#6 Tyranny Versus Liberty
A Reference Library
Capsule: #6 Tyranny Versus Liberty addresses the issue of ideological definitions from a whole new perspective. All ideology boils down to one concept; the amount of freedom granted the individual in a society. Everything else is peripheral by comparison. It is the first and most basic measure of any ideology. All other considerations are influenced by it.
Left = More Tyranny … Right = More Liberty
Focus: Which ideology offers the most freedom and why?
Details: #6 Tyranny Versus Liberty exposes that a general misunderstanding of ideologies is one of the most pressing issues of our time. And no wonder, since so many ideologies have so much to hide. For those ideologies it is best to keep everything muddled and confused. How would it benefit communists for it to be commonly known that they desire the total eradication of individual liberty, to be replaced with a voluntary and then eventual coerced slavery to the state. Obviously communists would rather talk about equal rights for all, as if that equates to freedom for all, when in fact, it means tyranny over all. Once the basics are understood about individual liberty versus tyranny, a person will have no problem positioning them self and their belief system on any ideological scale.
Excerpts: ~Let’s talk about ideologies, American neighbor. For most of the twentieth century, ideological identifications and definitions were more specifically complex than today, more philosophical, describing idealistic sets of goals such as Nazi fascism, Red communism, European socialism and democratic free market capitalism. But political strategies have evolved and few countries still hold to the proclaimed ideological goals as defined in many of the old textbooks. Conservatism and liberalism had very different meanings than they do today (remember we discussed classical liberalism in #4 Benevolent Utopia or Tyrannical Dystopia). This is why I talk about contemporary liberalism and contemporary conservatism. Ideology today is not so much about overtly grand plans for society with guiding principles. Strategies now are more covert and deceptive, reactive, and implemented by the seat of the pants. Contemporary ideologies have boiled down to a balance between two things; preservation and denial of individual liberty. Basically, contemporary ideology is a measure of societal control through the amount of liberty permitted and denied. … For a scale to be useful it must measure something. For our purposes we will build a simple linear scale. The base criteria of measurement for our ideological scale is the freedom of the individual – your liberty. On the extreme leftwing will be complete authoritarian control over the individual. On the extreme rightwing we will place virtual freedom from control for the individual. … The anarchist and the nihilist don’t believe in big government control (at least initially), but they still oppose individual liberty (more shortly).~
The following ideological dichotomies are discussed in detail: Leftwing/Rightwing, Control/Liberty, Vanity/Humility, Libertine/Moralistic, Deprecation/Exceptionalism, Arbitrary Rights/Deistic Rights, Crisis Engineering/Ordered Liberty, Command Capitalism/Demand Capitalism, Entitlement Attitude/Rugged Individualism, Government Dependency/Entrepreneurial Spirit, Constitutional Circumvention/Constitutional Adherence.
Preface: The Nuclear Counterarguments Essay Series is written for both contemporary American liberals and contemporary American conservatives – for the liberal (or progressive) as an exit counseling process with the purpose of removing the inherent paranoia that prevents them from seeing that in their core belief they are, in fact, not a liberal, and for the conservative as a strategy for dealing with liberal acquaintances. (FYI, I am a Canadian – the implications of this are explained in the Introduction and #1 Deprogramming Liberalism with Nuclear Counterarguments.)
[All citations are active number/letter codes. Code links beginning with an * indicate that the linked page has additional information for the topic at hand. Links without an * are cited for evidence of existence and reference only, as in a quotation or number or case in point. Citations validate my points so that you can trust my claims, and will often provide you with invaluable supplemental information.]
Written in first-person narrative to liberals,
but also for conservatives.
• Mini critical thinking exercise
~ “It has been well said that really up-to-date liberals do not care what people do, as long as it is compulsory.”~ – George Will
Remember our original question from #1 Deprogramming Liberalism with Nuclear Counterarguments: “As a principle, would you prefer others to direct your life, or would you prefer to have the freedom to direct your own life, American neighbor?” This essay will deal with this on both a personal and a national scale. Answer this: As a principle, does contemporary liberalism equate with more personal liberty?ab
• Ideological scales
Let’s talk about ideologies, American neighbor. For most of the twentieth century, ideological identifications and definitions were more specifically complex than today, more philosophical, describing idealistic sets of goals such as Nazi fascism, Red communism, European socialism and democratic free market capitalism. But political strategies have evolved and few countries still hold to the proclaimed ideological goals as defined in many of the old textbooks. Conservatism and liberalism had very different meanings than they do today (remember we discussed classical liberalism in #4 Benevolent Utopia or Tyrannical Dystopia). This is why I talk about contemporary liberalism and contemporary conservatism. Ideology today is not so much about overtly grand plans for society with guiding principles. Strategies now are more covert and deceptive, reactive, and implemented by the seat of the pants. Contemporary ideologies have boiled down to a balance between two things; preservation and denial of individual liberty. Basically, contemporary ideology is a measure of societal control through the amount of liberty permitted and denied.
There are a number of scales used to measure ideologies, some shaped like horseshoes or boxes, and some are crosses or linear. Most of these scales use outdated definitions, and a major problem shared by all of the scales I have seen is that they place nihilists, anarchists and minimalists together or ignore them completely. For instance, in the popular Nolan Chart quizzes, nihilists, anarchists and minimalists end up at the same place. [ydws3rf] This is a real problem when discussing a rating of contemporary ideologies based on liberty as related to the origin of the United States of America, because the founding fathers were minimalists, the furthest thing from modern-day anarchists that protest G-20 meetings, or nihilists like Muslim terrorists. Another problem is the lack of accounting for many of the new cultic ideologies of the latter half of the twentieth century – environmentalism, feminism, etc. (more later).ac
• Ideological scale = measure of liberty
For a scale to be useful it must measure something. For our purposes we will build a simple linear scale. The base criteria of measurement for our ideological scale is the freedom of the individual – your liberty. On the extreme leftwing will be complete authoritarian control over the individual. On the extreme rightwing we will place virtual freedom from control for the individual. This essay will describe and categorize contemporary ideological issues that constitute our Nuclear Counterarguments Ideology Scale. (The next essay will deal with the various named ideologies and how they fit into our scale.) So the base of our measurement will look like this (the center is the tipping point between the limitation and promotion of liberty):
Slavery – Center – Liberty
In terms of the extremes of societal control it would look like this:
Authoritarian control – Center – Minimal control
We can also look at how the order of a society is determined:
Authority orders societal rule – Center – Society orders governmental administration
In the practical sense of liberties (freedoms) they can be described as such:
Withdrawal and denial of individual liberties – Center – Preservation and promotion of individual liberties
In broad, graduated terms our contemporary ideological scale is this:
Leftwing – Authoritarianism – Liberalism – Center – Conservatism – Minimalism – Rightwing
And in terms of economic systems it looks like this:
Government Managed Economy – Center – Unmanaged Economy
It is important to understand that the basic measure of our scale is individual liberty. (Liberals are not going to like this, American neighbor.) Liberty, ideally and within reason, is the right to live according to one’s own will without imposing on another man’s convenience. Wherever there is a clash, governing rules are applied as determined by a social management agency representing all individuals concerned – government. More individual liberty moves one to the right on our scale. Less individual liberty moves one to the left. Now, liberals will be hopping up and down saying what about nazism and fascism – they’re extreme rightwing! Well, that makes no sense, American neighbor. Without a unit of measure what good is a scale? Our scale measures increasing liberty to the right and decreasing liberty to the left. One cannot have ideologies that are tyrannical on both the extreme left and on the extreme right. Look, here’s what it boils down to: Liberalism and conservatism cannot both be about promoting and preserving liberty. One simply must do so much more than the other. We will now determine which one. (See? I told you liberals aren’t going to like this, American neighbor.)ad
300-word pages of text = 58
Reference citation links = 31
Recommended-reading links = 23
Profound insights = 21
Cover photo: Cover photo: U.S. Department of Energy photograph XX-58 IVY MIKE
Cover background: SQUIDFINGERS [4rol8]
Copyright 2012 Jim Autio License Note: Although free, this essay remains the copyrighted property of the author, and may not be reproduced, copied or distributed for commercial or non-commercial purposes. For fair use only.
• Totalitarian leftists
Despite what you may have been taught, American neighbor, all totalitarian ideologies are leftwing. Just look at our subscales above. Notice how the rightwing extreme is defined with minimal limits to individual liberties and the leftwing extreme is defined as total control or breakdown of individual liberties, but liberals insist that Germany’s Nazism and Italy’s fascism were extreme rightwing ideologies. They do this for demagogic purposes of course, and as a sophistic defense against the argument that liberalism is closer to totalitarianism than is conservatism. However, placing any kind of totalitarianism on the right side of the scale completely unbalances it. It is like measuring gold coins – they represent liberty. The gold goes on the right side of the scale and the brass counterweights go on the left side of the scale. Placing some nazism and fascism on the right side of the scale is like placing some of the brass counterweights with the gold coins. Someone’s paying too much for their gold, American neighbor. So, let’s play some Sesame Street. You know, that game they play: One of These Things Is Not Like the Others. Which of the following ideological characteristics is not like the others, American neighbor?
• government expropriation of businesses • enforced government quotas • nationalizing industries • universal healthcare • price and wage controls • forced favorable mortgages from banks • government profit skimming • confiscation of government deemed excess bonds and stocks • free markets
Well, obviously even Big Bird could get that one – “free markets” is the answer! Free market principles are antithetical to all of the other market attributes listed. But all of those attributes are characteristics of both nazism/fascism and other authoritarian ideologies. As a matter of fact, free market principles are the principles of contemporary conservatism. Free markets are on the opposite side of the scale from those market manipulations. Still not convinced, American neighbor? Let’s try another one. Which of these ideologies is not like the others, American neighbor?
• military rule • despotism • Marxism • Trotskyism • theocratic rule • Communism • nazism/fascism • conservatism
I bet even the Cookie Monster could get this one! Quite obviously, conservatism is all about the promotion of liberty and the rest of these ideologies listed are all about authoritarianism – a withdrawal and destruction of liberty. Starting to make sense, American neighbor? We have already seen that our new contemporary scale measures the amount of liberty in a society. So now let’s look at a traditional scale:
Communism – Liberalism – Center – Conservatism – Minimalism – Nazism/Fascism
What exactly does this measure, American neighbor? It is simply ridiculous – it measures nothing. How exactly can nazism/fascism fit on the rightwing side? It can’t. The founding fathers were minimalists. Are liberals claiming that if the founding fathers were just a little bit more rightwing they would have been fascists?!? What utter, utter nonsense! Fascism is about government control where the government defines the limits of all freedoms, the same as does communism, despotism, military rule, etc. The rightwing is about less government control where liberties define the limits of government. The further one moves to the right, the further one moves away from government control (except for anarchy and nihilism – more later).
No Liberty – Authoritarian control – Center – Minimal control – Maximum Liberty
Leftwing – Authoritarianism – Statism – Liberalism – Center – Conservatism – Minimalism – Rightwing
Ask yourself this while looking at our new ideological subscales, American neighbor: If statism promotes more liberty than authoritarianism, and liberalism promotes more liberty than statism, and centrism promotes more liberty than liberalism, and conservatism promotes more liberty than centrism, and minimalism promotes even more liberty than conservatism, how can there be any type of totalitarian control to the right of minimalism? Are extreme minimalists equal to fascists? No, of course not. That would be like saying nihilists and minimalists are the same, but they are at opposite ends of the spectrum. Nihilists could care less about civil rights and individual liberties, whereas for minimalists, maximum civil rights and liberty are the foundation of their ideology. In a desperate bid to associate some kind of totalitarianism with the rightwing, liberals inconceivably insist Hitler was a rightwing extremist. Let’s explore what total nonsense this liberal assertion is by directly examining nazism/fascism.ae
|• Bakery Will Stop Making Wedding Cakes After Losing Discrimination Case The homosexual movement displays its progressive-fascist ideology as it seeks to remove the freedom of this baker to choose whom he does business with based on the inborn homonausea within his sexual orientation. If you were born homosexual, it should be celebrated. If you were born homonauseated, you must be locked in the closet.
• 33 Democrats Opposed a Bill to Make VA Bureaucrats Easier to Fire The priority of liberals is often to defend their corruption rather than remove it. The noble fight of liberalism against conservatism outweighs any indiscretions and failures of liberalism.
• Prison For D’Souza, Beach Time For Corzine According to liberals, conservatives should always be prosecuted to the fullest even for the smallest of crimes, because conservatives are obviously motivated by evil. Whereas corrupt liberals can be ignored or even defended. Honorable liberal motivations excuse all indiscretions and failures.]
• Revealed: How a taxpayer bail out that could run into BILLIONS was built in to Obamacare to protect insurance companies if they lost out in reform When you make a deal with the devil, make sure there are protection guarantees in case the devils plans don’t work. Utopian goals trump any failures in policies.
• White House won’t say if Obama kept promise to return 5% of his salary in solidarity with budget sequester ‘furloughs’ – but his tax return hints that he never did I am sure liberals across the country swooned at President Obama’s “I feel your pain” promise. Of course he didn’t do it, because liberals don’t really care – and they love money. He can be forgiven by liberals, because at least his motivation was good.
• Lefty Scientist: Jail Pols Who Deny Global Warming; PBS Host Worries There’s Lack of Prison Space Paranoia displayed as progressive-fascism. Liberals hate people who don’t fear what they fear. For its own good a resistant society must have utopian ideals forced upon it.
• GAY GROUPS TARGET LESBIAN DA CANDIDATE IN PROP 8 REVENGE Progressive-fascism. Even other liberals are not exempt from fully upholding liberalism. Paranoia leads to feeding on their own.
• ‘Delay in treatment’ a factor in more than 100 deaths at VA centers Of course Barack Obama bares no responsibility even though he’s known of the problems at the VA since 2008. He said he cared and would fix the problem. Saying it is enough. His noble motivations excuse his lack of follow-through.
• The IRS’s Media Firewall Liberal corruption is covered up by liberal media.
• Lessons of the VA Scandal Tip of the iceberg…
• LEFT SCRAMBLES TO DEFEND RELEASE OF CRIMINAL ILLEGALS Accusing progressive-fascists of acting like progressive-fascists is a “publicity stunt”, or something…
• Under Obamacare, People Must Be Broken of Their Preference for Choice Freedom = choice | Progressive-fascism = no choice
• ‘Gaming the System’: Email reveals how Wyo. VA workers were taught to manipulate records The little guys were supposed to take the fall for their Blackshirts leaders.
• DHS Emails Reveal U.S. May Have Terrorist “Hands Off” List Progressive-fascism = go after the Tea Party and ignore America’s true enemies.
• House Republicans find 10% of tea party donors audited by IRS Is anyone surprised that these Tea Party donors were audited at ten times the rate of the general population?
• Ted Cruz Releases Definitive List of 76 ‘Lawless’ Obama Actions Because that is what progressive-fascists do.
• Major Obama Donor Avoids Jail Time After Brutally Beating Girlfriend Having licked the boots of fascist leaders always helps when one is in a bind.
• ‘Worst Negro in history’: Clarence Thomas catches hate after SCOTUS’ affirmative action ruling Creeple Blackshirts attack Clarence Thomas for ruling against racism (prejudice based on race).
• Census Survey Revisions Mask Health Law Effects Very convenient.
• Obama has Proposed 442 Tax Hikes Since Taking Office He wants to own you.
• Attkisson: Unprecedented Influence on the Media By Special Interests, Political Interests & Corporations Blackshirts pressure media – media loves them back.
• Dropbox, Condoleezza Rice controversy: More proof liberals are the new intolerants Blackshirt intolerance.
• Insanity: NLRB Wants Power To Prevent Businesses From Relocating Bully government bullies for bully unions.
• Holder claims ‘vast amount’ of discretion in enforcing federal laws Blackshirts don’t prosecute Blackshirts.
• Congress, watchdogs stonewalled in probes of administration When you are hiding corruption, you don’t co-operate with those investigating it.
• Dems’ Voter-Fraud Denial When it’s your fraud, you deny it.
• GOP: ADMINISTRATION STONEWALLING ON BIRD DEATHS Penalize your enemies (like the coal industry) and protect your favorites (like the wind-energy industry).
• Issa to IRS Commissioner: Release Lerner’s Emails or Face Contempt And protect those who do corruption for you.
• NO JUSTICE DEPARTMENT CHARGES AGAINST OHIO WOMAN WHO VOTED SIX TIMES FOR OBAMA Again – protect those who do corruption for you.
• SEIU Uses Federal Inspections to Target Houston Small Business Use the power of government on your enemies.
• Homeland Security Exercise Targets “Free Americans Against Socialist Tyranny” Paint your enemies as America’s enemies.
• Harry Reid: Obamacare Delayed Because ‘People Are Not Educated About How to Use the Internet’ Society is incompetent and in need of the guiding hand of a controlling government.
• College Group Bans White People From Diversity ‘Happy Hour’ Blackshirt diversity.
• Feminist Control Freaks Want to Ban the Word “Bossy” Bossy Blackshirt feminists.
• Federal Attorney General Eric Holder Asks State Attorneys General To Ignore Law Do only what is right for the party.
• Universities in FCC Newsroom Probe Have Close Ties to Soros, Got $3.7M in Funding Pushing the fascist agenda.
• Reid: Obamacare Doesn’t Cost Jobs, It Turns Workers Into ‘Free Agents’ Sophistry and propaganda.
• Chuck Schumer Calls For The IRS To Stop The Tea Party The Nazis singled out the Jews.
• Gov. Cuomo: Pro-life people not welcome in New York Stirring up the Brownshirts.
• Report: IRS Harasses Sarah Palin’s Father Blackshirts.
• Planned Parenthood Got $540.6 Million in Government Grants in FY 2013 Prebirth eugenics.
• ‘A public safety disaster’: Obamacare could force THOUSANDS of volunteer fire departments to close The unintended consequences of no-forethought progressive-fascism.
• CBO:Top 40% Paid 106.2% of Income Taxes; Bottom 40% Paid -9.1%, Got Average of $18,950 in ‘Transfers’ Tyrannical redistribution.
• Liberal ‘media’ group gets $520G dark money donation for war on right Corruption, cronyism and modern corporatism.
• Barack Obama @BarackObama 27 Nov
Make sure everyone who sits down with you for #Thanksgivukkah dinner is covered. #GetTalking pic.twitter.com/EWZ3qU0El1
• ObamaCare’s Looming Land Mine Manipulative tyranny.
• ‘Non-partisan’ group paid $1 million to produce positive Obamacare stories Cronyism and corruption.
• Blackout: NBC Censors All Coverage of ObamaCare for Days No-news-here lapdog.
• Fortune Names Tesla CEO As Businessperson of Year; Company Would Lose Money If Not for Govt. Modern corporatism. Congratulated for successfully gaming the system.
• Pro-immigration protesters storm Eric Cantor’s condo, promise same for Frank Wolf, Bob Goodlatte Blackshirts intimidation.
• Dems Hold ‘Closed-Door Discussion’ with NFL, NBA, NHL to Promote Climate Change Agenda “Promote” = knife-to-the-throat threats.
• Chicago TV Pitchman faces prison for lying about healthcare product No, it’s not Obama – but it should be.
• The secret, dirty cost of Obama’s green power push Modern Corporatism.
• UC BERKELEY STUDENT GOVERNMENT BANS TERM ‘ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT’ Political correctness.
• Dem. Rep Uses Burning Cross to Spell ‘Tea Party’ Blackshirt intimidation. Alan Grayson is an example of the modern KKK. (I think he is the one with the fat ass on the right.)
• SEIU 775 & Illegal Immigration Activists Takeover WA GOP State HQ UPDATE- Seattle Mayor’s Wife Arrested At Rally Blackshirts intimidation.
• Obama Rewrites Rule To Let Unions Avoid ObamaCare Tax Modern corporatism.
• I wonder if Supreme Court Justice John Roberts has skeletons in his closet that the Obama administration used to urge him to decide in favor of Obamacare? After all, what’s the point of having all of this great IRS and NSA data, if you don’t get to benefit from it?
• Obama Secret Service Agent- “It’s Worse Than People Know… and I’m Not Trying to Scare You Either” Funny – you’re doin’ a good job.
• Debbie Wasserman Schultz- ‘Nothing’ Obama or I Said About Obamacare ‘Was Not True’ Newspeak – where black is white.
• ObamaCare price hikes hit ‘red states’ hardest Modern corporatism.
• Obama denies videotaped -you can keep it- promises Newspeak – up is down.
• AP editors- Obama relies on staged propaganda photos Propaganda.
• The First Hustler Runs the Big Con Tyranny.
• Obama donor’s firm hired to fix Web mess it created Corruption.
• Sean Penn: ‘I Think It’s A Good Idea’ to Have Ted Cruz Committed Blackshirt intimidation.
In the first half of the twentieth century the two predominant ideologies were progressivism and old style conservatism. To be a progressive one supported ‘progressive’ change and abandonment of old, supposedly outdated traditions. The conservative, on the other hand, was seen as one who didn’t find appeal in unnecessary change and was faithful to the old traditions. (Incidentally, even this definition was an evolution from the original conservative – French monarchists who believed in dynastic rule by church and state.) More precise words to describe the dichotomy would be radicals and reactionaries. Modern day liberals (and progressives) are radicals in their desire for constant change. Whereas, reactionaries of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries were resistant to change (as are today’s conservatives, somewhat). Remember Barack Obama’s “Hope and Change” slogan was defined as this: “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.” Here was Hitler’s position as stated in Mein Kampf in regard to his ideological “program”:
~The program of the conception of the world has the sense of a declaration of war against the order of things which exist, against the state of things which exist, in a word, against the structure of the world which presently exists.~
Hitler also described his program as of, “no fixed aim, no permanency, only eternal change”. And the slogan of Hitler’s Nazi Party was, “Everything must be different!” They don’t sound much like rightwing conservatives of the times, or today, do they, American neighbor? Sounds more like progressives from the extreme left of the ideological scale, don’t you think?af
• Alliances & rivalries
The main argument liberals use to supposedly illustrate that fascists and communists are not alike and supposedly at opposite ends of the scale is to point out that they frequently fought with each other. But nazis and fascists were nothing more than alternate flavors to communists under the umbrella of Marxism, sometimes in competition and fighting with communists, and sometimes allied with communists. Indeed, some other fascists opposed nazis. [2tq5w7] The idea that fascists were rightwing came from the Stalinists who saw virtually everyone as being to the right of them, including fascists and nazis (indeed, the Stalinists considered fellow Marxist, Leon Trotsky a right-winger). However this still places fascists and nazis to the left of contemporary liberals:
Stalinism – Trotskyism – Fascism/Nazism – Statism – Liberalism – Center – …
Remember, the Western Allies were for much of the Second World War, allies with the Soviet Stalinists, but enemies afterwards. Does that mean that when the Stalinists were allies they were extreme right-wingers or that the western allies were extreme leftists? Of course not. Neither military rivalries nor alliances prove any ideological links or parallels. The Soviet Stalinists were originally allies of the German Nazis, but then turned into enemies of the Nazis. [*82l5vkr] Just because some nazis may have been rivals of some communists during any given period of time, this makes little statement on whether they were opposing or rival ideologies, but more that they were at times rivals for power. It is no different today. In Canada we have three separate leftwing, national political parties, the Liberal Party, the New Democratic Party (NDP) and the Green Party. The Greens are environmental statists. The NDP are a singularly union based party. And the Liberals are a chameleon type of bigger government is better party. They are all rivals of each other, but stand on the same ideological ground – for larger government and less individual freedoms. Various nazis, fascists and communists may have at times been rivals of each other, but they all are tied to the same ideals of extreme government control where only nuances and power rivalries separated them.ag
• Nazi command capitalism
Another argument used by liberals to connect the Nazis with rightwing ideologies is the claim that Hitler used free market capitalism as a stepping stone to power. While it is true that private ownership of industry was permitted by the Nazis, it could hardly be described as free market capitalism. Many industries, especially Jewish ones, were simply expropriated by the government. Hitler’s ‘Third Way’ was government command capitalism – the government set all sorts of targets, quotas, restrictions and penalties on private industries. (I will explain the various market ideologies later in this essay.) Elite industry owners who were exempt from government takeover were expected to strictly conform to all government demands, no matter how arduous. They were little more than government appointed managers of their own companies. Noncompliance was dealt with harshly, right up to owner execution. Here is a description of the situation from Time magazine on January 2, 1939:
~Most cruel joke of all, however, has been played by Hitler & Co. on those German capitalists and small businessmen who once backed National Socialism as a means of saving Germany’s bourgeois economic structure from radicalism. The Nazi credo that the individual belongs to the state also applies to business. Some businesses have been confiscated outright, on others what amounts to a capital tax has been levied. Profits have been strictly controlled. Some idea of the increasing Governmental control and interference in business could be deduced from the fact that 80% of all building and 50% of all industrial orders in Germany originated last year with the Government. Hard-pressed for food- stuffs as well as funds, the Nazi regime has taken over large estates and in many instances collectivized agriculture, a procedure fundamentally similar to Russian Communism.~ [82hzhz2]
A classic example was Fritz Thyssen, one of the largest industrialists in Germany who helped support Hitler’s rise to power, but then opposed Hitler’s subsequent draconian methods. Thyssen was forced to flee to Switzerland and Hitler simply confiscated his coal and steel empire. [y4vqqsr] And Hitler certainly acted like a leftist, raising personal and corporate taxes numerous times, confiscating what were deemed to be surplus dividends from bond and stockholders, profit skimming ‘excess’ profits (labeled by today’s liberals as a windfall profits tax), nationalizing industries, instituting universal healthcare (sound familiar?), and forcing banks to offer favorable mortgages (again, sound familiar?). The same was true of Mussolini who had his government simply take control of the majority of businesses in Italy, confiscating foreign stocks and bonds, enforcing strict rules on the media, implementing a propagandist education system, and instituting price and wage controls, and trade tariffs and regulations. These are all policies of the far left, not the far right. While seeking power the Nazis kept the hope of the industrialists up with promises of protection, but once in power they turned on any that did not acquiesce to the Nazi ‘Plan’ for Germany.
Hitler’s propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels wrote in Der Angriff in 1928 a criticism of free market capitalism:
~ “The worker in a capitalist state – that is his greatest misfortune – no longer a human being, no longer a creator, no longer a shaper of things. He has become a machine.”~ [2tq5w7]
Nazi party spokesman, Ernst Huber, stated in 1939:
~ “Private property” as conceived under liberalistic economic order was a reversal of the true concept of property. This “private property” represented the right of the individual to manage and to speculate with inherited or acquired property as he pleased, without regard to the general interests…German socialism had to overcome this “private”, that is, unrestrained and irresponsible view of property. All property is common property. The owner is bound by the people and the Reich to the responsible management of his goods. His legal position is only justified when he satisfies this responsibility to the community.~ [dkzvk8]
In Erich Fromm, Joseph Goebbels wrote about National Socialism in 1941:
~ “To be a socialist is to submit the I to the thou; socialism is sacrificing the individual to the whole.”~ [dkzvk8]
Recognize the groupthink, American neighbor? Remember John Dewey wrote (from #4 Benevolent Utopia or Tyrannical Dystopia):
~ “Children who know how to think for themselves spoil the harmony of the collective society which is coming where everyone is interdependent.”~
~ “Independent self-reliant people (would be) a counterproductive anachronism in the collective society of the future […] (where) people will be defined by their associations.”~
In 1941 George Orwell wrote in The Lion and the Unicorn: Socialism and the English Genius of the Nazi command capitalism:
~Fascism, at any rate the German version, is a form of capitalism that borrows from Socialism just such features as will make it efficient for war purposes. Internally, Germany has a good deal in common with a Socialist state. Ownership has never been abolished, there are still capitalists and workers, and—this is the important point, and the real reason why rich men all over the world tend to sympathize with Fascism—generally speaking the same people are capitalists and the same people workers as before the Nazi revolution. But at the same time the State, which is simply the Nazi Party, is in control of everything. It controls investment, raw materials, rates of interest, working hours, wages. The factory owner still owns his factory, but he is for practical purposes reduced to the status of a manager. Everyone is in effect a State employee, though the salaries vary very greatly. The mere efficiency of such a system, the elimination of waste and obstruction, is obvious. In seven years it has built up the most powerful war machine the world has ever seen.~ [ydebke6]
Finally, to put this to bed for good, Hitler said a 1927 speech:
~ “We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions.”~ [lu5gdsb]ah
• Phantom corporate cabals
Liberals like to fantasize about phantom corporate cabals (more paranoia) that supposedly define fascism, thus pointing at the free market as the root of fascism. This is perhaps because Mussolini’s fascism was also what might be for some, misleadingly called corporatism (or corporativism) as if corporations were in charge, but modern-day corporatism (explained in detail below) is quite different from yesterday’s fascism. (An interesting note: I have a Webster’s Twentieth-Century Dictionary Unabridged printed in 1932, and it neither contains the word corporatism or corporativism. They both appear to be recently created words used to describe something historic, before their time.) Corporatism as an historic description was actually a top-down form of government of which fascism directly parallels, based on groups or classes:
~Corporatism (or corporativism) is the socio-political organization of a society by major interest groups, or corporate groups, such as agricultural, business, ethnic, labour, military, patronage, or scientific affiliations, on the basis of common interests. Corporatism is theoretically based upon the interpretation of a community as an organic body. The term corporatism is based on the Latin root word “corpus” (plural – “corpora”) meaning “body”.~ [*6zg48]
This definition has more affinity with collectivism than with corporations running a government, which as defined within the free market are individualistic entities – the exact opposite of collectivism. There is also a quotation attributed to Mussolini that also confuses liberals:
~”Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power.”~
Its attributed source does not contain the quote and its source has never been discovered. [mcz24ll] [8a] So it is unlikely Mussolini said it, but even if he did, he certainly did not think of “corporate power” as something associated with marketplace corporations, as the 99 percenters believe. From the 1932 Webster’s:
~corporate a. to make into a body 1. United in a legal body, as a number of individuals who are empowered to transact business as an individual: formed in to a corporation: incorporated: as, a corporate town. 2. Belonging or pertaining to a corporation: as corporate interests. 3. United: general: collectively one.~
The idea of “corporate power” to a fascist in 1932 would have been “a body” as in one all powerful state – “collectively one”. The only entity given as an example is a “corporate town”, suggesting that the fascist, old-style word “corporate” was hardly associated with what we today know as big business corporations. Mussolini saw big business as at best, enemies, and at worst, allied with the rival communists. Early fascism used populism to pit the lower classes against the upper classes and against the rival communists. To gain lower class support the fascists attacked big business as oppressing the lower classes. This ties into another liberal dogma about fascism that it was anti-union and anti-worker. This was only true to the extent that big business unions tended to ally themselves with the communists. To draw lower class support away from the communists the fascists promised protection for small business and property owners who employed most of the workers who were non-union.
There are a number of 800 pound gorillas associated with this thinking that free market corporations were somehow in charge. Neither Hitler nor Mussolini were puppets of industrial conspiracies. Indeed it was exactly the opposite. Neither were from industrialist families – both were political animals who rose through the ranks of their respective political environments using their wits and ruthlessness. With their personal paramilitary armies they bullied the industrialists, their domestic opposition and the population. Hitler had his Brownshirts and Mussolini had his Blackshirts. Hitler and Mussolini were feared by the industrial brokers of their day because they used political and physical intimidation to bully the industrialists of Germany and Italy into doing their bidding. Who were these imaginary fascist countries that were supposedly ruled by free market corporate conspirators manipulating the government? Although liberals stamp their feet and insist that they existed, I have never heard a liberal name even one. Certainly Hitler’s Germany and Mussolini’s Italy didn’t fit that description.ai
• Demonization of corporations
In fact, today’s liberal demonization of corporations is actually right out of the How-to-do-Fascism-101 handbook. Here are points 12 through 17 of the The 25-point Program of Hitler’s National Socialist German Workers’ Party:
~12.In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people, personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore we demand the total confiscation of all war profits. 13.We demand the nationalisation of all (previous) associated industries (trusts). 14.We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries. 15.We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare. 16.We demand the creation of a healthy middle class and its conservation, immediate communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low cost to small firms, the utmost consideration of all small firms in contracts with the State, county or municipality. 17.We demand a land reform suitable to our needs, provision of a law for the free expropriation of land for the purposes of public utility, abolition of taxes on land and prevention of all speculation in land.~ [4nzpzqz]
Which of these are free market or rightwing, American neighbor. Well, none of course – they are all leftwing policies. I read liberal comments on the web everyday, and it is not at all odd to see them directed at President Obama, berating him for bailing out Wall Street at the expense of the little guy and calling him a sellout to big business for giving favors to his favorite companies like GE and Google, and supporting TARP. It seems to me, American neighbor, according to their own unique definition of fascism as a puppet of corporations, these liberals are calling Barack Obama a fascist. What do you think “too big to fail” means? In fact, this is modern corporatism – and it is a leftwing policy of interfering in the marketplace. Unbalancing the marketplace with bailouts and special corporate favors is antithetical to a free marketplace and conservatism (it was in opposition to these policies that the Tea Party originated). It is what is now known as crony capitalism and corporate welfare, again a perversion of the free operation of the marketplace, which conservatism rejects wholeheartedly. Crony capitalism is actually a flavor of liberalism. Even though some liberals object to it, their alternative is little better – more government control of industry. Today’s American capitalism is a mix of progressivism, modern corporatism that favors selected industries, and fascist style capitalism that penalizes other industries that are out of favor with the ruling elite visionaries. (This will be dealt with in detail later in the essay.)aj
• Command capitalism = leftwing
This why I call contemporary liberals progressive-fascists. The direct control aspect better describes that which Hitler and Mussolini favored – further to the left. [*3jve4xk] Let’s examine our scale again:
Communism – Fascism/Nazism – Statism – Liberalism – Center – …
Notice the progressive nature of the scale. Liberalism allows for a certain amount of free market capitalism mixed with a generous amount of government interference in the marketplace. Statism (also known as Euro-socialism) still allows for a free market to some extent, but more control and less liberty than that of liberalism. Fascism/nazism is a step even further into government control of the marketplace with relatively limited economic liberty compared to liberalism or even statism. Communism is that last step in government control where the free market is completely eviscerated. Let’s look now at where conservatism and a truly free market economy reside on the scale:
Communism – Fascism/Nazism – Statism – Liberalism – Center – Conservatism/Free Market
It is quite clear that in regard to the marketplace conservatism and fascism/nazism have virtually nothing in common, whereas liberalism agrees with fascism/nazism’s manipulation of the marketplace, but only disagrees as to the extent and type of interference (I will distinguish these differences shortly). Here is another interesting 800 pound gorilla of the nazi movement, American neighbor. Anthropogenic global warming theory actually was popularized by Nazi Günther Schwab with his book, The Dance with the Devil, and the contemporary liberal environmentalist movement was birthed by European nazism. And – surprise! They opposed free market capitalism. [*4pn37k6 *k9eads6]ak
The Nazis had no more use for free market capitalism than they could extract from it for their own advantage. Nazism was just Marxism under a different name with a few nuanced differences from communism. Frederick Augustus Voigt, a British journalist of German descent with many links to the German political establishment, having lived and worked in Germany for over a dozen years wrote in 1939:
~Marxism has led to Fascism and National-Socialism, because, in all essentials, it is Fascism and National Socialism.~ [ydebke6]
Joseph Goebbels presented Soviet Bolshevism as a Jewish perversion of socialism to condemn the rival communists in Germany. In 1936 Goebbels wrote:
~Our struggle against Bolshevism is no fight against but in favour of socialism.~ [y5qj86e]
Goebbels had also been reported to have said:
~The difference between communism and the Hitler faith were very slight.~ [*6sf2qfg] (Watch this video, American neighbor – it goes hand in hand with the video from earlier in this essay.)
And Hitler himself agreed when he spoke of Soviet communism:
~It is not Germany that will turn Bolshevist, but Bolshevism that will become a sort of National Socialism. Besides, there is more that binds us to Bolshevism than separates us from it.~ [y5eouqb]
Of course the Bolsheviks were the Soviet communists and socialism was Marxism. There is no doubt that Hitler and Goebbels saw their own Nazism as a type of Marxism even if they refused to use the word because of their propagandist view of it being stained with Jewish connotations. But in fact, there was little to differentiate the Nazis from the Bolsheviks. And the Italian Fascists under Benito Mussolini agreed in their own motto:
~Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State.~ [cb8xo5]
Mussolini also wrote:
~ “If classical liberalism spells individualism, Fascism spells government.”~ – Fascism: Doctrines and Institutions – Benito Mussolini
This statement is simply a differentiation between a liberty based ideology, and Marxism under a different name – fascism. But the “classical liberalism” of the early twentieth century has no relationship with today’s contemporary liberalism, however it has much in common with the contemporary conservatism of this generation (as first noted in #4 Benevolent Utopia or Tyrannical Dystopia):
~Classical liberalism is a philosophy committed to the ideal of limited government and liberty of individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets.~ [k9hpx]
Notice the specifically contemporary conservative themes; limited government, liberty of individuals, free markets. Hardly endorsed by contemporary liberalism today. The “individualism” Mussolini wrote of is today conservative whereas when he wrote “Fascism spells government” he of course was referring to collectivism – the polar opposite of contemporary conservatism and a direct parallel with today’s contemporary liberalism. Mussolini was in effect an honest socialist. Whereas communists espoused Marxism as the politics of the proletariat (the poor), but governed by an elite, Mussolini admitted that his brand of socialism would be governed by an elite. Both were collective ideologies that in effect were identical – only the propaganda differentiated them.
Nazis and fascists are nothing more than alternate flavors of Marxism to communists. Communists require that you give up everything to the state. Nazis and fascists don’t require that you give up everything – they simply regulate you to death with government intimidation (sound familiar? think Obamacare or the IRS scandal or the AP phone records seizure or penalizing the oil and coal industries while rewarding friends of the regime – the green energy industry). Nazism, fascism and communism are all extreme examples of the state coercively directing your life for you. None fit on the right side of the ideological scale which represents liberty, American neighbor.al
• FDR’s fascism
In fact, included in President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal was a form of economic fascism known as the National Industrial Recovery Act implemented in June of 1933. It committed some of the same marketplace manipulations as Hitler’s ‘Plan’ for the Third Reich, including government authorized cartels and monopolies, nationalized public works programs, price regulation, forced unionization and communal farms. Mostly it was regulatory hell:
~NIRA, as implemented by the NRA, became notorious for generating large numbers of regulations. The agency approved 557 basic and 189 supplemental industry codes in two years. Between 4,000 and 5,000 business practices were prohibited, some 3,000 administrative orders running to over 10,000 pages promulgated, and thousands of opinions and guides from national, regional, and local code boards interpreted and enforced the Act.~ [25d3e42]
This is what fascism does – it manipulates and restricts the marketplace as a know-it-all big brother figure with a carrot and stick approach. Being permitted to continue managing one’s own business was the carrot. Massive and strict regulation with severe non-compliance penalties was the stick with which to beat them into compliance. Even the poster illustrated on the Wikipedia page is reminiscent of Nazi and communist collectivist propaganda campaigns. (For a comparison of fascist and communist posters watch this short video: [q7fwzzx]) Thankfully the Supreme Court declared FDRHoover’s Act unconstitutional. But is it so surprising that FDRHoover enacted what was recognized by the Supreme Court as something so foreign as to be unconstitutional? Who was FDRHoover emulating? John Franklin Carter, a friend of FDRHoover’s tells us in his 1934 book, The New Dealers:
~[FDR] invented nothing in the New Deal. This is his greatest achievement. He combined … familiar elements so calmly and with so friendly a smile, that even after a year of the New Deal there are still people who do not realize that a revolution has taken place. … Roosevelt had the benefit of several other great national experiments as useful points of reference for the American New Deal. He had before him the spectacle of the Soviet Union with its recent dramatization of economic reorganization through the Five-Year Plan. He had before him the example of Fascist Italy with its regimentation of business, labor and banking in the ‘CorporativeState.’ He had before him the instances of Kemal, Mussolini and Hitler in restoring national pride and self-confidence to beaten or dispirited peoples.~ [39bnmad]
Notice that he called Stalinism, fascism and Nazism “great national experiments”. Remember, this was 1934 peacetime. Stalin, Mussolini and Hitler were not yet seen as villains at this time, and fascism was just another alternative form of leftwing governance. So was FDRHoover a rightwing extremist for emulating fascism and nazism, American neighbor? Was he a corporate capitalist? Obviously not. And neither were Stalin, Mussolini and Hitler.am
• Noam Chomsky knows what fascism is
Well known author and anarchist, Noam Chomsky whom liberals like to claim as one of their own, apparently agrees with me:
~Suppose it was discovered tomorrow that the greenhouse effects has been way underestimated, and that the catastrophic effects are actually going to set in 10 years from now, and not 100 years from now or something. … Well, given the state of the popular movements we have today, we’d probably have a fascist takeover-with everybody agreeing to it, because that would be the only method for survival that anyone could think of. I’d even agree to it, because there’s just no other alternatives right now.~ – Understanding Power: The Indispensable Chomsky [4kfescf]
Now, why would an admitted extreme left anarcho-syndicalist think that a bunch of rightwing corporations taking over the government would be a good way to fight global warming when the rightwing and most corporations oppose fighting global warming because they see it as a hoax? Well, of course, he obviously doesn’t think that. He understands that fascism has nothing to do with a rightwing, corporate government takeover, but is in fact leftwing authoritarian control.an
• Fascism, abortion & present-day Nazis
Another piece of liberal dogma about fascism is that it was against abortion. This was only half true. Because fascists were nationalists they saw foreign races and ethnicities as a dilution of the master race, and encouraged abortion to the point of forced abortion for those deemed inferior. Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood sympathized with these views – hardly someone who could be characterized as rightwing. Even today’s Nazis are nothing like conservatives. The only difference that I can see between present-day American Nazis and American liberals in the following statement is that liberals see only the top 1% as running the country. From the American Nazi Party website:
~Of course, we have many other issues of concern, such as a true healthy environment, a “National Health Care System” for our Folk, intelligence-based Free Education, as well as Free Trade-Schooling for those inclined… NS believe that the STATE should be in SERVICE to the PEOPLE – not, as it is unfortunately done today – where the people are nothing more than WAGE-SLAVES, TAX-COWS, and CANNON-FODDAR to that 3% of the population that control 85% of America’s wealth.~
• Extreme rightwing
Liberals loved to project demagoguery onto President George W. Bush as Hitler, and conservatives as Nazis and fascists (lots of evidence later). Actually, it was kind of funny to see them denigrate Bush as a leftist similar to themselves, but then again, what else did they have? I suppose they could have accused him of being a Ronald Reagan, arguably one of the most rightwing presidents in the past one hundred years, but obviously that wouldn’t have been nearly as satisfying in the demagoguery department, because Reagan was hardly a villain (except to hardcore leftists). Or, maybe they could have compared him to President Warren G. Harding who triggered the Roaring Twenties by proving that the way to cure a recession or depression is to permanently lower tax rates, remove regulations and drastically cut government spending and size – or in a nutshell, get government out of the way (exactly the opposite of what Hitler did – and FDRHoover for that matter). Or perhaps, if liberals were really desperate they could have accused Bush of being like Abraham Lincoln, a much more famous rightwing President and perhaps the ultimate American imperialist. Or perhaps, they could have called Bush a George Washington, who was an extreme rightwing minimalist. The point is that there are no historic, extreme rightwing villains by contemporary standards for liberals to demagogue today’s conservatives with. So, while comparing Bush to Hitler may have provided some bizarre emotional satisfaction for liberals, for those who understand the political spectrum as enslavement on the left versus liberty on the right, it makes little sense to attempt to place Bush on the extreme left side of the political spectrum as a Hitlerian Nazi if one is attempting to vilify him as an extreme rightwinger. Of course liberal demagoguery (and paranoid delusion) is hardly about making sense.
Sorry to bust your bubble, American neighbor. It is contemporary liberalism that is closely related to every flavor of totalitarianism including nazism and fascism. Contemporary American Nazis don’t support the Tea Party – they support the Occupy Wall Street movement (what more do you need to know?). [3gf2czd] All authoritarianism is anathema to contemporary conservatism and the right in America. Fascists and nazis are control freaks. Contemporary liberals are somewhat lesser, but are also control freaks. Fascists and nazis impose their control through intimidation, corruption and brute force. Contemporary liberals institute their control through legislation, the courts, group protest and media intimidation, and corruption, and sometimes using the brute force of government agencies to accomplish their ends. Fascists and nazis seek to implement utopia. Contemporary liberals are also attempting to build a utopia. Fascists, nazis and contemporary liberals are all kissing cousins, some a little further left than others.ap
• Leftwing/Rightwing divide
Contemporary liberals are nothing more than progressive-fascists. They even have their own versions of the Brownshirts and Blackshirts to do their intimidation – environmental groups, civil rights groups, feminist groups, gay rights groups, unions, internet websites, the orthodox media, etc.
The contemporary ideological issues of our Nuclear Counterarguments Ideology Scale are divided into two major groups split at a tipping point between less individual liberty of the leftwing and more individual liberty of the rightwing in America. Contemporary liberalism is a leftwing ideology and contemporary conservatism is a rightwing ideology. They can be distinguished through an analysis of their various ideological positions. Remember – our scale measures a preservation and promotion of liberty on the right, and destruction and withdrawal of liberty on the left. Remember also our original question from #1 Deprogramming Liberalism with Nuclear Counterarguments: “As a principle, would you prefer others to direct your life, or would you prefer to have the freedom to direct your own life, American neighbor?” This directly parallels our measure of individual liberty. Everything on the left of the following list is about control. Everything on the right is about liberty.aq
• Table – Nuclear Counterarguments Ideological Issues
~ “In the election of 1860, Abraham Lincoln said the question was whether this Nation could exist half slave or half free. In the election of 1960, and with the world around us, the question is whether the world will exist half slave or half free, whether it will move in the direction of freedom, in the direction of the road that we are taking, or whether it will move in the direction of slavery.”~ – John F. Kennedy
JFK was the last Democratic President who did not move America significantly to the ideological left. There is no doubt that JFK saw a leftward movement toward the communism he so despised as a move toward “slavery”, and a move to the right as a move toward “freedom” (exactly the same as our table above). In fact, it was the rightwing Republican minority leader, Everett Dirksen that often rallied support for the President against his own resistant Democrats. With his hard stance against communism and his tax cuts, it could be argued that JFK indeed moved America to the right “in the direction of freedom”.
This goes straight to the heart of the question I asked you in the first N.C. essay: “As a principle, would you prefer others to direct your life, or would you prefer to have the freedom to direct your own life, American neighbor?” Liberalism perpetuates this naive belief that it defends your liberties, American neighbor. But does it? Isn’t liberty about making decisions for yourself and directing your own life? Here is how liberalism defines liberty; limiting what vehicles you can drive, limiting what you can eat, limiting what healthcare is available to you, limiting what media is available to you, a bureaucrat setting your thermostat, forced unionization, forcing you to pay more for supposedly green energy, determining your fitness for a job based on race or gender, denying educational choice for your children by forcing them to go to public schools and pay twice if you choose otherwise, forcing you to pay higher taxes to bail out your reckless neighbor’s mortgage, or your bank’s debt, or fat-cat unions, and re-taxing your hard earned savings which have already been taxed in order to deny that money going to your children when you die. Contemporary liberalism denies liberty in every aspect of your life and even your death. Liberalism is where the government denies and coerces citizens’ choices about how to live their lives – progressive-fascism. Contemporary conservatism is where citizens direct the government’s responsibilities and abilities to limit a citizen’s choices. Conservatives are against government limiting what vehicles are available for consumers. Conservatives are against the government arbitrarily determining what foods may or may not be available. Conservatives are against denying you healthcare choices. Conservatives are against government interference in the media in any way. Conservatives are against the “Smart Grid” where some faceless bureaucrat decides what temperature your house should be. Conservatives are against forced unionization and the denial of secret voting so unions can intimidate workers who vote the ‘wrong way’. Conservatives are against forcing you to pay more for supposedly ‘green energy’ that produces no discernible benefit. Conservatives oppose forced race and gender preference requirements in employment hiring requirements. Conservatives are for all types of alternate educational choices, including private schools, parochial schools, charter schools and home schooling, without having to pay twice. Conservatives do not believe in bailing out your neighbor’s poor credit decisions or your bank’s or fat-cat unions. And conservatives do not agree with taxing your money twice and denying your children your hard-earned savings at the end of your life. It is conservatism that promotes and defends liberty in your life, American neighbor. Liberalism is about controlling and directing your life. It is an anti-liberty mindset where those afflicted play stupid, actually thinking they are the defenders of liberty while willingly giving up more of their and everyone else’s liberty everyday. This is illustrated in these two liberal principles: 1. Contemporary liberalism views society as generally incompetent and in need of the guiding hand of a controlling government. 2. For its own good a resistant society must have utopian ideals forced upon it.
Control is the underlying function of liberalism. Liberty is the foundation of conservatism. Liberals desire all citizens to voluntarily or forcefully give up their liberty to external control. Liberalism is a type of voluntary subjugation to top-down control, and for those who resist, a forcible slavery. Liberals are both slaves and slavers, at once enslaving themselves, and forcing their slavery on everyone else. Conservatism is the freedom to live without coercive control.
~ “When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.”~ – Thomas Jefferson
When the government passes healthcare legislation that takes control of a sixth of the national economy, and unconstitutionally forces you to purchase insurance that the government strictly regulates, limiting your healthcare choices, on Christmas eve, through a one-party vote, after purchasing member votes with earmark buyoffs, and ignoring the loud majority of Americans who opposed the bill, do you think it is the government that fears the people, or the people that should fear their government, American neighbor? Is this more liberty or less?ar
Vanity and humility directly relate to the control/liberty issue. Liberalism is vain – it thinks it knows best for everyone. It is the arrogant belief that a better life can be coerced onto a society – progressive-fascism. Indeed liberalism believes that a better life only comes from government coercion. Whereas conservatism is based on a humble principle that each person has the ability and right to decide for themselves how to live their life without the coercive influence of government and political correctness limiting their choices. As pointed out in #4 Benevolent Utopia or Tyrannical Dystopia, liberals view the populous as incompetent, in need of a ‘benevolent’ government (liberal of course) to make correct decisions for them. Conservatives assume that citizens are competent to make proper decisions for themselves.
Liberals are vain. They think they know better. They think they can diagnose every problem. They think they can cure every ill. They think they can fix every complication. They think they can prevent every calamity. They are like the rebellious fourteen-year-old who is absolutely convinced that if everyone would only listen to him everything desirable can be achieved, and anyone who doesn’t listen is just a moron. When they inevitably fail they have an excuse ready at hand – that it is all the fault of conservatives (that paranoid delusion again). As you will see in N.C.essay #10, the financial crisis of 2008 was a result of perhaps the greatest ever example of liberal vanity that put forth a belief that government could regulate an economy and citizens into prosperity. And, of course, when it all came crashing down, what did liberals do? They blamed conservatism for their own policy failures.
Liberal vanity will also be illustrated in #9 Liberals Are the Compassionate Ones – Really?, where we will discover that despite the fact that liberals view themselves as undoubtedly more compassionate and charitable than conservatives, the exact opposite is a truism. Liberal charity is really about government taking other peoples’ money (especially from the ‘evil rich’) to redistribute as liberals see fit – often to themselves. In fact, we will see that conservatives freely give much more of themselves and their assets than do liberals. Which ideology represents more liberty and which ideology represents more government coercion, American neighbor? Which provides you with direct control of your own life to make your own decisions?as
Liberals confuse libertine and liberty. They think that allowing public libertinism amounts to more liberty. But public libertinism is a faux liberty without moral limits, which harms society. Libertinism takes liberty for granted – it contradictorily says, “I want liberty without responsibility.” Associated with what is known as the civil society, a social conservative enshrines some moral limitations in law and otherwise expects free individuals to conduct themselves worthy of the liberty granted to them, whereas a social liberal seeks to undermine moral limitations by attacking such laws and taking advantage of higher liberties to protect libertine indulgences that naturally reduce the civility of society. For instance, public sex is libertinism that is mostly illegal because of the damage it does to a civil society. Liberals constantly push the limit of such laws, thinking they are doing a service for liberty, when they are really only servicing libertinism. In the expression of free speech, as in art, libertinism is left to the discretion of the individual. For the liberal taking advantage of the higher liberty of free expression, art is often the opposite of the normal goal of enlightenment, instead becoming a mean-spirited debasing and deliberate insulting of a hated target group, as with a crucifix in a jar of urine. It is not that liberals do these things out of principle, however. They too have their own morals enshrined in political correctness. They would never place a figurine of a black slave in a jar of urine.
There is however, a nuanced difference between public and private activities. As long as debauchery does not impinge on other individuals or society as a whole, conservatism can allow for private licentious activities. We have a saying in Canada as originally stated by our former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau: “The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation.” Kept in the bedroom and within the law, licentiousness is of little threat to liberty or the civil society. But when the public square is turned into the bedroom of the nation at the cost of morality and subsequent civility, that is an entirely different matter. That is when those with the attitude of our rebellious fourteen-year-old publicly act out their perverse desires with ever less limits – truly a recipe for societal disaster.
It is also the libertine aspect of liberalism that attracts the criminal element of society that pushes the limits of the law and crosses them. Public debauchery eventually leads to anarchy and chaos with the moral vacuum then likely to be filled by a type of authoritarianism. Libertinism and authoritarianism are two sides of the same coin in a society without morals. Anarchy shares the same side of the coin as an extension of libertinism that can extend right up to considering all laws and social taboos as undue restrictions on a life of depravity. As an example, notice how the Occupy movement often deteriorates into aggression, rape and violence, requiring ever more diligent law enforcement. Conservative morals, whether enshrined in law or as an unwritten moral code of conduct are a restraint on public libertine debauchery and its eventual, inevitable anarchy and then authoritarianism.
~ “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom.”~ – Benjamin Franklin
Liberals overcompensate for their ingrained paranoia by embracing risky and extreme behaviors like recreational drugs, promiscuous sex, abortion, gay rights, violence, demagoguery, sophistry, etc. Liberals think these behaviors can replace the legitimate freedoms that they otherwise deny Americans. As the limits of the civil society are knocked down, eventually libertinism will inevitably overcome even liberal political correctness and lead to a demanded acceptance of a figurine of a black slave in a jar of urine as a legitimate expression of art. Will you consider that a progression toward liberty or libertinism, American neighbor? Because if you object, then you do have moral limits, and are little different from a social conservative in principle. You only need to get your bondaries adjusted.at
~People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them.~ Eric Hoffer
Liberals are Ameriphobic. Liberalism sees the country of America as more of a problem for the world than a solution. [*qhvxxhl] It is a view that sees America the country as arrogant and imperialistic. But conservatives see America the country with a rich history as ‘can do’. It is a case of whether one sees America’s glass as half full and getting fuller or half empty and draining, the former being conservatism’s view and the latter liberalism’s. No one is saying that America has not made shameful mistakes. It has (who hasn’t?). The question is, are you proud of America despite its mistakes, or are you ashamed of America despite the overwhelming good it has contributed to the world? It is this pseudo-love/hate relationship that liberalism has with America that poisons a person’s faith in the country. Of course these positions lead to liberals being much less patriotic than conservatives. [*34rgesg, *3ygcm4s, *2e8954z] It seems the more one distrusts government the more patriotic one is likely to be about the country as a whole, and the more one trusts government for solutions to problems, the more unpatriotic one views the country. As conservative reporter, Robert Novak said:
~ “Always love your country — but never trust your government!”~ [o8klce]
Conservatives embrace this fully, being overtly patriotic and suspicious of government. Liberals have inverted it. Liberals often view overt patriotism as anywhere from a necessary evil, to embarrassing, or even as a celebration of evil, but have unwavering faith in government to solve all problems with the proper people in charge (liberals of course). Political science professor, Kenneth Minogue has defined patriotism as pride of country the way it is, whereas nationalism he defines as a desire for utopia over an unsatisfactory status quo. This accurately divides conservatives from liberals. Conservatives say, “God bless America” for what it is, whereas liberals echo the Nazi Party slogan, “Everything must be different!” A desire for utopia was the nationalism in the National Socialism of Nazi Germany, just as it is the nationalism of contemporary American liberals – progressive-fascists. So if you look at the New York Stock Exchange with its magnificent facade and American flags, does it evoke patriotism in you, American neighbor, or nationalism? Is this a symbol of what makes America great, or is it an imperialistic symbol of what needs to be changed? [ct7qo8m]au
It comes down to how Americans view their fellow Americans. Liberals can’t believe that America is exceptional because they don’t believe it has reached utopia. So they have a negative view of America because it is not yet utopia, producing a feeling of moral superiority, allowing them to forever criticize the status quo. This also explains why liberals favor the UN. It too has a goal of utopia. Liberals see other Americans as incompetent and of questionable motives and therefore in need of a guiding and limiting hand (projection anyone?). Basically liberals are distrustful of fellow Americans, believing they need to be directed and regulated by a governing elite (a product of liberal paranoid delusion). Conservatives see fellow Americans as mostly self-reliant with benevolent motives. Conservatives also see America as having something enlightening to offer the world (liberty), whereas liberals have this idea that America is the single largest reason for most of the world’s problems. Because of these two dichotic conclusions liberals tend to deprecate America, whereas conservatives tend see America as exceptional. Both are self-fulfilling prophesies. When America’s direction is predominated by conservatism and the ideology of liberty its performance becomes exceptional. When liberalism and the ideology of collectivism gains an upper hand America under performs – as with the past few years. (Ample examples will be given throughout the N.C. Essay Series.) So which provides more liberty, American neighbor? A ruling class that deprecates America and desires control to enforce its supposed improvement? Or a ruling class that sees America freedom as exceptional and wishes to stay out of the way, allowing individual Americans to decide how to do what they do best?av
• Arbitrary Rights/Deistic Rights
Rights can be either liberating or oppressive. Those rights attributed to God in America are limited to protecting liberty. Additional arbitrary rights usually result in oppression of one group or individual over another group or individual. Whereas conservatives see human and civil rights as inherently God-designed and given, liberals believe in arbitrary rights decided by them. This is why liberals tend to distrust American traditions and the founding documents of the country which agree with conservatism on this issue rather than with liberalism’s arbitrary preferences. That rights are deemed to be from God means that it is irrelevant whether there actually is a God or whether one even believes there is a God. The principle is that rights come from beyond human discretion and therefore are unquestionable, according to the foundational documents of America. Arbitrary rights are often created with political motivations for acquiring power rather than for altruistic reasons. So which provides more liberty? Rights that are universal? Or rights that arbitrarily pick one individual or group over that of another individual or group? Rights that are beyond government manipulation? Or arbitrary rights chosen through rules of political correctness and tyrannical imposition? Which allows you more liberty to direct your own life, American neighbor?aw
• Crisis Engineering/Ordered Liberty
Principled order is the domain of the conservative. Through moral restraint, limitations on public libertine impulses, and an adherence to the legal system, the conservative attempts to restrict mankind’s darker side by preserving a principled order to society. Liberal principles, as we have seen, are antithetical to morals and order. The liberal eschews moral limits and sees the legal system as a sign of a broken society that has not yet reached utopia. As we examined in #2 Contemporary American Liberalism = Paranoid Delusion, Richard Hofstadter’s “paranoid style” has been cultivated by liberalism for over forty years. Directly related, in essay #4 we discovered the principle: Contemporary liberals employ chaos as a political strategy to destabilize society so that liberal solutions can appear more palatable. The compulsively paranoid liberal sees the world as in chaos and perpetual crisis and uses this to plead for utopian solutions. This is crisis politics where the liberal solution for every problem is a further reduction of liberty through more government control – regulations and arbitrary rights. This is how fascists gain control. But implementing regulations and arbitrary rights is not the same as adhering to law. Liberals justify regulations and arbitrary rights as progress toward utopia through the subversive process of crisis engineering. Adherence is not as important as implementation. If adherence or lack of it does not work to solve the targeted problem the liberal answer is always even more regulation and more arbitrary rights.
Because government control is seen as the path to utopia by the liberal, any excuse is justifiable for more regulation and arbitrary rights, even if it needs to be conjured up out of nothing. First and foremost of course, is that society is filled with evilly motivated conservatives that must be eradicated at all cost (fascists always need enemies to demonize). This too is subversive crisis engineering, and of course relates to the liberal principle: A contemporary conservative’s evil motives justify their destruction by any means necessary. So using a strategy of political crisis liberals continually demagogue conservatism as a threat to society – racist, homophobic, sexist, wanting to take away healthcare from seniors, desiring no hand up for the poor, yada, yada (ever more paranoid delusion perpetrated by the Blackshirts of the Democratic Party). They label virtually any group outside the liberal mainstream as a hate group. They even have a supposed rights organization specifically devoted to this sort of smearing. Of course, liberal groups are exempt from their judgment. This is to create compulsive paranoia in society for anything conservative and provides opportunity for the enforcement of utopian solutions. Some examples of crisis engineering are Katrina and other natural disasters where conservatives can be demagogued, claims of race baiting, claiming conservatives want to take away healthcare from seniors along with their Social Security, claims of conservative greed desiring to rape the environment, etc. (all are Blackshirt tactics of demonization and intimidation) [*pxndvaa] Notice that liberals always look to remove more liberty through implementing more government control in response to every real, manufactured or even imagined crisis. More is NEVER the cause of problems, and less is NEVER the answer. How does this attitude allow you to be free to direct your own life, American neighbor?ax
Asked what type of economic system runs the American economy, most people would answer, capitalism. While true, America has gone through a number of iterations of capitalism. Up until the end of the nineteenth century the American marketplace was more or less laissez-faire. Basically there was little government interference in the economy in the way of taxation, regulation, tariffs, government safety nets and worker rights. Consumers and monopolistic tycoons were the kings of the marketplace, with buyers making various demands for goods and services to which industrialists and merchants catered. The government’s role was limited to providing certain infrastructure and protection of private ownership rights through rule of law.
At the end of the nineteenth century the ideology of progressivism emerged in America. In regard to the economy, this was a belief that the government should create policies to help the country progress with the help of an elite ruling class. This included union growth and certain worker rights, and restrictions on industrial monopolies. It also included regulation of industry, and creation of the income tax and Federal Reserve. The free market capitalism of laissez-faire had been replaced by a new type of progressive capitalism where the government actively entered into the periphery of the marketplace for the so-called benefit of the masses. The 1920 depression convinced new President Warren G. Harding to go back to the laissez-faire principles of the previous century, producing what can be argued as the most prosperous decade in American history, appropriately named the Roaring Twenties. The market downturn and following depression of the 1930s marked a return to and expansion of the progressivism from earlier in the century, resulting with the Dirty Thirties being arguably the worst economic disaster in American history. However there was a new aggressiveness to this progressivism. Presidents Herbert Hoover and FDRHoover overtly adopted Euro-fascist policies to supposedly fight the depression (much more in #11 Austerity Versus Stimulus – What Is the History?). Most of these were abandoned in 1942 as redundant in a do-or-die war economy. Following the war the economy reverted back to a moderate progressivism up until after JFK’s tax cuts. Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society marked another sea change in American governance with the creation of a new ideology (illustrated in #4 Benevolent Utopia or Tyrannical Dystopia). Contemporary liberalism rose out of the dust of old style progressivism, incorporating some old style fascism with a new, modern corporatism. The modern Americanized version of corporatism is where the government is the referee and manager of the marketplace and society as a whole. Modern corporatism is where government lends a ‘helping hand’ (also known as corporate welfare or crony capitalism) to favored industries and unions with subsidies, tax privileges, guaranteed loans, bailouts, direct funding, favorable regulations, etc. Although antithetical to a free market and a liberty-based society, corporatism can be seductive even to conservatives who may benefit from it, luring them away from free market principles that oppose the government rewards of corporatism. (Read these two links, American neighbor – understanding today’s modern American corporatism is very important. [*3bh5mve, *3rqv8xx]) Progressivism is reflected in entitlement programs, worker rights, political correctness, affirmative action, welfare, food stamps, progressive taxes, etc. Draconian government takeovers of whole industries like healthcare and education, along with a massive bureaucratic buildup of regulatory legislation and agencies is of a fascist origin. This contemporary liberal style of capitalism has dominated America since the sixties.ay
• Command, demand, & carrot & stick capitalism
There are three ideologies of capitalism that have influenced American history. Government command capitalism is a fascist marketplace of the far left, where the government commands how an at least somewhat privately owned marketplace will function (when it completely takes over private ownership it becomes socialism). Consumer demand capitalism is of the far right where the demands of the marketplace are predominant with little government restriction or interference, commonly known as free market capitalism or laissez-faire. Carrot and stick capitalism aptly describes today’s capitalism in America which is a mix of command and demand capitalism, along with a significant portion of modern corporatism thrown in. So the marketplace now operates based on restrictions, penalties and rewards doled out by the government into an otherwise free marketplace. Here is a clear example of carrot and stick capitalism: [*cvvdjft] To claim that the American marketplace is capitalism, as in free market capitalism, is at best misleading (this will be fully explored in N.C. essays #8 to #11). The last example of a remotely free marketplace in America was in the Roaring Twenties. The marketplace has since vacillated with varying degrees of command capitalism mixed with demand capitalism, having settled with the recent addition of modern corporatism into a carrot and stick capitalism that is slowly and progressively devolving away from liberty toward the fascism described earlier in this essay.
Liberal governing principle believes we must be our brother’s keeper. Conservative governing principle believes we must be our brother’s brother. Liberals think of the needy as needing a remedy. Conservatives see the needy as needing an opportunity.
~ “Give a man a fish; you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish; and you have fed him for a lifetime”~
Liberalism is all about taking another man’s fish as a remedy to “give a man a fish” for a day, and then give him another confiscated fish tomorrow. Liberals will direct a man’s life by providing a remedy of what they decide he needs. Conservatism is about offering an opportunity for self-direction – “teach a man to fish” for today and it benefits the rest of his life. Again, the choice is less or more individual liberty. The man who is given a fish each day is less free than the man who learns to catch his own fish each day.az
• The marketplace as a measure of liberty
The state of the marketplace is a good measure of individual liberty. In fact, marketplace prosperity is a direct measure of liberty. The rightwing encourages ever more free market capitalism (consumer demand capitalism), with maximum private ownership, minimal government regulation and taxation, but with stringent legal enforcement of minimal laws – with great liberty comes great responsibility. Personal responsibility means more than just relying on oneself. It also means being held accountable for one’s nefarious actions. This is demand capitalism, directed almost exclusively by the demands of the consumer marketplace, but strictly policed by minimal laws. Who manages a consumer demand economy? Nobody does. It is like a river – it naturally travels the most efficient route.ba
• Government command capitalism
The leftwing produces an ever more constricted market (government command capitalism). A government command economy turns a river into a swamp, leveling it out with megatons of regulatory silt, clogging its channels with legal debris, and sucking the volume out of it with taxes. It begins with government imposition of increased and unnecessary regulation and taxation, then steps up to villainizing and unfair penalizing of selected private industries, replacing private industry with government programs, ignoring its own laws, resulting in cronyism and corruption within the government and allied NGOs and businesses. In its extreme, command capitalism results in the abandonment of private ownership to state ownership (communism), or where private ownership is severely controlled by government (fascism), or where chaos ensues and ownership is virtually irrelevant and the market may collapse into anarchy as with Zimbabwe, or may reform itself into something new as with the transformation from the USSR into Russia, or may sustain itself only through drastic austerity measures and bailouts like Greece.bb
• Consumer demand capitalism
Under consumer demand capitalism, regulation is mostly through natural market forces where the strong survive and the weak fail and are left to dissolve, with the remaining assets absorbed back into the marketplace. Minimal laws are strictly enforced with severe penalties for offenders. The more severe the prosecution of offenders, the less regulation is necessary for those who follow the minimal rules required. An ever-increasing need for more regulation is a symptom of a society that refuses to strictly enforce its already existing regulation. Look at today. Regulation creation is rampant, swamping the marketplace into an ever-lingering malaise. And yet law enforcement in the marketplace is at a 20-year low. [7azmexv] Both are signs of a failing carrot and stick capitalism.
The judicial system is rightfully the last arbiter, not regulatory bureaucrats and government appointees. An example of this was the prosecution of Enron executives and other corporations’ executives who went to jail for doctoring their accounting books early in the first decade of the millennium. Since then there has been little need for this particular prosecution because of the disincentive that this strict enforcement generated (the corruption of the recent financial crisis is of a completely different order and will be explored in #10 Regulamageddon – The 2008 Financial Crisis, but notice that now, three years later, there have been no prosecutions and so the same market corruptions that caused the crisis, continue virtually unabated).
Consumer demand capitalism is akin to a Darwinian-style market evolution that allows for a self-cleansing of the market by allowing for healthy growth through efficiency. It is a bottom-up system not unlike a forest. Dying trees eventually fall and rot and are absorbed into the forest floor, only to be reabsorbed into healthy and new trees that supplant the dead wood. There is no such thing as “too big to fail”.bc
• Carrot & stick capitalism
Carrot and stick capitalism is a top-down system that picks winners and losers based on compliance, corruption and usefulness to those in control. Carrot and stick capitalism turns a marketplace forest into a marketplace thicket. There is an illustrative story from Soviet history about how the their top-down market system resulted in market inefficiencies (while this story is about Soviet socialism, the moral still applies to all command capitalism). Most industries operated on a government quota system. When the economy was slipping and materials were becoming hard to acquire a major shoe factory began producing proportionately more children’s shoes to make their scarce materials go further and still meet the government mandated quotas. Of course this led to a shortage of adult shoes in the marketplace. But the government quota demands were upheld by the manufacturer. These sort of ‘tricks’ are the inevitable result of the necessity of the market having to satisfy government command at the expense of consumer demand. Carrot and stick capitalism leads to an adoption of corruption to meet increasingly stringent regulations in an inevitably inefficient market that inevitably ends up with “too big to fail” bailouts. Another example of corruption in the opposite direction was Solyndra, a solar cell manufacturer who twisted every arm they could find in Washington and especially at the White House to get government guaranteed loans, even though they were already sliding toward bankruptcy. A half a billion dollars of taxpayer money was lost, but the government continues to make the same loans to the same industry with more of the players failing. (Update: The largest so far is the news that Solar Trust has now also gone bankrupt only one year after receiving a $2.1B government loan guarantee.)
Another example is today’s ethanol subsidies. [25ag7jf] Without command control, ethanol and biodiesel as energy sources would be virtually nonexistent. The cost to taxpayers in subsidizing the production of corn ethanol is $1.78 per gallon. Biodiesel costs $2.55 per gallon. And ethanol from cellulose costs taxpayers an incredible $3.00 per gallon in government subsidies. Biofuels are too expensive to produce and have many drawbacks compared to petroleum and natural gas based fuels, including the fact that it ruins many engines due to running much hotter, its attraction of water, and the damage it does to many gaskets and rubber seals, especially in outboard engines and small appliance engines like lawnmowers. (The new E15 blend may even void new car warranties.) [294lsrc, 64ttw29, 6lvpf79] The expense and waste of resources to needlessly replace 200 million engines now at work in the marketplace is simply not justified, and neither is the necessity for wholesale infrastructure changes across the country in the gasoline service industry just to be able to pump these new fuels. Yet big government carrot and stick capitalism has decided it must be developed and utilized, in spite of the fact that without government’s interference it would utterly fail in a free marketplace. Government subsidizes its production, regulates its use through a quota utilization system, and arbitrarily penalizes its free market competitor products with command market taxes, regulations and use restrictions – progressive fascism. The results are premature equipment failures, higher taxes, more expensive fuel costs, food costs and costs for many manufactured goods since ethanol is mostly made from corn, and corn is used in some stage to manufacture thousands of products, including hundreds of food items, as well as cardboard, construction materials, adhesives, metal plating, lubricating agents, laminated building products, antibiotics, cosmetics, wallboard, paints, paper products, pharmaceuticals, spark plugs, tires and other rubber products. [y5a4z9g, 8x4rp5d] Even Al Gore has admitted to the irrationality of corn-based ethanol production. [2u6wbcw] And some environmental groups are objecting to President Obama’s illogical promise to triple ethanol production within twelve years. [22o8lzl]
Furthermore, the idea promoted by liberals that ‘green jobs’ are some sort of salvation for the economy is nothing more than a fantasy. Four separate studies in Europe where the green jobs myth had been wholeheartedly embraced conclude that overall, government subsidization and mandating of green jobs actually costs net jobs in the economy at a rate of 2.2 to 4.8 regular potential jobs lost for every green job created. [ybbl485, 2fry6ps, 5rafl42, 43vw6oe] (It cost the Spanish socialist government $790,000 for each renewable energy job it created and they lost the 2011 election to the rival conservatives in a record landslide!) These are what are known as lost opportunity costs. These are the results because the corruption of the market by carrot and stick capitalism is extremely inefficient compared to demand capitalism. The economic river is turned into a swamp. Spain subsidized an electric car scheme projecting that 2,000 of these cars would be on the road by the end of 2010. As of August 10, 2010 exactly 16 cars had been sold. Yes, you read that correctly, American neighbor – 16 out of a projected 2,000! [2apoejs] The state of Michigan also invested heavily in the green jobs ‘market’ and it too was a dismal failure. Only 29% of the projected jobs were ever realized. Meanwhile, a bankrupt state bankrupts itself even more. [*36mtq89] After 2 1/2 years of the green jobs economy the NY Times has declared it a bust: [*3s3t9yk]
Still another example of carrot and stick capitalism is the recent financial crisis. Government commands by alpha liberals on the mortgage industry produced an unbalanced market where the government chose winners and losers, with the result being a marketplace restricted from its natural cleansing formula of failure, absorption and prosecution. First, the government mandated market operations, forcing unreasonable credit onto the market. Second, when the market began to inevitably fail, it chose winners and losers by bailing out certain companies instead of allowing the market to cleanse itself of all the weak members through failure and absorption. Third, it allowed unscrupulous government and market members who took advantage of the government-forced unbalance in the market to walk away without prosecution, sending a message that the risk of reward for gaming the system is small compared to the potential payoff, so corruption in this area continues. Politicians and bureaucrats responsible for devising and implementing this particular failed carrot and stick capitalism should have been removed, but instead, in 2006 many had been promoted from the minority party to the majority party in control of Congress with oversight of the problems they themselves helped create. Carrot and stick capitalism was the major cause of the recent market downturn and carrot and stick capitalism is inhibiting the recovery. (Much more on this in #10 Regulamageddon – The 2008 Financial Crisis.) President Obama sent out a warning of his intentions when he proclaimed:
~ “We’re going to punish our enemies and we’re going to reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us.”~ [*c7rwbea] (Thank you for that classic definition of carrot and stick capitalism, President Obama.)
Read that link to see a few more examples of how carrot and stick is practised by President Obama. It is variously described as “politics, Chicago style” and “crony capitalism, bailout favoritism and gangster government”, but, in fact, the President has stepped over the line into blatant fascism where the government rewards its friends and punishes its enemies through government policy. Here are examples of fascism in practice where one bank has been rewarded for political loyalty, whereas another bank has been prosecuted by Obama’s Department of Justice for disloyalty: [*pv88yrw, *kmg7exl] Hitler and Mussolini would probably applaud Obama just as they cheered on FDRHoover when he did the same things in the Dirty Thirties.
It was consumer demand capitalism that made the United States of America the most successful country in history and brought the world twentieth century prosperity. But a cocky world decided that only carrot and stick capitalism could lead to utopia. Unfortunately they were wrong. The statist version of carrot and stick capitalism has sucked the lifeblood out of demand capitalism in Europe, [*2e95do5] Japan has never fully recovered from its carrot and stick capitalism woes of the 1990s, and carrot and stick capitalism is also what has recently brought America to her knees. The only hope to forestall and reverse this downfall is for carrot and stick market principles to be abandoned and free market principles re-embraced. Ironically, it is China that is currently leading the recovery as it transitions from strict command capitalism to a freer version of mixed capitalism. But even China will not escape its residual command capitalism – it too is headed toward an inevitable crash due to a number of factors, and especially due to top-down generated demographic trends. It is ironic that as the developing world adopts consumer demand capitalism, poverty is quickly being replaced with a new prosperity. [*cabfpr6] But as the developed nations, including America, increasingly embrace the fascism of carrot and stick capitalism, their economies have slipped into a malaise without visible end.
Another aspect of carrot and stick capitalism is its appropriation of future capital with deficit spending. In effect, this takes money from the future and spends it now. This is totally against conservative principles except where national security and emergencies are concerned, and even then a plan to eventually surplus the debt away should be made as soon as possible. Now you may object, American neighbor, pointing to President George W. Bush’s deficits. But I will counter by stating that Bush in this regard was largely not a conservative. As you will see in #8 The Not So Surprising History of Tax Cuts, it was conservative tax cuts and austerity that reduced the deficit in the 1990s, and it was conservatives that opposed Bush’s deficit spending (liberals made a fuss, but I don’t recall any proposed spending reductions, only calls for tax increases). Deficit spending outside of security and emergency reasons is a liberal policy, whether implemented by Democrats or Republicans. Government deficit spending is nothing less than a redistribution of wealth (the living standard) from the country’s children and grandchildren to today’s adults. It is little different than if you lived high on the hog on credit and then died, leaving your debts to your children to pay off. They are then stuck with your credit payments and interest with little of the benefits that you enjoyed. Thus the unintended consequences of liberalism. Liberalism is about limiting economic liberty through regulation and redistribution. Conservatism is about maximizing economic liberty for the benefit of everyone, and allowing you to have the freedom to direct your own life, American neighbor.bd
• Entitlement Attitude/Rugged Individualism
Liberals have this attitude that society owes everyone a certain level of living – a major doctrine of Marxism. Conservatives believe those who are reasonably capable should look out for themselves and not expect resources to be taken from other Americans and given to them. It is a liberal’s attitude that is their problem. Whereas success is considered an admirable accomplishment by conservatives, liberals often see success as a sign of greed. There is little that offends liberal sensibilities more than a rich conservative. Of course, this is because liberals see conservatives as motivated by evil, and rich conservatives obviously must have perpetrated evil in order to become rich. For a liberal, victimization is a badge of honor, so they look to be offended and be seen as a victim. This, then, in their mind entitles them to demand and receive the wealth of others to satisfy their needs and wants. Does this promote more liberty or less, American neighbor?
• Government Dependency/Entrepreneurial Spirit
Liberals say, “Government is the only thing that we all belong to.” Conservatives say, “We don’t belong to the government, the government belongs to us.” Dependency on government aid and regulation is often the result of a fulfilled entitlement attitude. The opposite end of the scale is the drive to run one’s own business and be successful on one’s own terms. The first is subjugation. The second is the ultimate expression of economic liberty. Liberalism seeks to impose an ever-growing government dependency on society, while conservatism promotes a liberty from dependency through independent opportunity where government stays out of the way. Again, which promotes more liberty, American neighbor?bf
• Constitutional Circumvention/Constitutional Adherence
This truly is where the rubber hits the road in the struggle between the statist goals of liberalism and the liberty goals of conservatism. The founders created the Constitution as the cornerstone of America to prevent it from evolving into a dystopia. Conservatives agree with this purpose. But liberals see the Constitution as an overly restrictive barrier to achieving their utopia. Indeed, liberals see the Constitution as anti-utopia. There are few examples of liberalism where liberals play more monumentally stupid than this, American neighbor.
Imagine that you and I draw up a contract where I provide you with specific services for a certain fee. Also included is an amendment process where we can renegotiate the terms of the contract as the times change, like inflation, new service requirements, technological developments, etc. Things go along tickity-boo for ten years, and occasionally, we make changes to our contract according to the rules of our amendment process. Both of us are happy. But then I bring in a “progressive” partner who it turns out thinks he is much smarter than everybody else and decides that we need an additional bonus. He then comes up with this brilliant “progressive” idea that our contract is more than just a contract – it is a “living document” that should be arbitrarily adaptable to the times, which according to him means you should pay us a large bonus in addition to the fee that we have agreed upon through our amendment process. I expect you would vehemently object to this arbitrary sidestepping of our agreed upon amendment process by some Johnny-come-lately and probably think of my new partner and I as sort of cheats. And rightly so. The legitimate amendment process worked fine for ten years, but then this new “progressive” partner just goes and chucks it out the window and demands that you acquiesce to his arbitrary demands just because he came up with some tricky words like a “living document”.
This is the story of progressivism and the Constitution of the United States, American neighbor. For over a century Americans were satisfied with the application of the constitutional amendment process, but then some newly minted progressives of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries attempted to implement their own agenda by going around the legitimate process outlined in the Constitution. So they came up with this slippery description of the Constitution as a “living document” to step around the legitimate amendment process.
Think about this. If the Constitution can be changed outside of the formally defined amendment process, why did the authors create a formal amendment process in the first place? Duh! So explain to me, American neighbor, how a foreign concept like a “living document” that was never even heard of for over one hundred years could all of a sudden be legitimate just because some malcontents found the Constitution and its amendment process to be an impediment to their utopian goals? This is like changing the rules solely for their benefit after the game has already been started. That is what cheaters do.
Tell me, American neighbor, what is the difference between seeing me and my new partner as cheats and seeing these “enlightened” progressives as cheats? But more than just being cheats on a contract – they wanted to arbitrarily subvert the legitimate amendment process of the Constitution that had been successfully in use for over a century. If one believes the Constitution can be changed outside of the formal prescribed methods, or even worse, just ignored, one is promoting lawlessness, which is chaos – just what subversives do – and fascists. But the Constitution is a set of ideological conclusions. To change the conclusions one must appropriately change the documents to reflect any newly desired conclusions. Doing so arbitrarily while ignoring the formal amendment process is just an example of liberalism playing monumentally stupid – and maybe nefariously more than that. Subversion is hardly what one thinks of when one thinks of patriots – more like enemies of the state. But this is hardly a surprise. After all, progressive utopianism is an enemy of constitutional rule. Liberals appoint judges that are supporting this “living document” myth to arbitrarily “read in” liberalism. This is little different from the rule of royalty where the ruling monarch decrees laws – just why America became a sovereign nation in the first place! The liberal arm of the court system in America has now replaced the Constitution and the king. So the formal amendment process is ignored and stepped around, and American liberties are reduced day by day. How does that make today’s liberals any less than cheats, American neighbor? Which preserves more liberty? A fixed set of principled rules set in place as a solid contract implemented to do just that – preserve liberty? Or an arbitrary process where the whim of the day becomes the law of the day so that liberals can withdraw liberties to fit their politically correct agenda of creating utopia? [*5skavzn]bg
• Deprogramming lessons
The next time a liberal slanders conservatives as Nazis or fascists, ask them, based on what measurement? Expect a “Huh?” in response.
So now we have examined the issues of our Nuclear Counterarguments Ideology Scale. (As mentioned above, the various named ideology groups in addition to conservatism and liberalism, such as communism, neoliberalism, neoconservatism, libertarianism, etc. will be dealt with in the following essay.) Of course, some people pick and choose their ideological beliefs in various categories and may have views that straddle both the left and the right. Mostly though, it is my experience that the vast majority fall on one or the other side of the center tipping point. And even those that do share sides, when pressured, usually fall to defending the left.
Liberals are fearful that if some form of authoritarian rule cannot be pinned next to conservatism their case against conservatism would be greatly weakened: Compulsive paranoia is the foundation of contemporary liberalism. So to begin the essay we saw evidence of the liberal principle: Contemporary liberals embrace the strategy of the noble lie. Nazism and fascism are no less tyranny of the left than communism or military rule. Liberals project fascism onto conservatives because: Contemporary liberals project what they subconsciously loathe about themselves as demagoguery toward their opponents and society as a whole. And then rationalize to themselves through this kooky belief that somehow Hitler and Mussolini were puppets of large corporations: For contemporary liberals superficial rationalization is always the first and final element in their ideological line of thought. Also clearly seen on the left side of the spectrum is a repeated adherence to our first liberal principle: Contemporary liberalism requires a strict adherence to playing stupid. Liberals think that they stand for liberty, when in fact virtually everything they actually stand for opposes or diminishes liberty. Taken as a whole it proves another principle: Contemporary liberalism is absurd. And throughout is the irrational belief in achieving utopia: Contemporary liberalism views society as generally incompetent and in need of the guiding hand of a controlling government. For its own good a resistant society must have utopian ideals forced upon it. Both very fascist. Most of all a critical examination of leftwing ideology confirms that: Contemporary liberalism is a type of societal conditioning.
Tell me, American neighbor, when you view this essay through your Mr. Spock persona with third person analysis, can you now see the dichotomy between being a liberal, and desiring to have the freedom to direct your own life? A scale must measure something. Our new contemporary ideological scale measures liberty, or on a more personal level, your ability to have the freedom to direct your own life. It is then amazingly obvious that liberalism and the freedom to direct your own life are on opposite sides of that scale. In the MCTE from the beginning of the essay I said, “Remember our original question from #1 Deprogramming Liberalism with Nuclear Counterarguments: ‘As a principle, would you prefer others to direct your life, or would you prefer to have the freedom to direct your own life, American neighbor?‘ This essay will deal with this on both a personal and a national scale. Answer this: As a principle, does contemporary liberalism equate with more personal liberty or less?” It is now quite obvious that contemporary liberalism is anathema to personal liberty, is it not, American neighbor? You have been slumber-partying through your life – time to awaken, American neighbor. You can now see better than ever that at your core you are not a liberal. Remember our new ideological scale at sleep time tonight, American neighbor. Fascist subordination on one side, and freedom on the other.bh
• Deprogramming lessons
The situation America currently finds itself in makes it abundantly clear that something is wrong with its ideological direction – liberalism. If you don’t think it is a kissing cousin with fascism, watch this video: [*8lg77bj] Time to reverse course, American neighbor. Here’s something to help you understand this: [*4o45cv4] And if you are looking for more liberty in your life, try this: [*3ltdznj]
Which sector of the marketplace is the most liberated in terms of freedom from government regulation, taxation and interference? Communication technologies – think iPhone, Facebook, Twitter, etc. Which segment of the economy is the most successful in terms of startups, profits, job creation, professional career creation, technological advancement, etc.? Again, communication technologies – get the picture, American neighbor? [*chyud8l]bi
• Humor, sort-of
Certainly it would not be wise to ignore the wisdom of the Scriptures in matters of such ideological importance:
~The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left. Even as fools walk along the road, they lack sense and show everyone how stupid they are.~ – Ecclesiastes 10:2-3
As a bonus we have a perfect example of a liberal playing stupid about fascism:
~The far left may hurl insults at the right but doesn’t scream “fascism” whenever a Republican proposes privatizing Medicare.~ – Eugene Robinson, Washington Post columnist in an anemic attempt to argue that liberals are really the civil ones.
Does Eugene Robinson actually think that fascists are into “privatizing”? LOL! Was he just playing stupid, or not playing?