Serious Fascists in America (NewsReal Blog) – By David Horowitz


There are serious fascists in America. But they’re on the political Left.

I wrote yesterday about Glenn Beck’s feature on the violent demonstration by leftists in Pittsburgh (which was covered up by the New York Times and the rest of the left-wing media.) He also reported on the bombing of a radio tower in the State of Washington by the Earth Liberation Front — a left-wing terrorist organization — which went equally unreported. Instead we are treated to a rash of hand-wringings by liberals like Tom Friedman who talk about incitements that could lead to the assassination of President Obama.

Pete Wehner has an excellent blog on this hypocrisy, recalling that a film was actually made by leftists portraying the assassination of President Bush among many other incitements against him by leftists with no — absolutely no — complaints by Friedman and the NY Times. In fact the whole Democratic Party leadership accused Bush of lying to get us into a war and killing young Americans in the process. “Bush lied people died” was the favored leftist chant of the Iraq War, just like “Hey Hey LBJ How Many Kids Did You Kill Today?” was during the Vietnam War. The incitement to assassinate American presidents is the background music of the American left. “Captialism is evil!” “Our leaders are torturers!” “He BETRAYED us!” Screamed Al Gore one of the inciters — and liars –in chief.

What Wehner is too polite to mention is not only are the armies of the Left fascist in behavior but are in full-throated support of our terrorist enemies (whom they like to pretend are only enemies of apartheid Jews) — Hizbullah and Hamas. Every major leftist organization is in some kind of fraternal alliance with CAIR and the Muslim Students Association who sponsor genocidal speakers on college campuses and organize demonstrations to proclaim the birth of Israel on land confiscated from the Turks as a “catastrophe” and who call for the destruction of the Jewish state. But liberals like Friedman are so filled with venemous hatred of patriotic Americans on the right that the only fascism they can see are Tea Party picnickers on the capitol lawn.

  • USMCSniper

    If a conservative doesn't like guns, they don't buy one. If a liberal doesn't like guns, then he decides no one should have one.

    If a conservative is a vegetarian, they don't eat meat. If a liberal is vegetarian, they want to ban all meat products for everyone else.

    If a conservative sees a foreign threat, he thinks about how to defeat his enemy. A liberal wonders how to surrender gracefully and still look and feel good.

    If a conservative is homosexual, they just quietly enjoy their life. If a liberal is homosexual, they loudly demand legislated special rights and accomodations.

    If a black man or Hispanic is conservative, they see themselves as independently successful. Their liberal counterparts see themselves as victims in need of government protection and government handouts.

    If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation. A liberal wants the government to take care of and provide for him.

    If a conservative doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels. Liberals marginalize those they don't agree and demand that they with be shut down.

    If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church. A liberal wants all the churches to be silenced and all religion removed from public view.

    If a conservative decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for health insurance or may choose a job where the employer provides it. A liberal demands that his neighbors pay for his health care and that the government regulate those who provide it.

  • fporretto

    But really, how could we expect the PR annex of the Fascist Left to report on material detrimental to their cause?

    Political discourse gets ever simpler as the Old Media's mask of objectivity slips ever further.

  • Alex Kovnat

    Years ago, I pointed out that if a conservative doesn't want air bags on his or her own car, he or she doesn't go around demanding that nobody else should have them either. And Liberals? They're like neurotic little children who throw temper tantrums not so much because they cant' get cream cheese for their own bagels, but because they want cream cheese on everybody else's bagel, if you know what I mean.

  • peanto

    You say:
    “There are serious fascists in America. But they’re on the political Left.”

    All fascists are on the political left, and they always have. The fascist belief and the fascist movement have been the brainchildren og socialist and leftist ideologues since the days of Sorel, Lenin, Mussolini and Hitler.

    Read more:

  • imnokuffar

    I keep getting called a Fascist because I am a member of the BNP. However I look around me and see the totalitarian leftists have totally taken over the UK and spread their insiduous marxist propaganda everywhere. It is they, not us who have sold out to mass immigration, the destruction of our institutions and bankrupted the country & who have launched us into wars we simply do not have the wherewithall to win (without the backing of the rest of Europe & the USA). I do not think the tories will be much better.

  • Petronius

    That article looks interesting. I will have to read it in detail. I've scanned it tho' and it seems to be under a misapprehension as indeed you are. Just because a person claims to be a socialist does not necessarily mean that they are a Leftist. There is, I believe, the phenomenon of a socialism of the Right, the most outstanding exponent being Adolf Hitler. You need to check your 'political compass'. To determine whether an ideology, party or person is Left or Right you must first determine their relation to Capital. Put simply, if they're business-friendly then they are of the Right.

  • Petronius

    Just because you're a member of the BNP doesn't necessarily mean you're a Fascist tho' there probably are Fascists in the party. What's important about the BNP is that it is the only party that is prepared to stand up against the Establishment and the Elites. I wish the BNP well in its effort to save Britain.

  • Petronius

    Horowitz in this article seems to be politically confused. Going by the picture (check out the hammer and sicle) these people are not Fascists, they're Communists. Fascists are not the only ones who resort to violence, Communists do too.

    Also, Israel wasn't founded on land confiscated from the Turks, whose suzerainty ended years before 1948. It was founded on land stolen from its Arab inhabitants.

  • PAthena

    The Palestine Mandate was land conquered by the Allies in World War I from the Ottoman Empire; it consisted of the old provinces of Greater Syria and Jerusalem. The land of Israel before then had many Jews as inhabitants, e.g. Hebron, where Jews had lived from the days of Abraham, almost 4000 years. If you think that Arabs – Mohammedans – had land stolen from them, how do you think they got it? Israel is ancient land of the Jews, after all.

  • michael85

    Nazi mean: national socialists.A people in this article must be called The neo-Nazi.

  • Gylippus

    Exactly right USMCsniper!

  • conservativemom

    Great Comment!

  • bubba4

    Any protest not organized by FOX and FreedomWorks is clearly the work of Muslim Leftists. Sure there was some ugly stuff from the teabaggers, but if there was…it was just some crazy kooks on the side…but any other poster or flag at any other protest, represents the core of the “movement”…and should be taken for the thoughts and feelings of everyone there.

  • peanto

    Thank you, Petronius for making me laugh. It prolongs life, they say.

    By your standard, Lenin was a rightist (for his NEP policy) and Hitler was a leftist (for combatting the “Judeo-plutocratic monopoly capital”).

    The ideas of “left” and “right” originated in the French parliament after the revolution, No fascist teaching is compatible to conservative ideology. It all belongs somewhere to the left, together with Marxism, Leninism, Communism and Nazism. Strictly speaking also Islam belongs ideologically in the leftist category. That explains the affinity between the leftists and the islamists.

  • Petronius

    You seem to be a victim of Zionist propaganda (don't worry, I once was too). Here are some facts: Before the Palestine Mandate you'd have to go back to ancient times for a time when the Jews were a majority in Palestine. Even in 1850 they only constituted 4% of the population, and in 1948 they were still not a majority. So what gives them the right to claim the whole of Palestine as their own? That their ancestors lived there 4000 years ago? Don't make me laugh.

    As for Hebron, excuse my scepticism, but where's the proof that Jews have really lived there in unbroken continuity for 4000 years? This could be just a myth.

    You asked how the Arabs got the land of Palestine. Good question. Well, basicly they're the descendents of earlier inhabitants of Palestine who converted to Christianity and Islam at various later stages. Quite probably they're the descendents of Jews! Also, correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think there is any proof that Arabs or Muslims have ever displaced the original inhabitants of Palestine.

    How different it is with the Jews! Their own Bible says they murdered the original inhabitants, the Canaanites. And it is still going on today! Murders, expulsions, ethnic-cleansing. You should read, “The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine” by the Israeli historian, Ilan Pappe. It will open your eyes!

  • imnokuffar

    Hi petronius, I can guarantee that there are more fascists in the Liebour/Conservative/Liberal parties than there are in the BNP. Do not know where you live, but I think “Enrichment” is coming to a place near you !

  • sjbn

    If this conservative needs to make a point, he/she makes up, hyperbolizes, and embellishes “facts”. Unfortunately, there is far too much of this going on in America.

    A wise man once said, “Love God with all your being and treat others the way you want to be treated”. Most of what I read in this post is a worship of Self.

  • Petronius

    Hello there. I live in Australia. By “Enrichment”, do you mean Multiculturalism? Yup, we got that!

  • Petronius

    No, Lenin was a leftist, NEP was only ever intended to be a temporary policy. As for Hitler, it is you who say he's a leftist, not me! Hitler only ever attacked finance capital not the capitalist system. How do you think he got into power? Did the socialists help him? Noooooo! I was the middle classes and big business.

    Who says that Fascist teaching is not compatible to Conservative ideology? Hitler was handed the chancellorship by the conservatives while Mussolini was able to rule along side that of the King. Both Fascism and Conservatism respect property rights, that's what they've got in common – amongst other things.

    Islam leftist? Now you're being silly. The religion was founded by an Arabian businessman, so where do you think it stands on the political spectrum? With godless atheists, the communists and socialists? Or with the conservatives who respect religion and property? There is no affinity between leftists and islamists. Leftists just use Islam to beat conservatives around the head. Watch them drop Islam when conservatives start supporting Islam. That'll be fun!

  • MarilynA

    What we are seeing is a perfect example of “battered citizen syndrome.” It is like “batter spouse syndrome” only it is practiced by the abusers on a large block of citizens. The way it works is, first the abuser destroys the victim”s self confidence by constantly blaming the victim for everything that goes wrong., the victim can't do anything right, someone else can always do a better job, the victim is evil, deserves to be despised and on and onl. Is this not what is happening in our country today? We are allowing all children to be taught in our pubic schools that all white people are evil, they stole everything they have from somebody else, evil motives for everything they do, that all white people are inherantly evil because their ancestors did evil things, our country was founded by greed y murdering white monsters who genocided whole races of people so they could steal their land and resources. Our country is now cowering like wimpering women and have accepted the blame for all the world's evils and our people think if we just tried a little harder, gave a little more, and the groveled and paid restitution, other countries and peoples would love us and our lot might be better. Can anyone deny that this is the situation we are in today. We are allowing history text books written by militant communists from the radical South Western Organizing Project (SWOP) which claims to represent militant American Indians and Chicanos, which states that the Southwestern states were stolen from Mexico, to be used in all our classrooms. We allow CAIR to censor our text books so “Muslims won't be offended.” Until our people wake up and stand up to these maniacal tyrants who have us cowering like frighten women, I see no hope. The first step is to recognize the problem. Many of the leaders of these radical groups have advanced college degrees in Psychology. They know exactly what they are doing. So wake up felllow citizens. It's time to stop accepting the blame for all the ills of the world, and stand up and fight back. Refuse to accept that we are always in the wrong. Start with this example. We are constantly told that Muslims hate us and want to kill us because we have done something that merits their hate. But ask yourself this,
    What did those four little girls on their way to school in Indonesia do that warranted
    their beheading by devoutly religous Muslim men? What did we do that caused that?

  • MacKlingon

    Excellent comparisons, have you noticed that you could substitute the word Adult for Conservative and Child for Liberal? Just an observation.

  • WFB2

    “There is I believe, the phenomenon of a socialism of the Right, the most outstanding exponent being Adolph Hitler.”
    Hitler and the Nazi's were committed (National) socialists. They detested communism (International socialism) which was threatening to engulf all of Europe including Germany. Hitler's Nazi socialism was “Right” because it was not communist and not because it was capitalist -it wasn't. Read “Liberal Fascism” by Jonah Goldberg.
    Hitler's financial support came mainly from the masses. See “Who financed Hitler?” by James Pool. Here's a partial review:

    “…one [needs] to understand the lower and middle class roots of the Nazi party, the self-financing of the party through small contributions of dedicated but poor, and sometimes unemployed loyalists. It reveals the college radical student support for Nazism. It discusses how Hitler took up collections at rallies, made members of the S.A. and S.S. buy their own uniforms (and how the Party generated a profit from selling uniforms), sold pamphlets and books, and generally how it financed a revolution on a retail basis.

    If you are expecting to hear that arms manufacturer Krupp brought Hitler to power so they could rebuild the German Army, forget about it. Those type of conspiracy theories are debunked here. Pool shows how Hitler got little support from heavy industry until he was already in power and his ascension was an accomplished fact.”

  • brimp

    Conservatives believe that their rights come from a higher power and the government’s purpose is to secure these rights. Liberals believe that their (and your) rights come from government. For Liberals the state is their church. The separation of church and state means that your church cannot interfere with their one true church. Liberals believe that they are Gods who know more about life than those in lesser religions.

  • brimp

    Did Lenin believe that each individual has rights granted by a higher power and that government’s purpose is to secure these rights? No. He thought that the government can tell each individual what is right and wrong. Therefore he is a Leftist.

    Did Hitler believe that each individual has rights granted by a higher power and that government’s purpose is to secure these rights? No. He thought that the government can tell each individual what is right and wrong. Therefore he is a Leftist.

    Does Islam believe that each individual has rights granted by a higher power and that government’s purpose is to secure these rights? No. Muslims believe that Islamic governments rule based on what the top people believe that the Qur'an says. Therefore Islam is Leftist.

    The belief that corporations are persons that have rights that need to be secured can lead to fascism. Corporations are creations of the state and therefore have privileges granted from the state. Many on the Right see corporations as having the same rights as you and me. This causes them to do odd things. The Left also sees no difference between corporations and natural people. They think that corporations and you and I get our privileges from them. This is the defining factor that differentiates Liberals from conservatives. Liberals believe that government is our masters while Conservatives believe that government is our servant.

  • 93etro

    Hitler was was handed the chancellorship because the conservatives were all that was left standing after Hitler had gutted the left and the communists, replacing them with the socialists…..

  • 93etro

    You speak of Zionist propaganda, but you ignore Pappe's anti-Israel position. He is an admitted communist and does not support Israel…..

  • VN_Vet


    There are millions of people in this country who don't give a moments recognition to that self-loathing crapola. That's a leftist psychosis, they are handwringing basketcases. The majority of U.S. citizens are confident in themselves and their country. If there are people in the world who are jealous about that, too bad, that's their problem (if you like we'll discontinue your foreign aid). You will have to look to the blue states to find the cowering masses. There you will find some good citizens too, battered sometimes into submission by the anti-Americans, but mostly those blue states are collection points for the America haters, the neurotics, the communists.

    Your points about the left propagandizing the populus are well taken. That has changed somewhat, their propaganda machine doesn't completely go unchallenged anymore, and that really burns their a$$. You see, they aren't confident at all, they're weenies, and it scares the h e l l out of them when they don't control completely the means of disseminating information. Thus the constant assaults and demagoging of Talk Radio, FPM, NewsMax, Fox News, etc. It's my contention that they'll try to go further than just demagoging, which will either really wake people up or trigger a civil war.

  • VN_Vet

    If it weren't for years of empirical evidence that allows sensible people to accurately juxtapose, you might have a point. But you don't.

  • VN_Vet

    His point is that there isn't a dime's worth of difference between you guys.

  • coyote3

    Most of what I read in this post is a worship of Self. Well, I hope so, that is how the United States became a great nation.

    A wiser man said, “Do unto others, as they would do unto you, except do it first.”

  • PAthena

    The name of Judea was changed to “Palestina” in 135 A.D. by the Roman Emperor Hadrian after he had defeated the last Jewish uprising under Bar Kochba. He also outlawed the practice of Judaism. He did so to forever eradicate all memory of the Jews and Judea, but instead “Palestine” became synonymous with “land of the Jews” or “the Holy Land” (since Jesus was a Jew). That is why the Zionists wanted the “Palestine Mandate.” There was never a country named “Palestine.” (The Soviet Union – antisemitic and so anti-Israel – and Nasser, Communist, antisemitic and anti-Israel – in 1964 founded the “Palestine Liberation Organization” in Cairo, and their propaganda has led to calling Arabs “Palestinians.”
    The Mohammedans conquered what had been Judea, Palestine, in the 7th century A.D.
    The Israelis under Joshua went to war with people in Canaan, according to the Bible, and conquered them, killing many, no doubt.
    If you read the Bible, you will discover that Abraham bought a cave in Hebron from Machpela, as a burial cave for his family. Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Rebecca, and Jacob (Israel) and Leah are buried there. That took place around 1800 B.C., almost 4000 years ago. Descendants of Israel, now the Jews, have lived there ever since.
    The murderers in Israel today are Hamas, Hezbollah, the PA, and they want to kill all Jews.
    Ilan Pappe is a liar who had a student write a thesis about a fictional massacre of Arabs; he was caught out in the lie by his university, and he went to Great Britain to peddle his antisemitic lies.

  • 2maxpower

    well put

  • Petronius

    So what if Pappe is a communist or does not support Israel. Does that impune his scholarship? Shouldn't his work and ideas be judged on their own merits?

  • Petronius

    Yes, some might say that. If Horowitz meant that then he should have just said it instead of seeming ignorant and using the word 'fascist' as some kind of smear.

  • imnokuffar

    Yup, that's exactly what I mean. In my view Multicult is evil because it gives equal wieghting to all ideologies and cultures. This is obviously not true. Each culture is different but if you were to ask me which culture is superior I would have to say Western European Culture. This culture has enriched the world in innumerable ways. The Islamic Culture has not. In fact it has decided to go backwards to its medieval roots and after about the 14th century it totally stopped giving the world anything innovative. Even before that most of its so-called inventions were ripped off from other cultures. Even the Taj Mahal had to be designed and built by a Christian Architect as the Mohammedans did not have the technical skills to do so. You do not have many mools in Australia (yet) you wait until they reach critical mass then the fun will begin as it already has in Europe.

  • imnokuffar

    Also, Israel wasn't founded on land confiscated from the Turks, whose suzerainty ended years before 1948. It was founded on land stolen from its Arab inhabitants.

    Sorry to disabuse you but historically the land of Israel belongs and did belong to the Jews. It was the Arabs who stole from the Jews, not vice-versa. The Mohammedans also stole large parts of Spain and nearly conquered all of Europe if they had not been stopped by Charles (the Hammer) Martel in the 1600s. The mools have always had a penchant for stealing and enslaving anything they come across.

  • Petronius

    Yes, Multiculturalism is evil. It has been a disaster for Australia, along with Mass Immigration. My culture, Australian culture, is now just one of many and I'm feeling like an alien in my own country. I can see the day when Australia ends up being a de facto province of China.

    Australia doesn't yet have the same number of Muslims as Britain but the ones we do have are already causing trouble. The ingrates already have been caught plotting to kill us and perhaps one day they'll succeed.

    Joining the BNP is a good start. Also good is to have three or more children (it's a demographic battle as much as anything). Can't afford it? Let the State pay for them!

  • Petronius

    What do you mean, the land of Israel belongs to the Jews? Because they once lived there 2000 years ago? Poppycock! The idea is ridiculous.

    No, there is not a shred of evidence to say that the Arabs stole the land from the Jews. The Palestinians are descendents of the original population. There is a big difference between ruling a land and evicting its inhabitants. For that kind of behaviour, look at what the Jews are doing inside Israel today to the Palestinians.

    P.S. Charles Martel lived in the 8th Century not the 1600s.

  • bubba4

    It was sarcasm to begin with.

    Haven't you seen Fox commentary on anti-war protests compared with the Tea Party protests….it's hilarious.

    What empirical evidence are you talking about?

  • bubba4

    A wiser man than Jesus?

    You're such a cynical douche.

  • bubba4

    “Read “Liberal Fascism” by Jonah Goldberg.”

    Oh man…if you look to this book for your outlook, I think we have identified the problem,. Goldberg is an idiot trying to cash in.

    FPM does the same thing he does…distort the poltical spectrum from a ring into a straight line with “right” on one side and “left” on the other. “left” gets all the bad things in history and “right” gets all the good. It's that simple and that divorced from reality.

  • bubba4

    Then what do we call the skin heads? This is a slippery slope of semantic relabeling.

  • Petronius

    You make a lot of assumptions. You quote a lot of irrelevancies. Who cares if the Jews lived in a geographic region called Palestine almost 2000 years ago. That doesn't give them any special right to live there now, does it? Why should Jews rule over the whole of Palestine simply because a handful of Jews have “always” lived in Hebron? It doesn't make sense.

    Is it any wonder that Hamas and Hezbollah want to kill Jews. The Jewish state of Israel is oppressing Palestinians so the Palestinians and their allies are just fighting back. The Jews bring the retribution on themselves.

    What are you talking about? The Soviet Union was not antisemitic. The USSR was the best friend that the Jews have ever had. Who do you think voted for the establishment of Israel in the UN?

    Who said Pappe is a liar? Some Zionist, I bet. Lying is the conscious telling of a falsehood and it is not easy to prove. You should be careful of slandering people. Whether a massacre occurred or not is a disputation to be based on facts. Allegations of lying need not enter the discussion.

    And who said that Pappe was caught out lying by his university? What's your source? As I understand it he was asked to stand down from his post at the university because he had called for a boycott of Israeli academics.

    And what makes you think that Pappe is an antisemite? Does he hate Jews? Hating Jews and fair criticism of Israel does not equate.

  • Petronius

    Hitler replaced the left and communists with socialists?!! Do he didn't. He replaced them with Nazis.

  • Petronius

    Yes, I have heard about Goldberg's book and might get around to reading it one day. Its title however seems like a contradiction in terms.

    Nevertheless, as I see it, Hitler's “socialism” was quite different from that practiced in the Soviet Union. In Germany Hitler left the capitalist system intact. They still owned the factories, businesses etc. Hitler's system could be characterised as economically capitalist and politically dictatorial.

    I've got a copy of Pools' book. It is jolly good read although I have only read about half. You could well be right, perhaps the bulk of financing of the Nazi movement came from other sources than (big) business. However I thought that I recently saw a survey as to who voted for the Nazis and overwhelmingly it was the middle class. This would stamp it as a middle class movement.

  • antifascist18

    The Democratic Party, and their allies ACORN, MoveOn.Org, J Street, aka the New American Nazi Party.

  • Petronius

    Excuse me, but there doesn't seem to be a lot of a difference for somebody who is relying on a government to secure their rights which come from a higher power (e.g. the Wizard of Oz) than if they just believed their rights came from government.

    The point I am making is that the difference is all in your own head.

  • Petronius

    I am not an American so perhaps I don't understand all the subtleties of American politics but as an Aussie your conservatives and liberals look very similar. To me they are just two sides of the same capitalist coin.

    It seems that you have defined left and right according to your own idiosyncratic system. If a person believes that the boogey man in the sky has granted rights to them then you say they are a conservative. And if not, they're leftist.

    This is simple, if not simplistic. But what about those people who claim to be leftists and yet believe that the celestial boogey man has given them rights? What about them? Are they rightists, or leftists as they claim?

    May I suggest more objective criteria? Is the orientation towards Capital or Labour? Who do they barrack for, the working man, or the businessman? If the former you'll find that they're generally leftist, and if the latter generally rightist.

  • VN_Vet

    YOU are one sick puppy.

  • brimp

    You bring up interesting points. Before the Declaration of Independence was written, the Europeans on the mid-Atlantic seaboard of North America saw themselves as colonists. After, they saw themselves as Americans. The central premise of what it means to be an American are in the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution. This idea is that Government's purpose is to secure the rights of the individual. The government does not provide the individual with education, insurance, health care, a job, a religion, or a pension. Government can not tell you how, or if, you should have a relationship with your Creator. Atheists have the same natural rights as everybody else. I have the right to do anything I want so long as I do not infringe your rights to do what you want. If there is a conflict, a jury of our peers will decide whose rights have been infringed.

    The right to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness implies a capitalist system. This is not to be confused, but often is, with a corporatist system. The 14 Amendment created a second class of citizen (citizen of the United States) who had privileges known as civil rights granted from Congress. This was initially applied to the former slaves but soon after was applied to corporations. This has led people to see no difference between capitalism and corporatism. The American Left sees the people as dependents of a wise government. The Right has a number of sub populations that sometimes overlap. The business people pose as capitalists but are really corporatists. The moralists see the Left as forcing their godless religion on the God fearing Americans and to defend against this, they sometimes try to force their moral codes on non believers. The Militarists don't evaluate there form of government but do defend it and promote its application to the people of other lands. The Libertarians, which are sometimes grouped with the Right, see that governments should do only what is in the Constitution.

    In a democracy, if a plurality of the voters decides to kill fellow citizens then the only question for them is whether the death camps should be in Denver or Detroit. America is not a democracy (search for democracy in the federalist papers). It is a republic where each person's rights do not come from government. If governments gave me my rights then governments can take them away. Whether these rights come from heaven is not a question that government can answer. The only thing that governments can assume is that their purpose is to secure these rights.

    Liberals believe that they, through government, are gods and they can punish non believers (in their holy status) here on earth. Conservatives believe that government is not God and if you violate their moral code then God will punish you after you die. Liberals sees people as subjects while Conservatives sees people as sovereigns with out subjects.

  • WFB2

    “Goldberg is an idiot trying to cash in.”
    I'm overwhelmed by your well-reasoned, fact-filled rebuttal of Goldberg's book. You've obviously read it with penetrating insight supported by your own thorough knowledge of history. Can't fool you Lefties!

  • VN_Vet

    Aren't you going to be surprised when that pitchfork jabs you in the a$$.

  • VN_Vet

    There are remedial courses in english comprehension that may be able to help you.

  • VN_Vet

    I call them skin heads.

  • Petronius

    Well, a pitchfork will prove that the Devil exists but not God, if that's what you're implying. Besides, I believe in God so there should be no problem.

    I never intended to make Brimp's point. Oh, Oh, did I make a blunder? Look, I don't believe in this whole Rights thing. It is all a crock of shit. So, where does that leave conservatives and liberals now? I only believe in duties.

  • Petronius

    Thank you for your considered opinion but enigmatic ad hominum attacks might not be the way to go here. May I suggest you formulate a fuller response, I would love to hear a decent critique of my views.

  • Petronius

    I am not sure what you mean by the corporatist system. How is it diffferent from capitalism?

    Also, I think a lot of liberals would disagree with your assessment that they see people as subjects. I get the feeling that you are trying to make distinctions where there are none.

  • brimp

    From wikipedia:

    Corporatism is a system of economic, political, and social organization where corporate groups such as business, ethnic, farmer, labour, military, patronage, or religious groups are joined together into a single governing body in which the different groups are mandated to negotiate with each other to establish policies in the interest of the multiple groups within the body.[1] Corporatism views society as being alike to an organic body in which each corporate group is viewed as a necessary organ for society to function properly.[2] Corporatism is based on the sociological concept of functionalism.[3] Countries that have corporatist systems typically utilize strong state intervention to direct corporatist policies and to prevent conflict between the groups.[4]

    Corporatism has been supported from various proponents, including: absolutists, conservatives, fascists, progressives, reactionaries, socialists and theologians.[5]

    Political scientists may also use the term corporatism to describe a practice whereby a state, through the process of licensing and regulating officially-incorporated social, religious, economic, or popular organizations, effectively co-opts their leadership or circumscribes their ability to challenge state authority by establishing the state as the source of their legitimacy, as well as sometimes running them, either directly or indirectly through corporations. This usage is particularly common in the area of East Asian studies, and is sometimes also referred to as state corporatism. Some analysts have applied the term neocorporatism to certain practices in Western European countries, such as the Tupo in Finland and Proporz system in Austria.[6] At a popular level in recent years “corporatism” has been used in a pejorative context to refer to the application of corporatism by fascist regimes[7] or to mean the promotion of the interests of private business corporations in government over the interests of the public.

    In America, corporatism could not exist before the 14th Amendment. Once the Supreme Court rulled that corporations have the same rights as, second class, citizens of the United States, then the federal govenment could break out of the cage that the Constitution created for it.

  • brimp

    “Also, I think a lot of liberals would disagree with your assessment that they see people as subjects. I get the feeling that you are trying to make distinctions where there are none.”

    Liberals do not believe I have an absolute right to the fruits of my labor (income tax), my right to own a gun, my right to travel (driver licensing, air port security requires a government issued document to board a flight), my right to contract, or not, for health care, my right to access the health care I deem appropriate (FDA, AMA), my right not to be poisoned (mandatory flu shots: see, and the list goes on. In each case they think that government is the sovereign and I am the subject who must obey the sovereign.

  • VN_Vet

    It wasn't an ad hominem attack. It was an observation based on the ramblings of your 'full of yourself' posts.

    “Is it any wonder that Hamas and Hezbollah want to kill Jews. The Jewish state of Israel is oppressing Palestinians so the Palestinians and their allies are just fighting back. The Jews bring the retribution on themselves”

    And sick stuff like this, if you really believe it.

    And yes I care, so I'm sure that the Jews care if their ancestors occupied their ancestral homeland 2000 years ago, which was NOT called Palestine.

    You might just have a screw loose. Oh, oh, or you might be a fascist/commie, which is what I originally had you pegged as. Which do you admit to? Crazy or Commie?

  • Petronius

    I am not sure that I should dignify your rantings with a reply but here goes anyway. Let's not pretend that you are above ad hominum attacks. This last posting of yours is full of them.

    Why should you care if Jews lived in 'Palestine' 2000 years ago? Perhaps you're a Jew-lover, more likely you're a Zionist stooge. Whichever it is, you definitely haven't thought through the issues, have you?

  • Petronius

    Thanks for your lengthy reply.

    You seem to believe that you have all kinds of absolute rights. Surely no one has absolute rights. Rights are either tempered by circumstances, or tempered by the rights of others, as well as by community and social needs.

    Instead of rights, I prefer to think in terms of duties. Rights are for the weak who are not strong enough to take what they believe is theirs. Duties are for the strong who do what needs to be done.

  • brimp

    What really matters is the roll of government. Either it is you master or your servant. The more centralized your government is, the poorer you will be. The Muslim countries are poorer (except for oil) than the Christian countries. The Protest countries (United States, Switzerland, Germany, and England) are richer than the Catholic countries (Poland, Spain, Italy, Latin American countries). Communist countries are poorer than capitalist countries. The more of the decisions are taken out of the hands of the individual, the poorer everyone will be. Ten geniuses will make worst decisions, in total, than ten million morons if each moron benefits from his good decisions and feels pain for each bad decision.

    Rights are not absolute. One can walk outside nude on a nude beach but not in most towns. If you tried to be nude in public and someone complains, then a jury will decide who has the greater right. Duties are things you must do if you want to be protected by the group. If the country is attacked, you must risk your life and go to war. These duties are determined by the group. Duties and Rights are linked but are different. Duties are enumerated, rights are not. I have the right to do anything I want as long as nobody complains that I have infringed upon their rights to do what they want. When everyone is looking after their own self interest, without using force or fraud, every one is better off than if each individual gets their list of duties from a central authority.

  • bubba4

    Why should I read his book. I've been reading FPM since it's inception. I am well aware of the bizarro world. If I want to hear the words “liberal” “left” or “progressive” mean Nazi I have only to login.

    I haven't read “United in Hate” either because I avoid books whose basic premise in wrong to begin with. I haven't read any books on “creationism” for the same reason.

  • WFB2

    “Why should I read his book.”
    So you'll know what you're talking about when you criticize it?
    “… I avoid books whose basic premise in wrong to begin with.”
    Which raises the question “Why do you continue to read FPM from top to bottom every day and post your “stuck on stupid” comments? Are you the designated troll assigned to FPM duty?

  • bubba4

    Actually Republicans fought against almost all safety requirements for automobiles from the safety belt to the airbag over the years…”government control” and all that.

    Mandating such things was the only reason they happened though.

    I'll let you get back to flogging “liberals”…and cream cheese.

  • VN_Vet

    Ok, we're finally getting somewhere. You have now identified yourself as a fascist and anti-zionist too. So you're also a commie. From zionist to marxist/fascist. You're on a downward spiral man, pull up. But I think you're a little crazy too. Well duh, you'd have to be wouldn't you, silly me. And definitely full of yourself. Just my observations based on you're sick ravings.

    You mean you actually had to “think” through the issues to become part of the dark side? I think you were an easy mark.

  • VN_Vet

    And don't forget one of their biggest sugar daddies, George Soros. There's Peter Lewis, Steven Bing, and several other organizations that are funding the marxists, but Soros is public enemy number one. If you are carrying Progressive Insurance, do like I did, drop it and make sure ole' Lewis knows exactly why and how you feel about anti-Americanism.

  • coyote3

    The issue is whether they fought against safety requirement, like airbags and seatbelts. The issue was that they didn't say no one should have them, only that the government shouldn't require it. You still would have been able to get seatbelts, if you wanted them on your car. In fact, before 1956, they were optional equipment. If you wanted them, you ordered them. Yeah, government control and all of that.

  • coyote3

    When he said he was “retard”, I thought he just quit working, and had an accent like mine.

  • bubba4

    In most cases, especially when what's in the book is in doubt or a matter of opinion, I would agree with you that one should read it before commenting. Fiction most of all…

    If the title of a non-fiction book is an unintentional oxymoron that's probably the first red flag. I read FPM because it is second rate fetid pool from which a lot of lies and narratives are born. I post for my own amusement. I don't know any crazies who believe this bizarro world stuff in my private life….so I have to come here to even experience it. It's gotten so much worse over the last few years…but unlike a lot of people, I am not surprised.

  • coyote3

    Good question, how would he know what the book is about, unless he, at least, looks at it?

  • bubba4

    Sure Coyote…all the safety advances since the 50's would have come about anyway and been within reach of everyone without any safety requirements….sure…

    And what about the drunk driving laws? Aren't you infruiated with the government telling you how much you can drink before you get behind the wheel of your seatbeltless car?

    You just want to argue…

  • coyote3

    No, the safety appliances you were talking about, only affect the user. It is his decision. I recall well, when seat belts were available optional equipment. Personally, I believe it isn't very smart to drive without a seatbelt, but then, that is my business. 10/55 laws are another matter, they don't just affect the driver/drinker. If I get into an accident without using a seatbelt, the only potential downside, is that I “may” be killed/more seriously injured without it than with it.

  • coyote3

    You a member of the “BMP”? Wasn't that a Soviet APC? I don't know that sounds like a strange thing to call someone. Oh, sorry you said “BNP”, I thought you said you were a member of the “BMP”.

  • WFB2

    “If the title of a non-fiction book is an unintentional oxymoron that's probably the first red flag.”
    You continue to flaunt your ignorance. The title “Liberal Fascism” was purposely chosen to reflect the utter hypocrisy of the political Left which Goldberg exposes quite thoroughly in the book.
    Liberalism is nothing it claims to be and everything it projects on to conservatives: racist, intolerant, censorious, bigoted and elitist (My words).

    Your rationale for reading/posting on FPM rings hollow. You're like a moth attracted to the light.

  • Petronius

    You really like ad hominum attacks, don't you? I will wear your attacks with pride. Didn't Mussolini say, “Many enemies, much honour”?

    With respect, your thinking is very confused. Your confusion of communists and fascists is risible. Fascists are not communists and Hitler's attack on the Soviet Union proves it?

    I suggest you stay away from politics as you'll only give yourself a headache and look foolish amongst your friends.

    [See, I can make ad hominum attacks too! Aren't I clever? NOT!]

    Meanwhile, I'm going to have a nap. Catch you later!

  • Petronius


  • VN_Vet

    Oh, ouch.

    “Fascists are not communists and Hitler's attack on the Soviet Union proves it?”

    You conveniently forgot to mention that before Hitler had a brainfart, Germany and the Soviet Union were allied.

    Further, communists in the U.S. agitated for the U.S. to stay out of WWII right up until Hitler attacked the Soviets. There were some commies who were bothered by the alliance, but not much and most weren't.

    As I said earlier, not a dime's worth of difference. Which I think you agreed with at the time.

    I tried to go easier on your tender sensiblities this time.

  • VN_Vet

    My sentiments entirely.

  • VN_Vet

    Communists are notoriously deceiving, of course not.

  • bubba4

    “The title “Liberal Fascism” was purposely chosen to reflect the utter hypocrisy of the political Left which Goldberg exposes quite thoroughly in the book.”

    Yes I know. One thing FPM readers are fond of doing is listing out what liberals are/do. When you are defining something, you are pretty free to make up it's meaning. A word isn't any good for you unless it furthers understanding. Goldberg isn't furthering understanding of anything. He is adding his “professional” FPM post defining “liberalism” any way he sees fit.

    You must realize that with a keen eye towards one's desired conclusion, history is flexible. It's redefineable. If you think all government is bad government (with somehow the exception of the military) then there is no difference between Mussolini, Stalin and Hitler. Also, if you think all white men are evil, then there is no difference between them either. But these comparisons don't teach us anything.

    There is a certain accepted lexicon in politics. Horowitz, Goldberg and others have spent a great deal of energy to poison the well, so to speak…making “left” a catchall boogeyman for all bad things today (and always) while making “conservative” a pseudo-religion…not just a political leaning…but a way of life. The problem is not everyone has gotten the memo…outside the bizarro world, people don't accept the very new premise that being “liberal” is actually being a evil fascist…can you imagine?

    “Liberalism is nothing it claims to be and everything it projects on to conservatives: racist, intolerant, censorious, bigoted and elitist (My words).

    See…just look at you go. Who are you talking about?

    “Your rationale for reading/posting on FPM rings hollow.”

    Whatever…I'm so glad I didn't just blow off your asinine questioning of my motives to post to a website. You know it's not for the exposure….lol

  • bubba4

    I recently saw a car crash test where they rammed a 1950s car into it's closest modern equivalent. They should have painted the words “strict libertarian” on the crash dummy driving in the 1950's car.

  • Petronius

    Maybe they are and maybe they're not but still his ideas and scholarship should be judged on its merit. You're not seriously disagreeing with that, are you, because if you are then it is you that can not be taken seriously.

  • Petronius

    I think anyone who has read his stuff would realize that the pact between Germany and the Soviet Union was intended by both sides to be temporary until each was strong enough to attack the other.

    Communists only supported the pact because they supported what the USSR was doing.

    And you seem to forget that your country, the USSA, was allied to the USSR for far longer than Hitler's Germany ever was!

  • Petronius

    I would have thought that in a democracy government is always to be the servant.

    I believe that your case that decentralization predicts wealth is wrong. Is Italy really more decentralized that Germany? What is your criteria for determining decentralization? Wealth? If so, you're begging the question.

    You say rights are not ennumerated but in your country they are. You forget you've got a bill of rights. Why should that be so?

  • Petronius

    Yeah? And just which marxists are these business men funding?

  • bubba4

    "skin heads" is a nickname for Neo-Nazis…the REAL ones. You know, guys that actually admire Hitler and the symbolism of the 3rd Reich…people that believe in the superiority of the white race…etc…etc…We call them Neo-Nazis already. I was making fun of you VN_Vet…god you're old.

  • brimp

    In a democracy, government is the master. A plurality of easily lead voters can be used to tyrannize everyone.

    The reformation empowered people to think for themselves. Reading the Bible directly and determining what it meant rather than having the Pope do the thinking caused people to think for themselves in other areas. Protestant countries are wealthier than Catholic countries. Is this a coincidence? Switzerland is the most decentralized country in Europe. It is also the richest. Coincidence?

    In America, the Declaration of Independence is our founding document. It states the all men have been endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights, amongst these are the Rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The Constitution sets up a government under these principles. The Bill of Rights does give me any rights. It says that Congress shall make no law…. It is a restriction on government to not even try to violate some of the most important rights.

    The laws in America are very complex because government can not violate these principles directly. Only through each citizen’s consent can they violate the spirit of the civilization principle. If you don't assert your rights they are deemed to be waived. If you don't know how to assert your rights, you don't have any. The complexity and deliberate mis-education of the people caused them not to know how to assert their rights. We are hanging on to the Constitution by a few threads.

  • coyote3

    Yeah, and the driver of its “closest modern equivalent”, underneath the wreckage, was a liberal.

    You didn't address the issues one bit, because you can't. There is no “right” to operate an automobile, and the government, promoting interstate commerce does have the power to be involved in safety regulations of vehicles. Certainly, if the problem would cause the driver of the vehicle to lose control of it, under “normal” driving conditions, then that becomes a problem for the public at large. What concerns the operator, and only the operator, is not a matter that the government has any business regulating. If I get into an automobile accident, the lack of seatbelts in my vehicles, and/or my failure to wear a seatbelt, will not make the accident any more severe as far as the other driver is concerned. Mandated things like that are not only beyond the business of government, they just increase the cost of the vehicle, and force people to pay extra, when if they have made up their minds not to wear seatbelts, they are not going to wear seatbelts, and all the $25.00 tickets in the world isn't going to change them. It may the “Darwinian affect” in operation, but that is just the way it is. If they take that risk, they take that risk.

  • WFB2

    “Goldberg isn't furthering understanding of anything. He is adding his “professional” FPM post defining “liberalism” any way he sees fit.”

    So you're back to evaluating a book you havn't read but to which you impute and criticize content which comes only from your imagination. You're a hopeless waste of time in the long pathetic tradition of Lefty dimwits.

  • VN_Vet

    “I think anyone who has read his stuff would realize that the pact between Germany and the Soviet Union was intended by both sides to be temporary until each was strong enough to attack the other.”

    [LOL. Careful, you risk not being taken seriously.]

    “Communists only supported the pact because they supported what the USSR was doing.”

    [Yes, they supported the Nazi-Commie pact.]

    “And you seem to forget that your country, the USSA, was allied to the USSR for far longer than Hitler's Germany ever was.”

    [A non-sequitur]

  • VN_Vet

    I may be seasoned, but I'm not old. I knew what you meant, it was my attempt at levity. Lighten up already.

  • bubba4

    If you mean by hopeless…I'm not going to agree that the words “liberal” and “fascist” belong together….that this helps somehow…then you are right. I don't think it does.

    I've read reviews about it, excerpts from it, seen him in multiple interviews and TV appearances talking about it, but mostly I recognized the thesis from FPM…I am not going to buy it…lol

    If I'm a waste of time then stop replying to me. You're up to your neck in this cultic nonsense so it only makes sense that you would champion any argument that fits even if it's widely panned as ridiculous and counter to all previous understanding of the evolution of political thought over the last hundred years…..

  • bubba4

    Feel free to not take any precautions of your own. We wouldn't want to stifle “natural selection” (wtf is the “Darwinian Effect”) in your own family.

  • Petronius

    My friend, take care, it is you who risk not being taken seriously. Why do you bother?

  • Petronius

    If democracy is our master then we are all lost.

    Perhaps I can agree with you, Catholicism is intellectually stifleing but I would add that it is economically stifleing too.

    Catholic countries are poorer than Protestant because they were late to develop capitalist economies.

    Switzerland, decentralized maybe but predominately Catholic. It is in the same category as Luxenbourg and Liechtenstein, a parasite whose financial and banking industries have grossly inflated its per capita GNP.

    You still haven't given me your yardstick for determining the centralization of a country. Actually, I don't expect you to. What criteria would you use? The government and bureauocracy, or how the society operates? How about we apply physics: as decentralization increases so does entropy, and chaos. This does not sound like a good recipe for a healthy economy.

    Switzerland is an oddball. Liechtenstein and Luxenbourg are just as rich, if not more so, but I wouldn't think they're particularly decentralized.

    If you want to look at a wealthy European country then I would suggest Sweden. It's protestant, it's capitalist but has had social-democratic governments for years and years, but I suppose you don't want to hear about socialism, do you?

  • brimp

    As long as democracy is viewed positively, we are lost. See the Federalist Papers on this.

    The Catholics in Switzerland, like in America, act like Protestants. If they agree with the pope, then that is great, if not then he is an old man in a dress. Catholicism does not foster independent thinking. Therefore, it does not value capitalism. This does not mean that Catholics are bad people, but it is a handicap that they need to overcome.

    There is a connection between capitalism and freedom. This column is too narrow to put a link so I suggest googling 'freedom index’.

    I've never been to Sweden but I don't think I'd like it. It is not capitalist. It is socialist. Even though people make money there, they are taxed so much that they are much poorer than Americans. Canada is similar to America except the people make a little less money which is taxed at a higher rate and the tax on goods cause many things to cost 2 to 3 times what the same products cost in America. Canada is more socialistic than America is.

    The most surprising thing that I have found in my travels is that China is more capitalistic than America. Its economy is broken into two parts: the state owned companies that lose money and the free market companies that are profitable. I would consider moving to China long before I would move to Sweden.

    If you wish to continue the conversation, I suggest starting a new thread instead of responding to this comment.

  • Petronius

    Hello brimp. Just continuing our conversation here as you suggested.

    You say that Catholics don't value capitalism because Catholicism does not foster independent thinking but I am having trouble seeing the link. I am sure that capitalists in Italy are just in favour of capitalism as capitalists anywhere else. Why wouldn't they since they're profiting from it?

    I agree, there is a connection between capitalism and freedom but there is probably also a connection between capitalism and pornography, capitalism and abortion, capitalism and divorce, capitalism and disrespect for elders etc. Is it any wonder that some Third World countries baulk at the prospect of going capitalist? And that's why you conservatives are in a bind because the very economic system you champion leads straight to the freedoms (and liberals) which you hate.

    No, I don't think you'd like Sweden but you've got to understand that their socialism is Socialism-Lite (not like the USSR). Sure, they pay high taxes but they also receive many government benefits in return. Things can't be too bad there because they never seem to want to emigrate here.

    I don't know why you were so surprised at capitalist development in China? Haven't you been following the situation there? Communist China ditched socialism decades ago but the dictatorship is staying. The Chinese are natural capitalists anyway.

    As I see it China is evil. Check out “China: The Gathering Threat” by Menges. China has labelled the US enemy No. 1 and is prepared to nuke US cities if need be.

  • brimp

    Long ago, people started to settle down rather than constantly moving around to hunt and gather their food. They stumbled upon the civilization principle: Don't commit aggression against members of your own group. In some groups, everything was owned by the group and the leaders decided who gets what. In other groups, the property was owned by individuals. The non-aggression principle allowed people to voluntarily trade their goods and services: You build me a house and I will give you a cow. You fix my roof, and I will give you a chicken. You do something good for me, and I will do something good for you. As people specialized into house builders, farmers… the barter was not convenient. The home builders did not want a cow. Money was created to facilitate good deeds. The more money that you had, the more good deeds that you have done. This is capitalism. This is freedom. Capitalism is the free market. Any time there are restrictions on the free market, it means that we are less free. Socialism says that the group owns the goods and services and the leaders decide who can do what with these goods and services. Today, most countries are a combination of socialism and capitalism. The closer the country is to capitalism, the richer and freer the people are.

    When each person is looking after his/her own self interest while not committing force or fraud on their neighbors then everyone gets richer. It is not that Catholicism is anti capitalistic; it is that the central premise of Catholicism states that you can not think for your self. You need the church to assist you. This is a handicap that many Catholics have overcome.

    As for the third world, the people who control the first world (the central bankers) coop the leaders of the third world so that the leaders get rich while the peasants stay poor and timid. These techniques are now being applied to bankrupt America and make us all poor and timid. The rise of the police state in America is troubling.

    Another technique to rule the people is dividing people into groups. Conservatives/Liberals, white/black, Christian/Jew/Muslim/other/none, … The civilization principle implies that as groups get larger the members get richer and when people are broken into groups we get poorer. I am in full support of different areas trying different practices. If Sweden wants to have high taxes and high benefits, I won't stop them. But, when my neighbor points a gun to my head and says that I need to pay for his services then I may comply but I will work to stop any future use of force. I personally do not want any government benefits other than them securing my rights.

    China has been making all the right decisions in running their country since about 1977. There are still many problems in China (pollution, corruption …) so I would not want to move there yet. As for confronting china, I suggest confronting America to get back to the civilization principle, long before confronting other countries.

  • Petronius

    I think your account of capitalism is simplistic to the point of being wrong. Capitalism is not simply a monetary economy. Nor is it freedom. Nor is it a free market. Capitalism is an economic situation where workers sell their labour to capitalists who thereby make a profit on the goods produced.

    And you make capitalism sound so clean and noble. Haven't you heard of worker's exploitation, low wages, sweat shops, child labour etc.? Where do these things fit into your thinking? I presume they don't but for me they illustrate that freedom and wealth for some can often mean poverty and hardship for others.

    For me, Capitalism is like a run-away train. Sure, it can produce the goods but it can also jump the tracks, and have a huge crash. Restrictions and guide-lines are therefore necessary. These measures are not socialistic, just prudent.

    As for Catholicism, I do think that it is anti-capitalistic. For over a thousand years Catholicism supported the feudal system of Western Europe so that it became difficult to separate the two. Catholicism still seems not to have reconciled itself to capitalism which it instinctively associates with its arch-enemy, Protestantism.

  • brimp

    As an animal, every thing that you do is done so to maximize what you perceive to pleasure and minimize what you perceive to be pain. Everything. Whether you give money to build an orphanage or to pay a prostitute for services rendered, you did so to maximize your pleasure. When you have a choice to distribute your good deed tokens (money) you can be responsible and make the decisions for your self or you can be irresponsible and let government decide. Even if you let government decide, you have done this for selfish reasons: you don't want the responsibility of thinking and possibly making mistakes.

    I don't see Catholics and Protestants as being enemies. The Catholics in America act like Protestants.

    I mentioned in an earlier post the concept of corporatism. You have not fully grasped the concept. You are confusing the run away train of corporatism with capitalism.

    Selling one's labor is a capitalistic act. The alternatives are living as a hermit or being someone’s slave. Capitalism is simple. As for the examples of 'defects' of capitalism that you cited: sweatshops, low wages, child labor, exploitation – I think you are confused. I need to use my time and talent to create goods and services that other people want more than their money. I am constantly looking on maximizing the amount of good that I can do (thereby getting the most money). We are all in competition to be better people; that is to create goods and services that other people want for less good deed tokens than anyone else. If I could not see a better way of making money other than working in a sweatshop then I would do so proudly. The person who offers me a job that has low pay and poor conditions is not exploiting me. It is doing me a favor. Without the crappy job, I would starve to death. The world does not owe me anything. I might trade my time for a little bit of money but I will be looking for ways of being a better person (creating higher valued goods and services).

    Governments can control what corporations do because corporations are creations of government. Restricting their use of children seems reasonable, to me. The physical workers of America are in competition with physical workers in China and the third world. This is done so because of corporatism. If there were import duties put on products created in other countries, this would stop.

  • Petronius

    I find your system of values perverse, if not bizarre.

    The idea that money is some kind of measure of morality is just wrong. Money is a medium of exchange, pure and simple. That some people have more money than others is no measure of their inherent righteousness. Am I not stating the obvious?

    No, simply selling one's labour is not a capitalistic act; for that, it must be sold to a capitalist. You are continually assuming that the worker is some kind of independent operator, i.e. like a pumber, electrician etc. This is not usually the case.

    Look, if you think your boss is doing you a favour by allowing you to work in his sweatshop you're seriously deluded. Be a chump if you like but don't expect it of others.

    [N.B. Employers hire workers not out of the goodness of their hearts but to turn a profit from their labour.]

    And why can't children work in sweatshops? According to you they would be producing goods and services, earning money and thus showing how righteous they are. What's more, the sweatshop owners would be even more righteous what with all the money that they would be making. It would be a win win situation, no?

    Actually, I can't see your point about corporatism. What kind of corporatism are you referring to and how could the government be responsible for it? And what's it got to do with China? Aren't chinese workers allowed to do good deeds too?

    Also, I don't consider government performing services on my behalf to be selfish and irresponsible on my part. I live in a representative democracy and that is how things are done here. Government is my servant. You should try it.

  • brimp

    You have made some very good points. Capitalism and socialism are moral systems. You have a different set of morals than I have. Mine is based on the civilization principle of none aggression and yours is based on force. If you wish to live like this I may point out the long term consequences of your actions but I would not try to use force to stop you. You, on the other hand, advocate that anyone who disagrees with you to be put to death of put in a cage where they can be anally raped. I am not surprised that you would see my values as perverse and bizarre.

    If you provide goods and services that people want more than their money then you have made these people happy. You have done a good deed for them. If I sit on my butt and do nothing, I would have done good deeds to nobody. In this case, would it be unfair that you get to be transported in the back of a big limousine and I in the back of a big bus?

    Another point that you make is that I see each individual as an independent operator, capable of independent thought and maximizing his/her pleasure, while you see people as slaves that are incapable of independent thought or actions. We can agree to disagree on this point.

    I might consider the person who hires me to be doing me a favor but he/she is not. They are only looking after their own self interest. They want to make products/services that people want more than their money. To do this they need to buy materials and labor and organize these resources. They want to get the most good deed tokens for the created products and pay as little as possible for the material and labor. Since there are many companies making products/services, the market determines the price that can be charged. The same is true for the labor. If my job only pays me $2/hour and I can find no jobs that will pay me more than this then this is the value of my time. As an independent operator, I can look for other ways to sell my time and obtain the skills to be able to do so. The world does not owe me anything. If I do not help other people live, then I will have a shortened and difficult life.

    If I, as an individual, want to hire children to work for me, and their parents agree, then I can do so. And in this case, it would be a win-win situation. If I create a corporation that wants to do this, then governments, who gave the corporations it privileges, can forbid this.

    I suggest reading up or corporatism. The rage you have against capitalism will not get you anywhere. You will get more traction if you raise your concerns against the entities that are causing the problems. You may win me, and others, over if you did this.

    As an animal, everything that you do is selfish. The governments that you are talking about are corporations. You have contracted with these corporations and see nothing wrong with receiving the benefits of the contracts. When governments act like corporations, they limit competition. Therefore, you will pay more for services than if there were more entities competing over price for these services. When you are compelled to buy a service from the corporate government, it is you master.

  • Petronius

    Hold on a moment! It was not I who said that capitalism was a moral system. Capitalism is an economic system. Why attribute morality to it? I didn't.

    And where do you get this idea that I want to kill people who disagree with me or put them in a cage to be anally raped? I said no such thing! Your allegation is a complete fabrication.

    And neither have I been raging against capitalism. Rather I have been arguing for capitalism but with proper restraints imposed, restraints as decided by a democratically elected government. What could be wrong with that?

    Surely the economic mess that the USA is now in should give you pause for thought. Here in Australia things are okay. Our economy never went into recession, and none of our financial institutions failed. Unemployment rose for a while but is now falling again. Things here are getting back to normal. But I don't want to bragg, just point out how things could be so different for your country if prudent financial controls were in place.

    But first you need to get rid of these phantasies that you have:

    1) Money is a medium of exchange not a measure of goodness done. Banks can create money with the stroke of a pen.

    2) You don't have to be a saint to ride in an limousine, pimps do too! Capitalists are similar to pimps as they both live off the labour of other people.

    3) The capitalist market should not be accepted as a given. If your labour is worth only $2/hr then something is wrong. Capitalism is, I believe, an inherently irrational system so distortions can and do occur in the market. Hence the need for government intervention.

    Finally, you still have not explained what you mean by corporatism. Is your objection to corporations like GM, or the corporations of a fascist state which are something entirely different? It is difficult to read up on something when I don't know where to start.

  • brimp

    I quote “I find your system of values perverse, if not bizarre” This means that you are asserting that capitalism is a system of values. A system of values is a moral system. An economic system is a moral system. The capitalist system is based on different morals than the socialist system. If you wish to voluntarily join people that have the central committee decide what person gets to use what resources, then I would not try to stop you. On the other hand, if you think that I, or your neighbors, who wants to be “independent operators” are forced to go along because the majority has voted this way then you are evil. The capitalist system does not believe in the initiation of force. The socialistic system does. If your neighbor said he does not want to pay taxes, or wants to self medicate (without the permission of a government approved doctor and/or using medicines that were not approved by government), or does not want to send his kids to government indoctrination centers (public schools), or a dozen other decisions made by the democracy, what should the penalty be? Would you advocate pointing a gun to their head and order them to give the state money (otherwise know as paying a fine)? If they said that they will not pay the fine what do you advocate? Killing them? Putting them in prison (where they can be anally raped)?

    I repeat my suggestion that you educate yourself on corporatism. Wikipedia is a good place to start. America is in a mess now because corporatists have seized the government. We are no longer under the Constitution. The corporation that most of the trouble flows is the Federal Reserve, which is a private corporation like Federal Express. If you trust government, or one of the corporations that control it like the Department of Treasury (which is not part of constitutional government) for your education you will not comprehend how the system works. If you do so, you will find that: Money is a measure of goodness. Good people do not initiate force (which makes prostitutes and their managers better people than government workers). The capitalist system will pay people more than the socialist system does. And finally that corporatism and socialism are similar in that the decisions are centralized.

    Here is a link that explains the problems with the American system of government:… Your posts convey that you are not stupid. At one time, most of the people who read this website were in a similar state that you are in now. It is difficult to overcome the programming that governments have done to us. Everything the government says is propaganda. The link focuses on the American political and legal systems. In Australia it may be somewhat different. The Australian legal system, like the American, is based on British Common Law. I know that the legal systems are similar: the legislature passes bills and resolutions that eventually get passed into laws before the regulations are written that bind the citizens. In the long run, America is in better position than Australia is. For the next few years, I would not immigrate to America.

  • Petronius

    Well, it certainly was not my intention to assert that capitalism is a system of values. To me, it is just an economic system but it could give rise to a system of values. To wit, greed, selfishness, exploitation.

    I never said anything about a central committee. That was you. I'm talking about living in a democratic country – when the majority makes a decision then its will must be obeyed, otherwise you could end up in prison. Don't you agree?

    You have a peculiar understanding of corporatism. To you, corporations are government departments.

    Government departments are organs of government and are there to carry out government policy. There is nothing evil about it. Do you see what I mean by bizarre values? You say yourself that you rate pimps higher than government workers. That's bizarre!

    I read a bit of that article. It doesn't seem to apply to us in Australia. Here we have only got one type of citizenship. And people are not against government.

    To tell you the truth, we are not that concerned about freedom in Australia. We're much more concerned about equality and fraternity.

    You in the US however seem to be obsessed with freedom, but can you have freedom without responsibility?

    I'd be careful if I were you. You seem to be going down the Timothy McVey route, and look what happened to him.

  • brimp

    You are correct in thinking that capitalism is based on selfishness, and potentially greed. Socialism is based on exploitation of the capitalists (that is the independent operators looking after their own self interest). Every act that you, a socialist, do is also based on selfishness. If you did not think that democracy would benefit you, would you be advocating it? A Buddhist trying to reach nirvana is maximizing what he perceives to be pleasure.

    A democracy is either direct, like ancient Greek city states, or via representation. Direct democracy is even worse than representative democracy. One of the reasons that the Greeks faded as a force was direct democracy. The representatives and executive agents become your central committee. They exploit free people. Threatening us with death or anal rape in a cage, also called prison, for disobeying their dictates. As long as I am not infringing the rights of others, I am free to do anything that I want.

    When the government acts like a corporation this is called corporatism. When the government sees me as a resource then they see themselves as my master instead of my servant. In America, since the 14th Amendment, government acts as both a constitutional body and a corporation. The vast majority of the laws passed by congress are private law that applies to their corporate resources. You think this is normal. In America, it is not.

    In America, you can be put in prison for: self medicating (taking drugs like cocaine and pot), not paying taxes that you do not constitutionally owe, talking back to a public servant, selling organic eggs, peacefully protesting, and thousands of other things that do not violate anyone’s rights. If having a problem with this is bizarre then I’m bizarre. A prostitute sells her body. Government workers sell the body politic which makes them political whores. The body politic includes my body which makes them pimps. Some prostitutes wish to sell their bodies and seek pimps to be their manager. I do not want to sell my body therefore, these pimps are exploiting me. If not wanting to be pimped is bizarre then I stand accused.

    My responsibility is to not infringe upon the rights of others. If need be, I also have the duty to defend the constitution from all enemies, foreign or domestic. That is it. Everything else is done voluntarily.

    The story of McVeigh has not been completed. It seems that he was involved with some people that did some horrible things. He used force against innocent children. He called them collateral damage. I would not defend him because of this. It looks like he was the patsy who took the blame for the Oklahoma City bombing. If you look at the facts surrounding the bombing, you will see that the official story has so many holes in it that it could not possibly be true. To associate McVeigh with me is bizarre. The only thing that is forbidden by capitalism is the initiation of force. I sense that the tensions are rising in America and this will show itself in other extreme events. The next few years look difficult.

  • Petronius

    I am afraid that your ideas are very hard to understand outside of an American context.

    The more I learn about your philosophy the more I dislike it. It is based on selfishness and greed. In short, it is an anti-Christian philosophy, straight out of hell. Only the truly selfish believe everybody is just like them.

    Also, you don't seem to understand what capitalism really is. The independent operator only makes up a minority of the economy. Please refer to my other postings for a definition, but really you should do your own study of the subject.

    And socialism does not exploit capitalists. It does away with them entirely.

    Here's some advice: stop being so fixated on YOURself and YOUR rights. Try to think about other people and their troubles. Do a good deed for someone and don't charge them money. Now, that would be different, wouldn't it?

  • brimp

    I don’t think you have comprehended my point. Your system of values is based on selfishness and greed. Capitalists look after their own self interest but, the only way that they can do this it to look after other people’s interest. By doing good deeds for others, the capitalists get the most number of good deed tokens. Capitalists do not steal. Socialists do.

    Your comments that socialists does away with capitalists entirely prove the point. You advocate killing peaceful people who try to help others. This is dangerous language. If it is OK to advocate killing capitalists, then it is OK for them to think of killing you. If you think that the capitalists have too much power, then don’t you think that they may use their money to kill you?

  • Petronius

    I will respond at the end as this is getting rather narrow here.

  • Petronius

    Hello brimp. Thanks for getting back to me.

    You certainly have put me in an invidious position. All that I wanted to do is argue in favour of a guided capitalism but instead I find myself defending Marxian socialism.

    First of all let me say that I do not want to kill any capitalists. It was the bolsheviks who went down that path. My point was that once socialism is introduced capitalists are divested of their property (the means of production) and therefore as a class they disappear since then they are no different from anybody else.

    No, I do understand your position but I find it to be naive and wrong. Your idea of capitalism is not capitalism at all. It is just barter, but with money. Where does the idea of capital fit in? It doesn't, does it? Instead you talk about independent operators and good deed tokens. Stop reading Mother Goose and read a good economics text book instead! May I suggest “Economics: Principles, Problems and Policies” by McConnell and Brue.

    Well, you may be right that capitalism is based on selfishness but I am not about to concede that socialism is. Socialism is the percieved antidote, rightly or wrongly, to the defects and injustices of capitalism. One should not confuse medicine with poison.

    You say that capitalism doesn't involve theft but to paraphrase Mandy Rice-Davies, you would say that, would you? But if you read Marx's Das Kapital, volume 1, you will find that the capitalist does not pay the worker the full value of his labour. This results in the capitalist accruing surplus value for which he has not paid. This could be characterised as theft, and socialism's aim is to put an end to it through the socialization of the means of production.

  • brimp

    The only way you are going to divest me of my property is to kill me. If you suggest that is your goal then I have the right to defend myself. I can probably afford better weapons and more ruthless mercenaries than you. I will win that fight. If you declare war, you will get it. If you want to voluntarily join a commune then I can say good luck.

    As for economics, Human Action by Ludwig Von Mises is the book you should be reading. Quoting Marx is interesting. Every system that is based on his teachings has killed millions of their own citizens.

    Every decision that YOU make is done so to maximize YOUR pleasure or minimize YOUR pain. Advocating force to control resources that no one, voluntarily, gave you is un-civilized. The 'excesses' of 'capitalism' are actually the standard operating procedures of corporatism. If you focused your arguments, you may get people to listen to you. If you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao, you ain't gonna make it with anyone anyhow.

  • Petronius

    You certainly sound strident, brimp. Do you realize that you have inadvertently valued your life to that of your assets? But don't worry, I wouldn't divest you of any of your assets in anything but a legal way, that is, even if I had a mind to.

    Meanwhile I have checked out von Mises. Very interesting. Perhaps I will read his book one day, although it does look rather abstract. Tell me, have you read it? Is there anything in it about money being good-deed tokens? I somehow think not.

    Yesterday, I came across someone who might interest you. Henry George. Have you heard of him? There's a wiki-article on him and various groups that espouse his ideas. Here's a link to an Australian group, which in turn has many other interesting links:

    Hopefully you will find their ideas to your taste.

    By the way, brimp, are you a libertarian?

  • argumentative essay

    With growing economical crisis in the world, more and more fascists will appear.

  • Lindsey Stewart

    they already have and the John Birch society has convinced the right that they aren’t fascists