to roughly understand a kind of system, government or whatever. Today all these words, and especially socialism, are so distorted the average person could substitute math symbols - It would be equally meaningful or is that -less.

Here is Bush compared with fascism: http://www.oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm

"By ‘Fascism’ they mean, roughly speaking, something cruel, unscrupulous, arrogant, obscurantist, anti-liberal and anti-working-class. Except for the relatively small number of Fascist sympathizers, almost any English person would accept ‘bully’ as a synonym for ‘Fascist’. That is about as near to a definition as this much-abused word has come." Orwell

It demonstrates the confusion an idea can cause. If one can make fascism liberal one can make conservative socialism or communism utopia or democracy dictatorship. Education matters - words matter.

http://www.orwell.ru/library/articles/As_I_Please/english/efasc

"Hallmarks of Fascism"

"anti-intellectualism
repudiation of rationalism and reason, emotion over reason
leader discovers and represents the will of the people
the state over the individual
nation supremacy, nationalism, national greatness
social Darwinism and constant struggle
action for actions sake, violence to strengthen nation
corporation-state unity
faith in the nation and the leader
hero worship
police state, crushing of opposition
National Socialism - add racism to fascism"

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Fascism/Philosophic_Roots_Ideology.html


"The Corporation is established to develop the wealth, political power and welfare of the Italian people. Corporatism means a disciplined, and therefore a controlled, economy, since there can be no discipline which is not controlled. Corporatism overcomes Socialism as well as it does Liberalism: it creates a new synthesis." Mussolini - fascism founder?



"There isn't much point arguing about the word "libertarian." It would make about as much sense to argue with an unreconstructed Stalinist about the word "democracy" -- recall that they called what they'd constructed "peoples' democracies." The weird offshoot of ultra-right individualist anarchism that is called "libertarian" here happens to amount to advocacy of perhaps the worst kind of imaginable tyranny, namely unaccountable private tyranny. If they want to call that "libertarian," fine; after all, Stalin called his system "democratic." But why bother arguing about it?" - Noam Chomsky


[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Ideology-Very-Short-Introduction-Introductions/dp/019280281X/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8"]Amazon.com: Ideology: A Very Short Introduction (Very Short Introductions) (9780192802811): Michael Freeden: Books@@AMEPARAM@@http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/414ndmHGTrL.@@AMEPARAM@@414ndmHGTrL[/ame]
 
yes. midcan. words do matter. Internationalist fascism describes the ruling meme the elites are trying to implement.

One can make liberal into fascist if you throw in dictated markets and a reflexive bias against any culture which isn't internationalist fascism.
 
midcan5 said:
"....It's time to take on these superliars and stop them from spreading their poisonous ignorance."

"...Few paid attention, but they got to the truth. And they were Socialists fighting the Nazis, you might recall. Listen up, T.P.ers: The Nazis were not Socialists. The Socialists were not Nazis. They were blood enemies. In fact, the Socialists fought the Nazis, while conservatives and nationalists stood by and thought Hitler would be their pawn. Hitler, need it be said, was not a Socialist. He hated the Socialists. Had thousands of them murdered as soon as he came to power...."


'The Tea Party's Toxic Take on History - Ignore it at your peril.'

By Ron Rosenbaum

"Most people with a basic grounding in history find Tea Party ignorance something to laugh about, certainly not something to take seriously. But I would argue that history demonstrates that historical ignorance is dangerous and that it can have tragic consequences, however laughable it may initially seem. And thus the media, liberals, and others are misguided in laughing it off. And educated conservatives are irresponsible in staying silent in the face of these distortions.

The muddled Tea Party version of history is more than wrong and fraudulent. It's offensive. Calling Obama a tyrant, a communist, or a fascist is deeply offensive to all the real victims of tyranny, the real victims of communism and fascism. The tens of millions murdered. It trivializes such suffering inexcusably for the T.P.ers to claim that they are suffering from similar oppression because they might have their taxes raised or be subject to demonic "federal regulation.""

http://www.slate.com/id/2251669/

Amazon.com: Explaining Hitler: The Search for the Origins of His Evil (9780060953393): Ron Rosenbaum: Books


"...Tell the weeping survivors that such regulation is tyranny, that their husbands and fathers had to die, but for a good cause: lowering federal spending so the T.P.ers could save a few pennies on taxes. That's worth 29 lives snuffed out in a mine blast, isn't it? They either don't see the connection or don't care...." from article


"The secret speech is also relevant to Tea Party slanders about liberals. The 1956 publication of the secret speech served to shatter the illusions of a significant portion of those on the left in this country who still harbored sentimental feelings about the Soviet Union. And helped cement the victory of anti-communist liberalism in America's Democratic Party, an important struggle that the Tea Partiers who think liberals are communists seem to be ignorant of...."

All quotations from article.


"Even Fox News recognizes Tea Party dogma as a seething cauldron of deranged and vicious lies about history. Look at the guy in the photo in this report and how proud he is of his illiterate swastika sign."


Books noted in article. Anyone read Solzhenitsyn, years ago I read most his work, powerful stuff.

Amazon.com: Gulag: A History (9780767900560): Anne Applebaum: Books

Amazon.com: The Great Terror: A Reassessment (9780195071320): Robert Conquest: Books


If an article starts with examples of the improper use of Nazis and their ideas and symbolism, then it cannot be accused of Godwin's law. Midcan's Law
Click to expand...

Brilliant post, Midcan. So true.
 
Dixie said:
Na·zism
n. The ideology and practice of the Nazis, especially the policy of racist nationalism, national expansion, and state control of the economy.


Na·zi
adjective
–noun
1. a member of the National socialist German Workers' party of Germany, which in 1933, under Adolf Hitler, seized political control of the country, suppressing all opposition and establishing a dictatorship over all cultural, economic, and political activities of the people, and promulgated belief in the supremacy of Hitler as Führer, aggressive anti-Semitism, the natural supremacy of the German people, and the establishment of Germany by superior force as a dominant world power. The party was officially abolished in 1945 at the conclusion of World War II.
======================================================

Nazism literally MEANS, "National Socialists" and is closely related to the modern Progressive movement.
Click to expand...

LOL, Dixie. The Socialists were the ONLY party to vote AGAINST the enabling act brought by Hitler, while the conservative scum succumbed and voted for it.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
what a bunch of idiots. you are seriously wasting your time here. the TEA activists are not the people you need to worry about, though I understand your desire to still demean them in the hopes of seeing their flameout. The TEA activists are the least of your problems because they still believe in the political process. Where your fears should lie are the ones that didn't attend any of the rallies or protests. The ones that sat at home. They have lost all faith in the political process. The only thing they believe will work now is the cartridge box. All they are waiting on is the word to go and they are getting damned impatient.
Click to expand...

SMY, future terrorist. I've already reported you to the secret service. :)
 
SmarterThanYou said:
pfffft. like they don't know about me already. they also don't give a damn. did I threaten the president? :palm:
Click to expand...

I didn't actually report you.

Just pointing out that, if a majority of people actually supported your insane malinterpretation of the constitution, they'd elect you. And killing a few of them isn't going to change that.
 
Mr. Spite said:
I didn't actually report you.

Just pointing out that, if a majority of people actually supported your insane malinterpretation of the constitution, they'd elect you. And killing a few of them isn't going to change that.
Click to expand...

please point out to me my 'malinterpretation' of the constitution. I'd be happy to eviscerate your intelligence concerning the constitution for all to see.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top