Gay Patriot Header Image

Obama’s Failure to Live up to Youthful Hype

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 12:34 pm - October 13, 2011.
Filed under: Obamania

Over at National Review’s Campaign Spot, the ever-insightul Jim Geraghty considers the mind-set of those youthful protesters “occupying” various cities:

I think two big factors are driving this — the first is the realization that electing Obama, the Munificent Sun-God, didn’t actually do much to fix many of the problems young people were upset about in 2008. The job market still stinks, wage growth is a distant memory, the drop in housing prices hurts current homeowners and not enough young earners have the resources to take advantage of lower home prices and oh, by the way, gas is $4 per gallon instead of $3 per gallon.

Read the whole thing. (Decided to post this quotation because it relates to a piece I’ve been working on — and hope to have up this afternoon.)

Share

146 Comments

  1. Hi Dan,
    I agree that some of what is motivating OWS folks is a disappointment with Obama’s performance, but I think the larger picture is one that suggests that they are unhappy with the economic-political structure of this country as a whole, not just with Obama. As I said on an earlier thread, a visiting Australian reported that:

    Anarchists for good government sounded silly but it was accurate. Whilst there were people carrying placards that said “fight for socialism” that was not why any of the people I asked said they were there. They were there because the system was broken. They thought that income distribution was screwy in America and whilst they thought the Wall Street bailouts might have been necessary they found big bonuses in bailed out banks deeply offensive. And I can’t say I blame them.

    They almost universally thought that government was owned by “corporations” and uber-rich individuals who have purchased the politicians. A middle aged woman was carrying a placard wanting “no more congressional whores”. Almost universally they thought the system did not work for them but it did work for some shadowy elite.

    But if you asked them what to do about it they did not know. Some had specific ideas (one argued that the Citizens United Judgement should be overturned). Most however had no specific agenda at all – just a general feeling of malaise about the economy.

    In other words they had a view that the economy could be more fair and that their definition of fairness actually accords with a lot of other Americans. Plenty of people would agree with them.

    The Tea Party protesters in America are also animated by a feeling that the system could be more fair – as are the people who protested the Federal Reserve bank. For that matter the (very small) minority at this protest wanting “socialism” probably feel that way too. The feeling is unifying. The prescriptions as to what to do about it are not.

    And the puzzling part of this protest was that there was no consistent prescription and nobody arguing for one – so they were unified by their common feeling and not divided by their hostility to each other’s prescriptions.

    Comment by Cas — October 13, 2011 @ 12:59 pm - October 13, 2011

  2. Hi Dan,
    I agree that some of what is motivating OWS folks is a disappointment with Obama’s performance, but I think the larger picture is one that suggests that they are unhappy with the economic-political structure of this country as a whole, not just with Obama.

    Hi Cas,

    Clearly you’re not paying attention.

    If by, “unhappy with the economic-political structure of this country as a whole,” you mean, “I shit on cop cars because you’re not paying my tuition,” then I would have to agree with you.

    If by, “unhappy with the economic-political structure of this country as a whole,” you mean, “I want a $20 minimum wage regardless of whether or not I have job,” then I would have to agree with you.

    If by, “unhappy with the economic-political structure of this country as a whole,” you mean, “The time for violence against the wealthy is nigh,” then I would have to agree with you.

    If by, “unhappy with the economic-political structure of this country as a whole,” you mean, “We’re not entirely certain what it is we want, but we’ll stay here and happily disrupt the lives of the very people we allegedly fight for,” then I would have to agree with you.

    The Tea Party and the OWS participants couldn’t be further apart. The former desires smaller government, whereas the latter is publicly defecating for a larger government.

    Your obfuscation and deliberate myopia is in need of serious attention.

    Comment by Eric Olsen — October 13, 2011 @ 1:30 pm - October 13, 2011

  3. I think the larger picture is one that suggests that they (OWS folks) are unhappy with the economic-political structure of this country as a whole, not just with Obama.

    The “economic-political structure” of the country is a constitutional representative democracy which regulates an economic system based on capitalism.

    So, are the “OWS folks” satisfied with this system or not? Are they merely interested in more regulation or is it deeper than that?

    In other words they had a view that the economy could be more fair and that their definition of fairness actually accords with a lot of other Americans.

    If you can define “fair” that would make a wonderful start. In the field of logic semantics “fair” violates the “truth-value” rule by being almost entirely in the mind of the user. Your definition of fair can not be the middle term for a formal argument without disclosure and agreement.

    I quoted Cas in the first box. Then I identified the “economic-political structure” as I interpret the term. My definition is up for argument. Also, my question concerning what Cas thinks would make these “OWS folks” less unhappy should reveal whether Cas is looking to a different “economic-political structure” than the one we have.

    If this is some sort of revolution, lets not play dodge ball with mushy terminology. My grandpappy told me that “fair” ss a temporary event in the late summer where grown men toss cow pies to win prizes.

    Comment by Heliotrope — October 13, 2011 @ 1:53 pm - October 13, 2011

  4. If this is some sort of revolution, lets not play dodge ball with mushy terminology.

    Yeah, that’s pretty much why I’m sticking with the whole “shitting on cop cars” thing.

    Why elucidate when your opponent is willing to dehumanize himself in the service of “a higher truth?”

    Comment by Eric Olsen — October 13, 2011 @ 2:09 pm - October 13, 2011

  5. The “economic-political structure” of the country is a constitutional representative democracy which regulates an economic system based on capitalism.

    So, are the “OWS folks” satisfied with this system or not? Are they merely interested in more regulation or is it deeper than that?

    Helio, this is such an incisive question, I’m tempted to ask every one to refrain from commenting further here until Cas decides to answer it.

    I await Cas’ answer. Eagerly.

    Comment by Eric Olsen — October 13, 2011 @ 2:12 pm - October 13, 2011

  6. If you can define “fair” that would make a wonderful start. In the field of logic semantics “fair” violates the “truth-value” rule by being almost entirely in the mind of the user. Your definition of fair can not be the middle term for a formal argument without disclosure and agreement.

    I think OWS has already nicely defined “fair” in their list of demands.

    Demand three: Guaranteed living wage income regardless of employment.

    This is entirely consistent with what Cas, Levi, Rob Tisinai, Counterfail, and the rest of the Obama Muppets that visit this site have regularly demanded: they want equal pay for unequal work, all in the name of “fairness” and “entitlement”.

    From that, we can extrapolate what “fair” means to Cas et al, which is simply that they work at their convenience and under their own terms and conditions, with a guaranteed salary regardless of skill required, time spent, value produced, or quality of output. This fits nicely with Nancy Pelosi’s public statements to the effect that no one should be required to actually work or produce something of value to receive identical benefits and pay to those who do.

    The basic problem here is that Cas and the vast majority of Obama Muppets really have no concept of reward being linked to effort. Their life has been one giant cornucopia of goodies handed out to them for simply breathing, from indulgent parents through graduate school and now the dole queue. Hence, since they have never had that linkage established, their automatic assumption when they see someone who has more than they do is that the distribution mechanism is broken — because, after all, they are just as entitled as that other person is, and there is no reason that other person would have more.

    To Cas, Levi, Rob Tisinai, Counterfail, and the like, the thought that a person could have more wealth than they do because that person works harder/is more educated/has a better idea/has made wiser decisions is fundamentally contrary to their worldview, in which “equality” has been made into a flat denial of any differences between anyone. They have been told since day one that they are “equal” to everyone else, and they have made the logical assumption that they should be as wealthy as Steve Jobs because they are equally hardworking, educated, creative, and wise in their decisionmaking as he was.

    It’s a fascinating indictment of the entitlement mentality.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 13, 2011 @ 3:36 pm - October 13, 2011

  7. Hi Eric & HT,

    Hi Eric,
    First, by all means mention the individual crapping on a cop car. If you want to use that example as indicative of the whole OWS “movement” I can’t stop you, but it smacks of a fallacy of composition. As for most of the other claims, again, the thing that is characteristic of this lot is that there is no clear set of policy prescriptions. There are lots of competing ideas about what to do or what might help (your $20 min wage example), but the underlying “feeling” and starting premise attested to in the link is pretty clear. OWS is disliked on BOTH the left and right. Some may want to appropriate it for their own uses (as Repubs tried to do with the Tea Party), but it is not at all clear to me that that will succeed. The medium of decentralization appears to me to be part of the message. As for the claim about disrupting the livelihoods of those they are fighting for, I think OWS folks’ answer would be to say that they are in the front-yard of some of those who they suggest helped make this mess, and who have continued to profit, as well as not being held accountable.

    Hi HT,
    Thank you for your clear reply. I will amend my claim to suggest that the main thrust (at the moment) of OWS is the manner in which this (as you nicely put it) “constitutional representative democracy which regulates an economic system based on capitalism” actually favours a smaller class of individuals to a greater extent than it does others in society (as well as being at the expense of others). Having said that I have two caveats. I grant that there are elements of OWS that would like to see the capitalism (and even the constitutional democracy) stripped out of the definition you provided. Further, it may become a bigger issue as time goes on (and OWS becomes more radicalized?) that OWS participants will go on and formally reject the notion that we live in a “constitutional representative democracy” (as we have seen some do already) given what OWS participants have already said is a central part of their critique (big money owns politicians, so how can we say they represent the majority’s rights, when they represent “Big Money”?–a riff on the old quote: “What is good for General Motors is good for the country”).

    Second, you make a “fair” point about the semantic truth-value qualities of the word “fair.” I think one would need a lot of secondary conditions to set up a “True-False” answer that you would like (and isn’t that what philosophy is for?). I actually think the word that they want to use, in these discussions, is “just,” as in “justice,” another notoriously difficult word to define, in truth value terms. I note that does not stop us from using this word on a regular basis though in other contexts, coming to our conclusions about what we feel is just (or fair) or not.

    I don’t see the revolution just yet, though there is a spark there, I think. It will depend on a lot of things. Was/Is the Tea Party revolutionary (or have a revolutionary spark)?

    I continue to watch OWS with interest. Will it grow or fade?–I don’t know.

    Comment by Cas — October 13, 2011 @ 3:57 pm - October 13, 2011

  8. Your last question, Eric:
    “So, are the “OWS folks” satisfied with this system or not? Are they merely interested in more regulation or is it deeper than that?”
    In short: Not in the way it has been expressed over the last 10+ years (I think they still believe in the concept of constitutional representative democracy, hopefully). Regulation yes; deeper than that–time will tell–some yes; others no (fragmented nature of this “movement”).

    Comment by Cas — October 13, 2011 @ 4:02 pm - October 13, 2011

  9. “Was/Is the Tea Party revolutionary (or have a revolutionary spark)?”

    It depends on whether, by “revolutionary,” you mean willing to use violence to take other people’s money and property away from them to “redistribute” or to TRULY bring power back to the people by doing away with crony capitalism — which is itself a form of socialism, and not genuine capitalism at all.

    The trouble with leftist “regulation” is that it always ends up being used by the powerful to put even more money in their own pockets at everyone else’s expense. It’s how we got crony capitalism in the first place. For certain privileged corporations and certain privileged rich people (i.e. Obama campaign donors), these regulations are conveniently lifted — while their competitors, particularly the smaller ones, are crippled by them.

    Hence, so few jobs.

    The OWS movement needs to figure out a way not to slaughter the golden goose. Which is really not the mega-billionaires or the bloated unions. It is the very middle-class entrepreneurs they haven’t figured out how to keep from destroying with the firepower they think they’re aiming at “the rich.”

    Comment by Lori Heine — October 13, 2011 @ 4:18 pm - October 13, 2011

  10. If you want to use that example as indicative of the whole OWS “movement” I can’t stop you, but it smacks of a fallacy of composition.

    Which never bothered you when it was Nancy Pelosi calling all Tea Party participants Nazis based on one alleged appearance of a swastika, or racists based on one alleged example of spitting.

    So right off the bat we know you and your fellow OWS/Obama Party members are hypocrites who won’t follow your own standards.

    Next up, you didn’t disappoint:

    I will amend my claim to suggest that the main thrust (at the moment) of OWS is the manner in which this (as you nicely put it) “constitutional representative democracy which regulates an economic system based on capitalism” actually favours a smaller class of individuals to a greater extent than it does others in society (as well as being at the expense of others).

    And therein we see the entire Cas entitlement mentality.

    a) I should have exactly the same amount as anyone else regardless of how smart, qualified, industrious, and productive I am or not

    b) Anyone who has more than I do got it at my expense.

    There is NO concept of creating or assessing value here. None. Zero, zip, zilch, nada. To Cas and the OWS Obama Party, the guy putting in a twelve-hour day running his own business is entitled to no more than the guy who spends his day crapping on police cars — and if the guy who puts in the twelve-hour day has more, it’s because he stole it from the police-car crapper.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 13, 2011 @ 5:10 pm - October 13, 2011

  11. Hi Eric,
    First, by all means mention the individual crapping on a cop car. If you want to use that example as indicative of the whole OWS “movement” I can’t stop you, but it smacks of a fallacy of composition.

    Yeah, that’s fair, provided you’re willing to maintain that standard. How about Chris Matthews, a “respected journalist,” calling for “revolution?”

    Radical. Normally, we don’t like that word. Normally, we like our politics somewhere near the center – somewhere between progressive and conservative. You get beyond that and people consider you troubling, at best, dangerous, at worst.

    Radical positions. Radical solutions. Radical politics. Normally, as I said, not the stuff most people are comfortable with.But there comes a time when the positions, solutions and politics of normal times don’t seem to be working, or to be more exact: aren’t working!

    We have a 9-plus percent jobless rate. People are not getting hired, not being put to work the way they need to. The normal forces are not solving their problems. Corporations are not hiring; they’re investing overseas or finding automated ways to get work done.

    We’ve got a housing situation today that isn’t getting fixed. Older people are unable to sell homes they don’t need. Young people are having a very rough time getting mortgages and finding a house they can afford. Here again, the normal forces of supply and demand are not getting houses priced to sell, which mean priced to be bought.

    Not everyone is getting hurt by all this, certainly not equally. The oil companies have made huge profits. So have many in the financial community.

    And millions have been hurt. They’re hurting more each month as the hunt for work grows into years, as the corporations – who we’re told by one Republican presidential nominee are “really just people like us” – continue to find ways to make profits without offering people in this country real full-time jobs.

    So people with brains, and a sense of history, begin to think about solutions to our problems, that arise beyond the normal list of progressive or conservative tools we’ve used to fix problems.

    So we have to listen to the arguments being made down there on Wall Street. Radical solutions are sometimes the right solutions. Think of American independence. Thomas Paine was right. We had to cut off our ties with England pure and simple. Think of abolition. The only right way to deal with American slavery was to ban it outright – not negotiate with the slavers.

    How long, exactly, should we continue with policies that leave so many out of work, without the dignity and vitality of a job to go to? How long do we let our economy shrink right there in front of us?

    We may, as a society, have to take direct action to put people to work. If the corporations aren’t coming to our rescue, why “isn’t” the government?

    At some point, Cas, you’re going to run out of people on the left to marginalize, and will have to accept that the worst part of your ideology is, unfortunately, the majority.

    The left’s time for glorifying itself is at an end. Regardless of how many unwashed, shitting, violence-inducing idiots enjoy MSM camera time, the time for liberals to embrace these self-destructive, soon-to-be-discarded assholes is now over. Either own them, or ignore them.

    But don’t come here expecting some civilized debate about them, because they’ve already played that hand, and it lost.

    Comment by Eric Olsen — October 13, 2011 @ 5:20 pm - October 13, 2011

  12. Obama was a hot air balloon while Porkulus, ObamaCare, Frank-Dodd, & his EPA regulations was the pin to pop him. In the aftermath, nothing was left of Obama. No wonder he needs a teleprompter.

    Comment by Sebastian Shaw — October 13, 2011 @ 5:46 pm - October 13, 2011

  13. Hi Eric,

    Either own them, or ignore them.

    I think I will take the excluded middle on that one, and suggest again, that there is a wide range of opinion on what is required within OWS (one of its signature characteristics), and I haven’t seen widespread calls for the rich to be put up against the wall and shot (I don’t see Mathews doing that in the excerpt you posted-(thank you for the excerpt), though I grant that his two examples of “radical” solutions did end up in armed conflict that engaged much of society at the time. “Radical” change doesn’t necessarily mean widespread violence (e.g., I am sure many Conservatives see the New Deal as a “radical” reordering of society). And again, I am patient enough to wait and see what transpires–so I have not made up my mind as you have that OWS is a violent “movement” preaching the violent overthrow of the established order, no matter what some individuals within it are saying.

    Comment by Cas — October 13, 2011 @ 6:30 pm - October 13, 2011

  14. Another thread smeared with the tired, tortured ‘reasoning’ that is excreted by the Cas-hole.
    I’d comment further, but I’m very busy soliciting donations to establish a trust that will be devoted to paying off the college loan debt of those poor OWS snowflakes who have been, according to Cas-hole, disadvantaged by a system that “……favours a smaller class of individuals to a greater extent than it does others in society (as well as being at the expense of others).
    Cry me a f***in river!
    On second thought, I’ll be busy working to provide for myself, my family, and (as the need arises and I am able) my friends, neighbors and even the occasional stranger-as I have done all of my adult life.
    Would that those spoiled, addle-brained parasites that the Cas-hole holds in such measured regard would do the same. It would go a long way to fixing many of the ‘problems’ that they whine about.

    Comment by Jman1961 — October 13, 2011 @ 7:35 pm - October 13, 2011

  15. “constitutional representative democracy which regulates an economic system based on capitalism” actually favours a smaller class of individuals to a greater extent than it does others in society (as well as being at the expense of others)

    I really can not parse this. I am fairly certain that this is a charge of inequality.

    Inequality is a natural condition. One bull elk has a harem because he can fend off all the young bucks and beat out the occasional bull elk that is his equal and attempting to double the size of his harem. The highly vaunted American Indian tribe gave obedience to the chief. Apple is feeling the loss of Steve Jobs.

    But I smell inequality measured by undefined “fairness” and “basic rights” and other wisps of sentimental feel-good tripe. I further imagine receivers measuring the beneficence of the givers and grading their charity in terms of how much it fall short of satisfying the wants of the receiver.

    Warren Buffet and the entire GE company could be cashed in on Friday and their entire accumulated wealth used to offset the deficit in this year’s pretend budget and it would still be in deficit. Not one penny would be left over to provide a single sheet of Kleenex for a sorrowing socialist OWS wannabe.

    Wealth redistribution is always accomplished through government policy. The little guy in the United States gets food, housing, education, medical care, training, earned income credit and much more because the government taxes the 53% who don’t live on welfare and transfers globs of wealth confiscated through taxes to those who do. The 12 year old on welfare in the United States has a completely different definition of poverty than the 12 year old Somali.

    Now, if a person is the CEO of Disney and he rakes in millions in salary, bonuses and stock options, what is the beef? Sure, he has more money than he can figure out how to spend, but so what? Are there not bull elk surrounding him and ready to take his perks 24/7? And if he is keeping Disney cooking, isn’t he responsible for many thousands of employees being able to depend on their job security? If the employees keep Disney cooking, are they not responsible for tens of thousands of jobs of suppliers, hospitality workers, food industry, manufacturers, etc. that augment the Disney brand?

    So, how does a genius and guru sit down and decide who to punish through excessive taxation? What is the definition of corporate greed? If Bank of America is sitting on huge piles of cash, it is largely because they can not find entrepreneurs with low enough risk profiles to loan it to. How, exactly, does a bank earn income on money sitting idle?

    Try as I might, I can not find any sensible grievance in these Wall Street occupiers. I would like one (and one only) grievance carefully explained.

    Comment by Heliotrope — October 13, 2011 @ 7:44 pm - October 13, 2011

  16. Lori Heine,
    “The OWS movement needs to figure out a way not to slaughter the golden goose. Which is really not the mega-billionaires or the bloated unions. It is the very middle-class entrepreneurs they haven’t figured out how to keep from destroying with the firepower they think they’re aiming at “the rich.””

    Exactly.

    Comment by Richard Bell — October 13, 2011 @ 9:59 pm - October 13, 2011

  17. #15 – “How, exactly, does a bank earn income on money sitting idle?”

    When the federal reserve comes up with a policy that the banks would be stupid not to take advantage of?

    Comment by Richard Bell — October 13, 2011 @ 10:06 pm - October 13, 2011

  18. Can’t help notice, Cas, that the Occutwats have iPads and laptops. I don’t. I have a seven year old Compaq desktop. Don’t have a Kindle either. Gotta come up with a grand to pay for school somehow. Will the bleeding vages demanding student loan forgiveness spot me a few bucks? When will the Occutwats redistribute their wealth?

    How can they get away with, and be taken seriously, when they won’t do what they demand?

    Comment by TGC — October 14, 2011 @ 12:06 am - October 14, 2011

  19. Hi HT & RB,

    If Bank of America is sitting on huge piles of cash, it is largely because they can not find entrepreneurs with low enough risk profiles to loan it to. How, exactly, does a bank earn income on money sitting idle?

    If you check out an interesting post on why OWS folks are ticked off, you can see an answer to your question: Basically banks borrow money from the Fed at zero interest, and park it in government bonds (and at the Fed) at above zero interest, to make risk free returns. This is what is a plank of bank profits since the financial collapse. They could lend to entrepreneurs but that is risky, in an economy with depressed demand. Why not make money the easy way…? I think you are right RB, though I think this policy is deliberate as an effort to help banks recapitalize after their mostrously stupid exposure to CDOs, etc.

    Anyway, HT, the link makes a case as to why the OWS folks are ticked off. You might find it helpful, or not, in clarifying your question as to “what grievances and why.” I would add, that one slide that is missing is the graph that points out the relative share of those who pay the most taxes in terms of what they get (relative to the rest of society) in terms of subsidies and tax write-offs. That would make for interesting viewing.

    As for inequality–I think that is part of OWS folks’ issues, in so far as inequality of income and wealth also means (in our representative democracy) inequality of political access and opportunities to address political or economic grievances within the system. Poor people have little influence in Washington for the most part, since lobbying costs a lot of money, and sizable monetary donations buys political access.

    Comment by Cas — October 14, 2011 @ 12:24 am - October 14, 2011

  20. They could lend to entrepreneurs but that is risky, in an economy with depressed demand.

    If you were getting your ass handed to you by the same dipshits who forced you loan to people with no income, would you loan money to anybody?

    Comment by TGC — October 14, 2011 @ 12:48 am - October 14, 2011

  21. BTW, I want to #Occupy Legoland, which opens this week. Will your Occutwats finance that?

    Comment by TGC — October 14, 2011 @ 12:49 am - October 14, 2011

  22. I would add, that one slide that is missing is the graph that points out the relative share of those who pay the most taxes in terms of what they get (relative to the rest of society) in terms of subsidies and tax write-offs. That would make for interesting viewing.

    Indeed it would.

    Because what it would show is that those who get the most in terms of subsidies and tax write-offs are those individuals who pay no taxes at all.

    Simple logic. Nearly half of American taxpayers earn money, but receive sufficient subsidy and writeoffs from the government that they pay no income taxes — which means they receive 100% subsidy. In several cases, they receive refunds greater than the amount they contributed, which means they receive more than 100% subsidy of their tax bill.

    In contrast, a businessperson who receives a $5k writeoff on a $25k tax bill receives only a 20% subsidy. She still owes $20k, where Cas owes nothing.

    Furthermore, Cas and its fellow OWS Obama Party redistributionists whine about how everybody funds police, firefighters, teachers, roads, and so forth.

    However, what we see here is that Cas and its fellow OWS Obama redistributionists in fact fund nothing — since they are actually subsidized 100% or more by the government, and either owe nothing in taxes or receive refund checks larger than the amounts they owed.

    Only the businessperson who pays taxes is actually paying for police, firefighters, teachers, roads, and so forth; Cas and its fellow OWS Obama redistributionists are getting police, firefighters, teachers, roads, and so forth for free.

    And yet Cas whines and screams and cries about “inequality” and that the businessperson is not paying her fair share — while Cas and its fellow OWS Obama Party redistributionists pay nothing.

    To add insult to industry, the businessperson who actually is paying the taxes is not eligible for the myriad of giveaways — free health insurance, welfare checks, food stamps, and so forth — that those like Cas and its fellow OWS Obama Party redistributionists receive gratis from the government without paying a single tax dollar.

    Cas and the OWS Obama Party redistributionists have a very simple definition of “fair share” ; they pay nothing, you pay everything for them.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 14, 2011 @ 1:20 am - October 14, 2011

  23. And frankly, this was the most hilarious example of how Cas simply blathers incoherently.

    Basically banks borrow money from the Fed at zero interest, and park it in government bonds (and at the Fed) at above zero interest, to make risk free returns.

    First off, there is no such thing as borrowing money from the Fed at zero interest, as anyone who looks at the actual rates (especially the discount window) can see.

    Second off, a few weeks ago, remember what silly Cas whined to try to “prove” that there was no such thing as inflation?

    But commodity inflation should find its way into higher inflation figures and a greater spread on longer term treasury rates in any case. And higher nominal wages, without which hyperinflation is IMPOSSIBLE. So, what evidence do you have for any of these ILC? Currently, inflation adjusted bonds are trading at ZERO.

    So again, Cas itself whined that bonds were trading at zero — which means, given the facts laid out here, that Cas is arguing that banks are borrowing money from the Fed at 0.75% interest to purchase bonds with zero to negative interest.

    This really shows you the lack of intelligence that undergirds the statements and behavior of Cas and the OWS Obama Party. It is a simple matter to look up the assertion made in Cas’s article that the Fed is charging zero interest and determine immediately that it is a fallacy. But again, Cas is not interested in facts, only in pushing the leftist narrative, no matter how foolish and ignorant it makes Cas look.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 14, 2011 @ 1:33 am - October 14, 2011

  24. Basically banks borrow money from the Fed at zero interest, and park it in government bonds (and at the Fed) at above zero interest, to make risk free returns.

    Congratulations. You’ve just made the argument to abolish the federal reserve.

    Comment by The_Livewire — October 14, 2011 @ 7:50 am - October 14, 2011

  25. Cas,

    You are peddling awfully hard and going nowhere fast in your effort to “imagine” what this disparate group of hippies, malcontents, druggies, union sponsored rent-a-mob protestors and others have as their core grievance.

    Every one of us can write a manure pile full of imaginings of who these people are and what they want. But you really take the cake. Do you sincerely believe that this clown car of misfits is any different from the economic summit anarchists who gather together to cause mayhem?

    These people are the prototypes of Lenin’s useful idiots. They are Hitler’s brown shirts. They are Pol Pots teenaged marauders. They are the demagogue’s bearers of pitchforks and torches.

    On 4/3/2009 Politico reported:

    Arrayed around a long mahogany table in the White House state dining room last week, the CEOs of the most powerful financial institutions in the world offered several explanations for paying high salaries to their employees — and, by extension, to themselves. (….)

    But President Barack Obama wasn’t in a mood to hear them out. He stopped the conversation and offered a blunt reminder of the public’s reaction to such explanations. “Be careful how you make those statements, gentlemen. The public isn’t buying that.”

    “My administration,” the president added, “is the only thing between you and the pitchforks.”

    And now we have a fairly well tamed (so far) group of malcontents who are apparently in a rage over how Wall Street operates, but can not pinpoint simple examples of what needs correcting.

    And Cas decides to explain how Bank of America would rather sit on tons of cash rather than loan it to high risk people. If you have solid credit and a solid business plan, this is the ideal time to borrow and the banks have plenty to loan. What, pray tell, does that tell any sentient human being? It tells me that Fannie/Freddie and Dodd/Frank and TARP burned the banks so thoroughly that they would rather go along on debit card charges until the economy picks up and the whole uncertainty of waves of burdensome regulation and Obamacare unknowns subside.

    Cas: I am out of the market. I am investing in necessities for the long haul and for sustaining my family from harm caused by food insecurity, thieves, malevolent goonies and a crippled infrastructure. Call me crazy, but I would rather laugh at myself when good times return than to be the one screaming for the welfare goose to come lay an egg on my table.

    I look at these occupiers and I see a mob. I look at the TEA Party crowd and I see compatriots who will band together and help one another when the government fails. I look at the occupiers and I see the chaos in Egypt where the government has just 30 days of money left to import the 50% of the food consumed in the country. The occupiers have no common decency that unites them. Hard working people are too busy to run off on a lark to “occupy” a dumb park for weeks on end.

    Maybe, Cas, you could show up at Wall Street and organize the talent into cells that actually know how to survive the anarchy they hope to impose. You see, Cas, the manipulators who are prodding the useful idiots know full well that the malcontents who are engaged in this theater of doom will have to be eliminated sooner or later anyway. 50% of the population sucks off the the other 50% and especially the socialist leadership is fully aware that the lower classes have to be contained.

    You Marxist fools have little understanding of human nature. You are so stoked up one your utopian highs that you believe some sort of benevolent police state will hand feed you and comb your hair and load you up with self esteem. That is poverty at its worst. It is poverty of spirit and that is a depression that is hard to cure.

    Comment by Heliotrope — October 14, 2011 @ 11:28 am - October 14, 2011

  26. they are unhappy with the economic-political structure of this country as a whole

    Because the country doesn’t give them endless unearned goodies, acting as their fantasy Mommy-Daddy who caters to their every wish. As that one guy made clear, the other day.

    They almost universally thought that government was owned by “corporations”

    Close, but sadly inverted: it is more corporations which are increasingly owned by the government.

    and uber-rich individuals

    …most of whom, at least in America, are Democrats. I.e., Big Government leftists, who have realized it isn’t necessary to nationalize property literally (or at least not immediately). I.e., fascists.

    Demand three: Guaranteed living wage income regardless of employment.

    … they want equal pay for unequal work… we can extrapolate what “fair” means to Cas et al, which is simply that they work at their convenience and under their own terms and conditions, with a guaranteed salary regardless of skill required, time spent, value produced, or quality of output.

    NDT, exactly. The one group in this country that deserves, and rightly gets, a “guaranteed living wage income regardless of employment” is: BABIES. These people are living a slightly different form of Stanley Thornton, Jr.’s ‘adult baby’ fantasy.

    I grant that there are elements of OWS that would like to see the capitalism (and even the constitutional democracy) stripped out

    … and, whilst thusly granting it, you apparently feel NO outrage about it. That’s interesting.

    If you check out an interesting post on why OWS folks are ticked off, you can see an answer to your question: Basically banks borrow money from the Fed at zero interest yadda yadda…

    Difficult to parse the point here – since the provided link in reality states what HENRY BLODGET is ticked off about, giving NO actual information about OWS – but I think the point is trying to say that OWS may be ticked off over Big Banking getting bailouts. If true, then OWS and I would agree on something there. *But the OWS philosophy, the philosophy stated by actual OWS protestors and not Henry Blodget, is: more bailouts for us! Why aren’t the bailouts going more to us?*

    That is a large difference between Tea Party and OWS. Tea Party looks at the bailouts and says: This isn’t right, because it violates personal responsibility. Nothing is free, the bailouts come at the expense of savers and producers, and no way are the incompetents entitled to them. Let the incompetents fail; that’s real capitalism. While OWS looks at the bailouts and says: This isn’t right, because we’re not the ones being bailed out. We demand to be given money to live out our Adult Baby fantasies. If we aren’t given it, we’ll poop all over your parks! and cop cars!

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 14, 2011 @ 12:11 pm - October 14, 2011

  27. BTW, I want to #Occupy Legoland

    Heh :-)

    They could lend to entrepreneurs but that is risky, in an economy with depressed demand with an ever-growing government that threatens entrepreneurs with ever-increasing burdens, future confiscation and other oppression.

    FIFY, Cas.

    “My administration,” the president added, “is the only thing between you and the pitchforks.”

    Just wondering Heliotrope, did you ever read The Ninth Wave by Eugene Burdick? It’s novel from the 50s, kind of a potboiler but better-written than you might think, about a power-seeking operative who, among other things, intimidates his Big Money donors with lines much like the above.

    You Marxist fools have little understanding of human nature. You are so stoked up one your utopian highs that you believe some sort of benevolent police state will hand feed you and comb your hair and load you up with self esteem. That is poverty at its worst. It is poverty of spirit and that is a depression that is hard to cure.

    Perfect!

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 14, 2011 @ 12:44 pm - October 14, 2011

  28. #19: “They could lend to entrepreneurs but that is risky, in an economy with depressed demand.”

    Another contradiction in the leftist narrative: leftists like Cas have spent years complaining about evil corporations making ‘obscene profits’ selling people things ‘they don’t want or need,’ but suddenly today the problem with the economy is ‘depressed demand’ and it can ONLY be cured with more handouts to people so they can buy all of those same things from evil corporations that they ‘don’t want or need.’ Fu*king idiots and losers, all (especially YOU, Cas).

    Comment by Sean A — October 14, 2011 @ 4:14 pm - October 14, 2011

  29. Yup – lefties are getting exactly what they always advocated: a world that is super-regulated, “fair”, “green”, with public health care, etc. And THIS is what it looks like: Obama’s Depression. It’s inevitable, a function of cause and effect. But they don’t give a whit about that. They fault everyone else (starting with banks and entrepreneurs) for not having repealed cause and effect – that is, for not having saved lefties from themselves.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 14, 2011 @ 5:07 pm - October 14, 2011

  30. ILC,

    I loved and still love Fail-Safe and The Ugly American by Burdick, but I will have to get a copy of The Ninth Wave. Thank you for the recommendation. Pot boiler or not, Burdick had Eric Blair’s (Orwell) training and understanding of how the dreamers can be steamrolled or manipulated by the political elites. [One leftist critic of Blair noted: (he gives a) "successful impersonation of a plain man who bumps into experience in an unmediated way and tells the truth about it." Well, shucks. Nothing so disappointing than a successful "naif" who must be explained away by the self-anointed elite.]

    Comment by Heliotrope — October 14, 2011 @ 7:34 pm - October 14, 2011

  31. Hi HT & ILC,

    HT,

    imagine

    I would point out HT that you are the only one using that word, and mostly, it is folks on the right (i.e., this blog) who are trying to divine the revolutionary import of these folks. As I have said before–they appear united by feelings of “unfairness” as vague as that might seem, HT (without the second order qualifications that you would like to pin it down). As for stocking up for the coming end of days, you might get a chuckle at some of what goes on at Clusterfuck Nation.

    I am as much a Marxist as you are a fascist.

    ILC,

    but I think the point is trying to say that OWS may be ticked off over Big Banking getting bailouts. If true, then OWS and I would agree on something there. *But the OWS philosophy, the philosophy stated by actual OWS protestors and not Henry Blodget, is: more bailouts for us! Why aren’t the bailouts going more to us?*

    Then you really missed the point, ILC. Because the point is simply a question of perceived inequalities in the way in which people are treated according to a political system that is perceived as broken, serving first and foremost, the interests of the owners of concentrated capital aka, the wealthy. If the rich get a bailout–why not the not-rich? And that is the point, ILC. OWS sentiment holds that “the system” supports those who have wealth and money, and turns its back on those who do not. So why not provide relief for these “not-rich”? Whether you agree with that sentiment or not–that sentiment is what is driving these folks. So, pooh-pooh away, but the article mostly makes clear why they hold this sentiment.

    And as for the horse-hockey concerning fascism-you get to own that one as a pathology of the right, ILC, no matter what Goldberg and others might say to the contrary. As I said before (and our as yet unfinished conversation…), do not think that authoritarianism is just a derangement of the extreme left; it lives as a virulent pathology on the extreme right as well..

    Comment by Cas — October 14, 2011 @ 10:10 pm - October 14, 2011

  32. I am as much a Marxist as you [HT] are a fascist.

    Yes and no. I would agree that, in the realm of economics, Cas, you are in fact a fascist, rather than a marxist. But leftists in general exaggerate the distance between fascism and marxism. Both are left-wing movements i.e. species of socialism, where the latter is defined (broadly, but still rightly) as the provision of private goods by public means, including central planning. Fascism is merely that sub-species of socialism which recognizes that outright expropriation of private property is administratively inefficient and unnecessary to achieve the aims of socialism; instead, it achieves the aims of socialism by burdening private property with so many mandates that the substantive powers of ownership (the ability to decide what to actually do with the property) is transferred to the State/public de facto.

    No less an authority (on both fascism and marxism) than Adolf Hitler acknowledged the underlying truth of that when he said, “Basically, national socialism and marxism are the same.”

    Then you really missed the point, ILC.

    Whatever. As I said already, you made it difficult to parse – including that link whose contents you misrepresented. Congratulations, your mission is to obfuscate and I am telling you – twice now – that you succeeded well.

    Because the point is simply a question of perceived inequalities in the way in which people are treated… If the rich get a bailout–why not the not-rich?

    Wait a tick. I did get it, after all. I got it EXACTLY. I merely stated it in my own words:

    the OWS philosophy, the philosophy stated by actual OWS protestors and not Henry Blodget, is: more bailouts for us! Why aren’t the bailouts going more to us?

    So I take back what I said. You didn’t succeed in your mission to obfuscate. You’re merely in the phase now where you play word games, to try to pretend you succeeded.

    authoritarianism is just a derangement of the extreme left; it lives as a virulent pathology on the extreme right

    Not really… not these days. Right-wing authoritarianism looks like this: monarchism, Catholic Church dictatatorship, etc. Not many are left, in today’s world, who advocate that.

    Look – I know it pains you to realize (or to have pointed out) that fascism is, in fact, a left-wing movement – and that you, Cas, are in fact a fascist in the realm of economics – but I am afraid that is not my problem. I am here to tell the truth.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 15, 2011 @ 1:49 am - October 15, 2011

  33. Rocky Suhayda, then-chairman of the American Nazi Party, proclaims in 2008 his sympathy for Obama over McCain:

    “White people are faced with either a negro or a total nutter who happens to have a pale face. Personally I’d prefer the negro. National Socialists are not mindless haters. Here, I see a white man, who is almost dead, who declares he wants to fight endless wars around the globe to make the world safe for Judeo-capitalist exploitation, who supports the invasion of America by illegals–basically a continuation of the last eight years of Emperor Bush. Then, we have a black man, who loves his own kind… that’s the kind of negro that I can respect… Besides, America cares nothing for the interests of the white American worker…

    Obviously, Suhayda has sympathy for the “worker” and if he simply must choose between his racism and his socialism, he goes in the end with his socialism. Likewise Tom Metzger, of the White Aryan Resistance:

    “The corporations are running things now, so it’s not going to make much difference who’s in there, but McCain would be much worse. He’s a warmonger… Obama, according to his book, Dreams Of My Father, is a racist and I have no problem with black racists. I’ve got the quote right here: ‘I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother’s white race.’… I don’t hate black people… See, I’m a leftist. I’m not a rightist. I hate the transnational corporations far more than any black person.”

    There are more examples; one could continue easily, in this vein. Point made. Good luck living in your own world, Cas, where you try to pretend that fascism isn’t left-wing – and that your economic program somehow doesn’t bear a remarkable similarity to fascism’s.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 15, 2011 @ 2:04 am - October 15, 2011

  34. My final thought here for the night – re-reading the Metzger quote, it could have come from most any white person at OWS.

    In other words, I bet that the whites at OWS would, if you gave them a little friendly grilling, admit that they also respect or at least “understand” black racists. And the rest of it… “The corporations are running things… [political party] is not going to make much difference… [but] I’m a leftist… I hate the transnational corporations” – that is pure OWS.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 15, 2011 @ 2:18 am - October 15, 2011

  35. Because the point is simply a question of perceived inequalities in the way in which people are treated according to a political system that is perceived as broken, serving first and foremost, the interests of the owners of concentrated capital aka, the wealthy.

    Oh? And why does Cas think that?

    Answer: Because, if all wealth comes from the government, as both Cas and Elizabeth Warren believe, then the fact that someone else has more than you do “proves” that the distribution system is broken.

    However, when the government forcibly redistributes wealth from taxpayers to Obama Party-owned corporations to benefit and enrich Obama Party elite members and their families, such as Nancy Pelosi, George Miller, and Barack Obama, Cas, Elizabeth Warren, and the OWS Obama Party seemingly have nothing to say.

    Why? Because Cas and the OWS Obama Party are not against “inequality”; they want and support “inequality” where they get everything and everyone else gets nothing. That is their whole point — they want to take, take, take from everyone else, and give and do nothing in return.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 15, 2011 @ 2:33 am - October 15, 2011

  36. Hi ILC,
    As I suggested in our last foray into the issue of fascism, you have yet to explain why the German Officer Corps was willing to support Hitler–unless, you really think they are going to follow a left wing extremist organization lead them. Sorry, no dice. If you want to selectively quote Hitler, be my guest, but then you might as well ignore post 1933 German history as well to make your point. Further, you want to “obfuscate” the issue by claiming that:

    Fascism is merely that sub-species of socialism which recognizes that outright expropriation of private property is administratively inefficient and unnecessary to achieve the aims of socialism; instead, it achieves the aims of socialism by burdening private property with so many mandates that the substantive powers of ownership (the ability to decide what to actually do with the property) is transferred to the State/public de facto.

    Where to start. How about the fact that the definition of Marxist socialism calls for the expropriation of property, not the “burdening of regulations.” You can claim that these two things are “equal” but they are of different kind. They are not the same thing. I am sorry, private enterprise did very well under Hitler (far greater rate of growth then liberal democracies in the 30s). That is one of the cool things about crushing dissent and things like unions–oh, wait, that is a favourite tactic of the extreme right!

    Did Stalinist Russia do these things, yes they did, but in that case, there was no Krupps, et al to take advantage of it, just the state. German capitalists supported Hitler as well, ILC, as he came to power. Oh yes, Ford Motor Company? Opel? I vaguely remember something about that… Capitalism doesn’t mind regulation if it can still make a profit, and German (and US) capitalists made money in Nazi Germany even with regulation. And if you want to argue that they sold their soul to the devil, by all means do so, but your critique, ILC is one aimed at totalitarianism in general, not the supposedly socialist nature of fascism. You are arguing that Leninist socialism (nee Stalinism) and fascism are totalitarian positions. We agree with each other. The other claims you make is just muddying the waters. Can we say that fascism shared some elements with fascism? Yes we can. But I might as well say that OWS folks (or liberals) are really conservatives because they might share one or two traits with conservatives on this site.

    And as for this exchange:

    Because the point is simply a question of perceived inequalities in the way in which people are treated… If the rich get a bailout–why not the not-rich?

    Wait a tick. I did get it, after all. I got it EXACTLY. I merely stated it in my own words:

    the OWS philosophy, the philosophy stated by actual OWS protestors and not Henry Blodget, is: more bailouts for us! Why aren’t the bailouts going more to us?

    Yeah, they are exactly the same if you ignore the point I raised about the perceived unfair political structure that favours the wealthy, and, the bailouts the owners of concentrated capital received as a consequence of that political situation. Yeah, really, quite the same.

    Comment by Cas — October 15, 2011 @ 3:09 am - October 15, 2011

  37. As I suggested in our last foray into the issue of fascism, you have yet to explain why the German Officer Corps was willing to support Hitler

    Really? Since I often don’t have time to read-and-correct your endless errors (as you know well), I probably never saw that bit. No matter.

    Actually Cas, no I don’t have to explain it, because you SHOULD already know, just from history and common sense. I know, I know – you deficiency in both of those has been demonstrated time and again – so here is the lesson for you. First, Hitler was the legally elected Chancellor of Germany (and just a bit later, President). They were constitutionally bound to support him. They had sworn oaths. Later, they did disagree with many of his moves – but the seeming success of those moves made it hard for opposition to gain critical mass, and by then, Hitler was purging dissidents (including from military ranks) and watching the rest via secret police. By the time they started trying to assassinate Hitler, he was able to purge conspirators efficiently and it was too late.

    Your point, as ignorant and badly stated as it is, does manage indirectly to touch on the one major remaining difference between the American Left and fascism: that, notwithstanding the fact that *left-wing* leaders like Charles Rangel periodically try to re-instate the draft, the American Left is, by and large, still anti-military. I touched on it myself, just yesterday. Here is what I said yesterday:

    So, once more… if you take the leftists’ socialism… their appeals to nation-as-family (“we’re all one community”, “it’s patriotic to pay taxes”, “patriotic Americans will wait in line for medical treatments”, etc.)… their anti-Semitism… and their authoritarianism (“it’s time for Obama to suspend the Constitution to put down Congressional rebellion”, etc.)… how are they different from fascists?

    Don’t say racism because they are racist, too. It’s just that their racism runs in an anti-white direction. Perhaps you could still say they are anti-military.

    Do you have anything (meaningful or remotely valid) to add to that? Other than being anti-military, how are today’s American leftists – as they are in fact anti-democracy, racist, anti-Semitic, and of course, in favor of national socialism – philosophically different from Spanish, German or Italian fascists?

    unless, you really think [the military is] going to follow a left wing extremist organization

    I certainly do think it. There are major, repeated historical precedents for it. See Communist Russia, Communist China, Communist North Korea, Fascist Spain, Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany. Oh wait, I forgot: You don’t care about facts or evidence. Forgive me for mentioning them.

    How about the fact that the definition of Marxist socialism calls for the expropriation of property

    Operative word, ***MARXIST***.

    Seriously Cas – How dumb are you? How many times do I have to explain this? I will make one more effort.

    1) Socialism, in the broad sense, is a genus. The genus is: systems of political economy that seek to provide private goods by governmental means.
    2) Marxism/communism is a species of the genus, socialism. The differentia is: it is that species which emphasizes its heritage from Marx and the abolition of private property, and which pretends to internationalism.
    3) Fascism is another species of the genus, socialism. The differentia is: it is that species which emphasizes government command of the economy with only partial expropriation of property, and which does not pretend to internationalism.

    OK? Clear enough, even for you this time?

    private enterprise did very well under Hitler

    No, it didn’t. Private property was abolished de facto by government mandates that maintain forms of private property in many instances, but that transferred the substantive power of ownership – namely, the power to decide what to do with the property – to the government. You know, Cas, EXACTLY THE ECONOMIC SYSTEM YOU WANT. You should be able to recognize your system, when it is put into practice someplace. Oh wait, I forgot: You don’t care about facts or evidence. Forgive me for mentioning them.

    crushing dissent and things like unions

    Hitler only crushed the Communist unions. He had the support of his own (i.e., pro-Nazi) unions and workers. His party was, after all, the National SOCIALIST German WORKERS’ Party.

    German capitalists supported Hitler as well

    No, they didn’t. By “capitalist” I assume you mean: those who support free enterprise under the smallest possible government. Those people absolutely did not support Hitler. It is true that some German *business* people supported Hitler. But, as capitalism is by definition a political ideology, “business person” and “capitalist” are not one and the same. Oh wait, I forgot – You don’t care about good definitions; your way is to commit fallacies of equivocation i.e. to misuse words right and left. Please forgive me for mentioning it.

    Capitalism doesn’t mind regulation if it can still make a profit

    Obviously Cas, you don’t know jack about capitalist ideology. But we already knew that.

    The other claims you make is just muddying the waters.

    You’re projecting again, Cas. Most of your comments are so intellectually muddled, so pathetically confused, they’re unparseable.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 15, 2011 @ 5:09 am - October 15, 2011

  38. To be clear on “capitalism is by definition a political ideology” – more precisely, it is a system of political economy that seeks to provide private goods by non-governmental means, maintaining individual rights to life, liberty and property including the right of the individual to dispose of her legally acquired property. As such, capitalism contrasts against socialism and its sub-species, such as communism and fascism.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 15, 2011 @ 5:20 am - October 15, 2011

  39. And of course, on its right flank, capitalism contrasts against feudalism or other systems that employ forms of slavery.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 15, 2011 @ 5:28 am - October 15, 2011

  40. Gotta remark once more on how I love this bit of Cas bullsh*t:

    How about the fact that the definition of Marxist socialism calls for the expropriation of property?

    Cas herself felt the need to introduce the modifier “Marxist” onto “socialist”. Thus conceding implicitly that socialism is NOT only Marxism or the expropriation of property; Marxism is only a species/type of socialism, as I’ve been saying. But hoping to just slip that modifier in to muddy the waters, without my noticing the giant concession it requires and implies. That’s Cas.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 15, 2011 @ 6:07 am - October 15, 2011

  41. I got to thinking about Eric Hoffer’s The True Believer and I found that John Hawkins had done a good job of listing quotes from that important work. Here are a few:

    It is the true believer’s ability to “shut his eyes and stop his ears” to facts that do not deserve to be either seen or heard which is the source of his unequaled fortitude and constancy. He cannot be frightened by danger nor disheartened by obstacle not baffled by contradictions because he denies their existence. — P.76

    An active mass movement rejects the present and centers its interest on the future. It is from this attitude that it derives its strength, for it can proceed recklessly with the present — with the health, wealth, and lives of its followers. But it must act as if it had already read the book of the future to the last word. Its doctrine is proclaimed as a key to that book. — P.78

    Mass movements can rise and spread without belief in a God, but never without belief in a devil. Usually the strength of a mass movement is proportionate to the vividness and tangibility of its devil. — P.86

    Common hatred unites the most heterogeneous elements. To share a common hatred, with an enemy even, is to infect him with a feeling of kinship, and thus sap his powers of resistance. — P.87

    Again, like an idea deity, the ideal devil is omnipotent and omnipresent. — P.87

    The truth seems to be that propaganda on its own cannot force its way into unwilling minds; neither can it inculcate something wholly new; nor can it keep people persuaded once they have ceased to believe. It penetrates only into minds already open, and rather than instill opinion it articulates and justifies opinions already present in the minds of its recipients. The gifted propagandist brings to a boil ideas and passions already simmering in the minds of its hearers. He echoes their innermost feelings. Where opinion is coerced, people can be made to believe only in what they already “know.” — P.98

    No matter how vital we think the role of leadership in the rise of a mass movement, there is no doubt that the leader cannot create the conditions which make the rise of a movement possible. He cannot conjure a movement out of the void. There has to be an eagerness to follow and obey, and an intense dissatisfaction with things as they are, before movement and leader can make their appearance. — P.103

    The quality of ideas seems to play a minor role in mass movement leadership. What counts is the arrogant gesture, the complete disregard of the opinion of others, the singlehanded defiance of the world. — P.107

    Self-contempt, however vague, sharpens our eyes for the imperfections of others. We usually strive to reveal in others the blemishes we hide in ourselves. — P.114

    Knowing themselves continually watched, the fanciful strive to escape suspicion by adhering zealously to prescribed behavior and opinion. Strict orthodoxy is as much the result of mutual suspicion as of ardent faith. — P.114

    Mass movement do not usually rise until the prevailing order has been discredited. The discrediting is not an automatic result of the blunders and abuses of those in power, but the deliberate work of men of words with a grievance. — P.119

    Things are different in the case of the typical man of words. The masses listen to him because they know his words, however urgent, cannot have immediate results. The authorities either ignore him or use mild methods to muzzle him. Thus imperceptibly the man of words undermines the established institutions, discredits those in power, weakens the prevailing beliefs and loyalties, and sets the stage for the rise of a mass movement. — P.120

    Notice how the OWS crowd has so readily bought into “twinkle fingers” and the chorus that broadcasts the sentence fragments more as a robotic “call and respond” religious exercise than as any sort of critical attention.

    The OWS cadets are all engaged in street theater and the “unity” of dissension. Their wagging fingers are a Mardi Gras sort of conga line or mass chicken dance.

    Cas is one of these self-esteem challenged children who needs to find validation in the utopian future rather than to achieve satisfaction and comfort in the present.

    I wish I had a copy of Hoffer with me. He thought it through with great clarity and deep understanding of the lemmings who race after Marxism and its off shoots.

    Comment by Heliotrope — October 15, 2011 @ 11:22 am - October 15, 2011

  42. Yeah… this OWS meeting video is just a nightmare: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QZlp3eGMNI&feature=youtu.be

    Sorry if it was already posted. It’s worth watching in full, perhaps glancing at it while you do something else. They’re not violent… yet. But they are so devoid of individual identity, such an easily swayed and fickle group, that the right speaker could easily persuade them to sit back and condone violence – in the manner of, say, Nazi or Communist housewives. At best, these people represent a future in which nothing will ever get done; at worst, a future in which bad people reign supreme, as they will be the only ones allowed to get anything done.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 15, 2011 @ 12:56 pm - October 15, 2011

  43. Hi ILC,

    Actually Cas, no I don’t have to explain it, because you SHOULD already know, just from history and common sense

    It is clear that you have little actual understanding of post 1933 German history. IF you are interested, we can talk about it, otherwise, I am not going to waste my time. One area to research on, given your view of German history, would be the causality leading up to the Night of the Long Knives. You may wish to avail yourself of Craig’s excellent history of Germany as well.

    As for this:

    1) Socialism, in the broad sense, is a genus. The genus is: systems of political economy that seek to provide private goods by governmental means.
    2) Marxism/communism is a species of the genus, socialism. The differentia is: it is that species which emphasizes its heritage from Marx and the abolition of private property, and which pretends to internationalism.
    3) Fascism is another species of the genus, socialism. The differentia is: it is that species which emphasizes government command of the economy with only partial expropriation of property, and which does not pretend to internationalism.
    OK? Clear enough, even for you this time?

    You can assert anything you want ILC, but it doesn’t make it true. After all, socialism runs a broad gamut–from the totalitarian pathology of Stalinist/Leninist Communism, to the Scandinavian welfare state. For you, if they are “systems of political economy that seek to provide private goods by governmental means” that makes them pretty much all the same! And you get an attack of the vapours because I point to specific types of pathology, rather than throw ther whole kit and kaboodle out, as you desire as ….”SOCIALISM!!!!” What nonsense! I guess, under your definition, Adam Smith, who saw a role for government in the economy, is a socialist as well. And before you go all huffy about “private goods” the point of many right-leaning anarchist (libertarian) critiques is that so called public goods can be privately provided. So, firefighters and police can all be privatized, right? As they were in the past. And there are reasons why we turned them into publicly provided goods, ILC. Further, if you are going to tout “fascism” as “socialism” then why not tout it at the level of totalitarian intent as I have been doing? Or does that feel too hard to defend for you? You choose not to, because–well, I don’t really know why, apart from some silly desire to equate ALL forms of socialism as equally pathological (consistent with your ideological bent), then equate that farrago with fascism. And I think that is bogus–even if you don’t.

    Your defence of fascism as a “leftist” approach requires turning a blind-eye to the role of ideology. It also requires a mind-bending denial of the differences between fascism and socialism (or what I think you really equate it with: Stalinist/Leninist Communism, even if you don’t think so). You can claim all you want that “regulation” = “expropriation” or that just because fascism turns its back on internationalism and embraces extremist nationalist fervour, it isn’t any different from socialism, whose theoretical underpinnings (and actions over much of its history) abhor that kind of thinking. That is silly. These political ideologies are two separate approaches to dealing with the role of capital and business. What you cannot explain is that capitalism, even if aided by state direction, functioned very well in Nazi Germany. Ford did VERY WELL, thank you very much. And those profits certainly helped the US economy, especially after we got into that war to fight against the very equipment that we helped build in the first place…

    A related point: it is as if conservative organizations do not have any collectivist impulses (another of your big bugaboo differences between left and right). Or, if they do, well then, by golly, they are somehow different from the socialist collectivist impulses. Though what those differences are, well, buggered if I know…

    Comment by Cas — October 15, 2011 @ 6:00 pm - October 15, 2011

  44. I said @ #25:

    These people are the prototypes of Lenin’s useful idiots. They are Hitler’s brown shirts.

    At #43, Cas says:

    One area to research on, given your (ILC) view of German history, would be the causality leading up to the Night of the Long Knives.

    Precisely.

    Hitler unleashed the brown shirts and let them rampage as useful idiots will and allowed them to grow and prevail right up to the Rohm putsch (Night of the Long Knives) and then saved Germany from the cretans he bred and raised. (The Sturmabteilung (SA) were the paramilitary brown shirts also known as “stormtroupers.” Mussolini had the Black shirts, so Hitler followed his lead with the brown shirts.)

    Somehow, Cas entirely misses the point.

    Fascism. Cas wants to argue its fine points. Very good and well, but first let us stipulate that it is a term without any clear definition. Wikipedia stumbles around and finally offers this can of confused verbal salmagundi:

    One common definition of fascism focuses on three groups of ideas: the Fascist Negations of anti-liberalism, anti-communism and anti-conservatism; nationalist, authoritarian goals for the creation of a regulated economic structure to transform social relations within a modern, self-determined culture; a political aesthetic using romantic symbolism, mass mobilisation, a positive view of violence, promotion of masculinity and youth and charismatic leadership.

    One of the first rules of formal logic is never engage in debates over imprecise terms.

    Cas @ #43 says:

    Your (again, ILC) defence of fascism as a “leftist” approach requires turning a blind-eye to the role of ideology.

    What is particularly amusing here is the term “ideology.” Ideology is fairly benign in its definition: A set of ideas that constitutes ones goals, expectations, and actions.

    But then when a person acts on his ideology, he becomes an ideologue: an impractical idealist, theorist; an often blindly partisan advocate or adherent of a particular ideology.

    Ideology is a loaded word and like fascism has no common understanding of its meaning. To deal in loaded words, as Cas does, it to nip at the ankles of debate while acting as the moderator.

    Socialism comes in many stripes and intensity. The competing telephone companies made such a mess of lines in New York City at the beginning of the telephone age that the government soon created the public monopoly as a socialist entity to improve the service for all. Many government sanctioned and regulated services are socialist in nature and of great practical value. For many years, the US postal service was a fine socialist enterprise. Now, it is begging for junk mail to maintain its purpose and very existence. Public schools wage endless battles against vouchers which would permit parents to use tax dollars to send their kids to schools which the parents would rather choose. The greatest fear of Obamacare is that people will lose their option to seek medical care which they choose. And so on.

    Sweden is a socialist country that has rapidly back-pedaled from the level of socialism that nearly caused it to collapse in the 1980′s. England socialized its automobile companies and destroyed them. Please list the great technological innovations that have come out of France in the past quarter century. Socialism has the effect of creating a floor under poverty, but it also creates a ceiling at the same time. To move from the certainty and security of socialized poverty to the risk of better things is too great a leap for the timid and unskilled. Yet, it is the class in socialized poverty that fills the prisons, drops out of education, consumes and sells the bulk of illegal drugs and generally occupies the time and patience of the police. That is not spoken through prejudice, it is the fact of statistics.

    So, to play word games about socialism in a “mixed” economy as opposed to clear state socialism is a ruse. Bigger and bigger government regulating ever shrinking circles of free choice is socialist and dictatorial at its very core.

    Comment by Heliotrope — October 15, 2011 @ 9:21 pm - October 15, 2011

  45. Hi HT,

    Hitler unleashed the brown shirts and let them rampage as useful idiots will and allowed them to grow and prevail right up to the Rohm putsch (Night of the Long Knives) and then saved Germany from the cretans he bred and raised

    As regards Hitler’s aims in liquidating the SA, you might want to delve a little more deeply into why Hitler did that, then your simplistic explanation (which explains little with regards to the Reichswehr). As with ILC, I recommend Craig’s history of Modern Germany.

    Ideology is a loaded word and like fascism has no common understanding of its meaning. To deal in loaded words, as Cas does, it to nip at the ankles of debate while acting as the moderator.

    And so, HT offers a “common definition” of fascism (as a basis for logical argument), then promptly does nothing with it, but argue about the difference between ideology and ideologues (wherever that is going). Then chat about Sweden, though why, I can not say (and even here, let us agree politely to disagree, as we have done when we were engaged on that previous thread). Bravo. Well done, HT. You must be in one of your silly moods, I guess. And as much as you wish to lecture me on the differences between ideology and those who implement it, I notice you have little to say about the substantive points I raised about how well capitalism did in Nazi Germany, whether home-grown or not. What is MOST interesting is that your definition of fascism doesn’t seem to support any necessarily leftist origin of fascism, not forcible expropriation (whoops, I mean, “excessive regulation” of property.

    And since you have been scouting around for definitions of fascism, and in the spirit of knowing what it is one should be talking about, check out this, which is a pretty good read and builds upon your Wiki inspired desire for clarity:

    Fascism is a form of extreme right-wing ideology that celebrates the nation or the race as an organic community transcending all other loyalties. It emphasizes a myth of national or racial rebirth after a period of decline or destruction. To this end, fascism calls for a “spiritual revolution” against signs of moral decay such as individualism and materialism, and seeks to purge “alien” forces and groups that threaten the organic community. Fascism tends to celebrate masculinity, youth, mystical unity, and the regenerative power of violence. Often, but not always, it promotes racial superiority doctrines, ethnic persecution, imperialist expansion, and genocide. At the same time, fascists may embrace a form of internationalism based on either racial or ideological solidarity across national boundaries. [Hey, HT, see, there is some internationalism, but not that economic kind!] Usually fascism espouses open male supremacy, though sometimes it may also promote female solidarity and new opportunities for women of the privileged nation or race. …Fascism is hostile to Marxism, liberalism, and conservatism, yet it borrows concepts and practices from all three. Fascism rejects the principles of class struggle and workers’ internationalism as threats to national or racial unity, yet it often exploits real grievances against capitalists and landowners through ethnic scapegoating or radical-sounding conspiracy theories…. In practice, fascism defends capitalism against instability and the left, but also pursues an agenda that sometimes clashes with capitalist interests in significant ways

    As it stands, your definition, when expanded upon as I have invited you to go and read, is a clear critique of ILC’s views. Well at least, one can hold on to the fig leaf of equating “expropriation” = “regulation” as ILC has done; as long as you want to also claim that “up” is “down” … But please, do not let me stop you or ILC from doing so!

    Comment by Cas — October 15, 2011 @ 11:56 pm - October 15, 2011

  46. And so, HT offers a “common definition” of fascism (as a basis for logical argument), then promptly does nothing with it,

    I did no such thing. Here is what I wrote:

    Fascism. Cas wants to argue its fine points. Very good and well, but first let us stipulate that it is a term without any clear definition. Wikipedia stumbles around and finally offers this can of confused verbal salmagundi:

    Then I quoted Wikipedia.

    But thanks, Cas, for acting the mentor here. Your “concise” definition of fascism which you post proves the point. As to having to read Craig and then argue with the source you prefer is all tail chasing, topic shifting, typical liberal rolling, rambling bluster.

    Comment by Heliotrope — October 16, 2011 @ 7:12 am - October 16, 2011

  47. Hi HT,

    But thanks, Cas, for acting the mentor here.

    You are welcome.

    Then I quoted Wikipedia.

    Good for you, HT. Yes, of course, if one is doing a predicate logic assignment, one should clearly define one’s terms. However, in a conversation, sometimes we have to make do with the definitions we have, and even if it not “clear enough” for you, it is clear enough to see that it offers little support for ILC’s claims. And sometimes, even this kind of definition can be enough to stop folks like Goldberg and others making silly claims,such as fascism being a left-wing ideology.

    As to having to read Craig and then argue with the source you prefer is all tail chasing, topic shifting, typical liberal rolling, rambling bluster.

    Fine. What source do you use in dealing with post-1933 Germany? I may have read it. As I said to ILC, I am happy to talk to you, HT, about post-1933 German history, but if you are not interested, then I will not waste my time. And as for Craig, you might want to get off your, ah,… reliance on Wikipedia, and read one of the seminal works on the subject.

    Comment by Cas — October 16, 2011 @ 5:01 pm - October 16, 2011

  48. The reason is, Cas, is because if one reads your sources and points out your misquotes, you run away, as you did from this post.

    You have shown yourself to be even less reliable than Wikipedia. Why, then, should Heliotrope and ILC waste time validating your sources to find the inevitable misquotes, lies, and obfuscations you make?

    Heliotrope and ILC have demonstrated a considerable wealth of knowledge and understanding. You have repeatedly demonstrated the complete inability to do even basic research or read your sources. Frankly put, their time is too valuable to waste on you, especially when your only response is to drop into delusion and denial.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 16, 2011 @ 5:45 pm - October 16, 2011

  49. Thanks, NDT.

    I will not succumb to listing degrees, monographs written, chairs held, and all the other bushwah that turns logic upside down by the appeal to authority or the weight of accreditation and recognition. That is for those younger whelps who stomp away leaving a scented pile of disgust. But, I admit, I would rather like to give the Cas ears a good boxing.

    Apparently, my remonstrance to Cas for misreading my Wiki quote flew right over the head of said Cas. The Wiki “common definition” of fascism is convoluted enough without having to parse and sort through the garbage that Cas posted as a (better?) “definition” of fascism.

    Having been a contributing editor to a major modern dictionary, I can assure you that any word which needs more than twelve words of definition is a concept rife with qualifiers and not a benchmark noun, verb, adjective or adverb.

    S. I. Hayakawa once remarked:

    “By the definition accepted in the United States, any person with even a small amount of Negro Blood… is a Negro. Logically, it would be exactly as justifiable to say that any person with even a small amount of white blood is white. Why do they say one rather than the other? Because the former classification suits the convenience of those making the classification. Society, in short, regards as true those systems that produce the desired results. Science seeks only the most generally useful systems of classification; these it regards for the time being, until more useful classifications are invented, as true.”

    I kept this remark posted in my classroom for all to read, because it is both brilliant and humbling.

    There is no definition of fascism because it is mostly a pejorative term that is sweepingly applied at will to a particular use. It is unlike Marxism which is fully backed by tedious books of philosophy authored by its namesake.

    Wikipedia is not wholly a pop culture comic book encyclopedia. It does not bear the weight of The Britannica and justifiably so. But it is a remarkably good reference tool for the common vernacular if the person citing it has enough learning to recognize its shortcomings. I consider myself to be such a person. Had Wikipedia’s rather pathetic attempt to name the “common definition” of fascism failed me, I would not have quoted it as an example of the swamp in which the term is mired.

    That, of course was too subtle (so delicate or precise as to be difficult) for Cas. (I include the definition in the event that Cas is reading.)

    At any rate, NDT, thanks for picking up the gauntlet. I am past weary with the impertinent games Cas plays of move the goal post. In my early days, I was a fact checker for the publisher of William L. Shirer’s Rise and Fall of the Third Reich and in the process of checking that seminal work, I learned a great deal about the whole Rohm putsch and I kept up an interest in it. That is not to say that new research and well considered opinion is not of importance. But I learned too many decades ago not to jump on the latest trend in recasting cause and effect.

    Once again, NDT, thanks for intervening. I was nearing the point of choosing between two favorite cartoon characters. 1) Elmer Fudd who would “blow a gasket” and, 2) Sylvester the cat who would say: “Perchance you might take your silly a** problem down the hall to someone who gives a (****).”

    Comment by Heliotrope — October 16, 2011 @ 10:03 pm - October 16, 2011

  50. In my early days, I was a fact checker for the publisher of William L. Shirer’s Rise and Fall of the Third Reich and in the process of checking that seminal work, I learned a great deal about the whole Rohm putsch and I kept up an interest in it.

    LOL….so you are well familiar with a work that is heavily referenced in the one that Cas is misquoting.

    But, I admit, I would rather like to give the Cas ears a good boxing.

    Waste of effort, Heliotrope.

    As ILC has shown, Cas is impervious to facts, logic, or reason.

    As I have shown, Cas refuses to engage whenever it is confronted with facts, logic and reason.

    Cas is a child who has been taught by incompetent and/or disinterested parents and teachers that whining is a means to an end, and that anyone can be ground down enough over time by delay, obfuscation, and flip-flopping.

    Fortunately, here Cas has met its match — people who are more than capable of drawing it out, showing it in all of its fascist ignorance and glory, and then laughing as it slinks back into its hole.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 16, 2011 @ 10:53 pm - October 16, 2011

  51. End of a long day, but I agree NDT. However I revel in the double entendre you lay in referring to the “fascist” ignorance and glory of said Cas. How better to demonstrate the paucity of meaning than to lay it heaping on the user.

    Comment by Heliotrope — October 16, 2011 @ 11:07 pm - October 16, 2011

  52. Hi HT,
    Its great sport to watch the organ grinder look to his demented monkey to get validation.

    For someone who values logic (and I guess, reason), it is clear that you do not exercise much of it in your post. I mean: you are going to try and convince me about the validity of your argument by–telling me that you fact checked Shirer’s book? I mean, really? That is a pretty embarrassing approach HT. Zero proof-just a weak argument to your authority, which is worth exactly nothing in a rational argument. If you want to mix it and argue about the role of the Reichswehr in the early days of Hitler’s rule, I say–let us do that. It would be fun to see you support ILC’s contentions. I will just say that scholarship has moved on since Shirer’s day (especially with later access to archives previously closed to historians), so Shirer’s approach and knowledge base, gripping as it was at its publication, is out of date, HT.

    Further, you do not really explain why you think the definition you offer is a confused mess. I suspect because it borrows from many ideological approaches? You must have your own definition of fascism. So, what is it, HT? I am genuinely interested to hear it.

    In any case, what is really funny, HT, is that we appear to agree on one thing at least–ILC’s notions concerning fascism are not well-grounded–since he obviously has no “logical” foundation for thinking what he does–after all–he is just… confused by a… what did you call it…oh, yes: “this can of confused verbal salmagundi.” At least we can put that BS about fascism being a “leftist ideology” to rest.

    Comment by Cas — October 17, 2011 @ 12:35 am - October 17, 2011

  53. Cas,

    I did not say “I fact checked Shirer’s book.” I was a fact checker for the publisher and I was given galleys to work on as a fact checker. That book was a monumental work, long awaited and hit the market on day one as a runaway best seller and a Book-of-the-Month Club selection.

    It was edited closely, checked against Berlin Diary, checked against the Lakehurst documents which were in German and some in code, checked against the sources cited and checked against a myriad of books, articles, interviews, diaries, etc. which Shirer did not source.

    I was a pony in a huge field of ponies doing midnight candle burning work. I would not and never have claimed to be anything more than a face in the crowd that dealt with that great book. Nor do I or have I ever claimed to have gone beyond the work I was assigned. The Rohm putsch was the section I worked on with dozens of others. I developed and interest in it because of the assignment and I have stayed moderately interested in it.

    You seem to hold some mystical understanding how and why Craig will help poor souls like me to understand how we have got it wrong about how, with near brother attachment, Rohm and Hitler grew apart, turned into a sort of rivalry and then allowed Hitler to do nothing whatsoever to save him and then give strong speeches to the masses which excited their enthusiasm for assassinating Rohm. From all that, there is a rather simple morality tale to be drawn about dictators sleeping with their eyes open and never losing sight of their backs.

    In the mid-90′s, Victor Klemperer’s diaries were published and his I Will Bear Witness is a very compelling account of how SA tactics “taught” Germans and Jews alike to change their social mores.

    I first encountered Klemperer in his LTI – Lingua Tertii Imperii: Notizbuch eines Philologen which he published in 1947. It is a marvelous study by a brilliant mind of how the demagogue can bastardize not only the culture, but the language as well. Through all his trials, Klemperer kept his eye on what would become his “LTI.”

    I choose to chatter about this, in your style, Cas, because I am very suspicious of people like you who run around waving single sources as their touchstone for truth. This is something you do with fair consistency. In fact, it is fairly consistent of liberals in general to always have a fount of wisdom from which you must drink in order to proceed.

    Craig is not unknown to me. His popularity at Stanford was well appreciated and his arguments about whether there is any such thing as “social science” happen to compliment my own views. But he did dwell on cause and effect to the point that he managed to almost champion what would later be known as “the butterfly effect.”

    I am more than reluctant to “chat” about Craig, because he is a one-way entrance to an endless traffic circle that spirals out of control. You start with Rohm and work your way through Hindenburg to Bismarck to Hitler’s lack of a sense of history to Hitler’s ambivalence about Rohm’s homosexuality to Wagner and the German superman. Who needs it?

    I know nothing of your age or education. I know you are feisty and always ready to lead the discussion to your favored place of the moment. But you continually appear to be steeped in rather narrow understandings which usually indicates single sources and zealotry.

    That, if true, makes us polar opposites. You might consider being and orthodox something. You could pound single track, ordained sense into some primitive mind. That might really agree with your needs and frustrations. Have you considered studying with a group of Tibetan monks?

    Comment by Heliotrope — October 17, 2011 @ 11:10 am - October 17, 2011

  54. Its great sport to watch the organ grinder look to his demented monkey to get validation.

    Ran out of arguments, eh Cas? Now name-calling? I always knew what lay beneath your mask (of supposedly being above it etc.).

    It is clear that you have little actual understanding of post 1933 German history.

    Translation (from the warped bullsh*t of Cas-speak, to English): I’m right. Hitler’s relationship to the German officer corps was complex and ambivalent at best. “At best” means, on the days when much of the corps wasn’t thinking about assassinating Hitler.

    Facts are pesky things. Especially for Cas. LOL :-) Here is a pesky new one: Both the Communist and Nazi parties have now endorsed OWS. Why? No mystery there. BECAUSE COMMUNISM AND NATIONAL SOCIALISM ARE BOTH SOCIALISM.

    socialism runs a broad gamut–from the totalitarian pathology of Stalinist/Leninist Communism, to the Scandinavian welfare state

    That is exactly what I’m saying. Here is another Cas tactic, when cornered: Concede; say the same things as the opponent… while snidely and bitterly pretending not to.

    If it’s true that “socialism runs a broad gamut–from the totalitarian pathology of Stalinist/Leninist Communism, to the Scandinavian welfare state” – and it is; it is again my point – then fascism, or NATIONAL (as opposed to international) SOCIALISM, is one of them.

    Fascism is that variant of socialism which does not pretend to internationalism, does not pretend to democracy, and does pretend to preserve a fig leaf of private property. It is that variant of socialism which does not expropriate private property de jure; only de facto.

    And it is the economic system which Obama, OWS, and you (Cas) all advocate. In the realm of economics, you, Cas, are a national socialist. You cannot afford to have anyone pointing that out, hence your disgraceful twisting in this thread.

    under your definition, Adam Smith, who saw a role for government in the economy, is a socialist as well.

    Prime example of the Cas bullsh*t twisting. Did Adam Smith advocate the provision of private goods by public means? No, of course not. Just as I do, he advocated the provision of public goods by public means, and private goods by private means. I never said that a socialist was a person who advocated *any* role for government in the economy; only a person who advocates that government planners seek to provide PRIVATE (as opposed to public) goods.

    Really, Cas, you need to try a lot harder. You’re not even close to hitting your marks now. I’m not even going to bother with the rest of whatever you said; waste of my time.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 17, 2011 @ 11:30 am - October 17, 2011

  55. At least we can put that BS about fascism being a “leftist ideology” to rest.

    Really? Please do tell me how that “fact” and “agreement” between us came about.

    Of course, you have brought this forward:

    Fascism is a form of extreme right-wing ideology that celebrates the nation or the race as an organic community transcending all other loyalties.

    But if I agreed with that in any way, shape or form, put me down now.

    No credible source connects loaded, subjective words like “extreme” and “right-wing” and “ideology” in a definition. “Extreme right-wing ideology” is little different than me calling you a “left-wing loon.” Why would you even choose such a miserable source for your argument?

    Look, poor old Merriam-Webster does this hash job:

    Definition of FASCISM: a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.

    Notice the word “often.” How many countries have been Fascist?

    When you embark on answering this simple, simple simple question, you quickly learn that Falangists had fascist “tendencies” and the Vargas period in Brazil utilized some Fascist “principles” and blah, blah, blah.

    If there is such a thing as Fascism, then you should be able to write down its principles and how it is structured in dry, scholarly terms. But when you call me a fascist, it turns out you have not a clue about what it means. Neither do I. But you are perfectly willing to chat and counter chat and refer me to your favored sources like the Mad Hatter led poor Alice around in his perfectly sensible to him Wonderland.

    Comment by Heliotrope — October 17, 2011 @ 11:35 am - October 17, 2011

  56. But P.S. to clarify my own words, “fascism does not expropriate private property de jure; only de facto” – I meant “only”, as an understatement. Make no mistake: In substance, fascism expropriates private property.

    That is why the Cas claim that “private enterprise did very well under Hitler” – when in fact, it was abolished *substantively* through government mandate and regulation, before it was bombed outright in the war – is such a vile joke. The vile product of a vile GP commentor.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 17, 2011 @ 11:36 am - October 17, 2011

  57. And finally, the proper role for government in the economy is: the provision of law and order. The impartial protection of individual rights to life, liberty and property. The removal of physical force (as much as possible, and in principle or ideal, completely) as a means for people to solve conflicts, so that people *must* resort to Reason, in respect of each other’s rights. Those things are essential public goods, which only government can provide, and which government SHOULD concentrate on exclusively.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 17, 2011 @ 11:41 am - October 17, 2011

  58. Heliotrope:

    Definition of FASCISM: a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.

    I agree, that’s not a great definition… it does not address the essential of the philosophical issues involved. But taking it at face value… does it not describe Obammunism beautifully?

    “Often exalts race” means, it does not have to exalt any (one) race. It could ignore race; or it could detest one or two races, exalting the remaining races quietly. Which leaves us with:

    Definition of FASCISM: a political philosophy, movement, or regime… that exalts nation… above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.

    In today’s America, it’s the leftists who want to bring back the military draft (see Charles Rangel). It’s the leftists who wax dewy-eyed over the idea of mandatory national service for young people. And more recently, with NC Gov. Perdue and Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr., it’s leftists now calling explicitly for suspension of elections in America, suspension of the Constitution, etc.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 17, 2011 @ 11:48 am - October 17, 2011

  59. Hi ILC,
    As for name calling dude, you need to check the words and tone of your own posts. Puh-leese…

    Adam Smith–what does “publicly-provided” mean to you, in the context of 18th century England, or even today, for that matter? Does “government-provided” come to mind? If not, what does

    Hitler’s relationship to the German officer corps was complex and ambivalent at best.

    Excellent, the beginnings of an argument. So, now, continue. Where. exactly do you see the Army Corps’ ambivalent relationship with Hitler’s supposed “leftist” ideology in the post 1933 environment?

    And you support your position with a definition from a dictionary? That is it? Unbelievable.

    ILC: Homework: Fascist Spain–leftist or right wing?

    And HT,
    As for misunderstanding you, please note that I never said you were the only fact checker.

    I was a fact checker for the publisher of William L. Shirer’s Rise and Fall of the Third Reich and in the process of checking that seminal work

    So, you fact-checked his book. I am not ascribing god-like atatus to you, HT (you above all should know that I don’t!).

    The point still stands–you argue from some position of authority–sorry, mate, its not a rational argument. At no point do you defend a claim with evidence. And that is part of your modus operandi, HT. I get it. You like to drop names, and walk away. If you want to defend your claim rationally, do. Otherwise… And by the way, if you want me to drop some more names of tracts on this period, I would be happy to do so; just let me know. I am no fan of Bullock, though…

    I am intrigued by this:

    How many countries have been Fascist?

    What are you asking here–that not many have been? That of those who have been, how many have had racial/racist or ultra-nationalist emphasis. I grant that Nazism was an extreme case, but the ultra-nationalist aspect–I think “often” fits that well, don’t you?

    Comment by Cas — October 17, 2011 @ 12:04 pm - October 17, 2011

  60. As for name calling dude, you need to check the words and tone of your own posts.

    And there it is: the left-winger’s subject changing.

    I’ve never struck a pose about being perfect, or above it all. Cas has. Harboring the malice within of all fascists, Cas now finds that she can’t keep up the mask. The solution? Change the subject, to someone else’s alleged offenses. Leftism at work!

    And you support your position with a definition from a dictionary?

    And so we arrive at the “Cas can’t read” part of the thread. Regarding said dictionary definition, I had said explicitly to Heliotrope:

    I agree, that’s not a great definition

    Perhaps I should add a little expansion and emphasis, to improve readability:

    I [can] agree, [that] *THAT’S ***NOT*** A GREAT DEFINITION*

    Really, Cas: Pathetic. You need to try a lot harder. You’re not even close to hitting your marks now. I’m not even going to bother with the rest of whatever you said; waste of my time.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 17, 2011 @ 12:11 pm - October 17, 2011

  61. I will just say that scholarship has moved on since Shirer’s day (especially with later access to archives previously closed to historians), so Shirer’s approach and knowledge base, gripping as it was at its publication, is out of date, HT.

    So you are stating, Cas, that Shirer’s work is invalid and untruthful.

    Unfortunately, Cas, the book and historian that you cite reference Shirer as a primary source throughout.

    Thus, you are saying that the book you are touting is based on and makes assertions based on a primary source of information that you claimed is invalid and untruthful.

    Since you have established that Craig’s book is invalid and untruthful because it uses a primary source that you have declared invalid and untruthful, all your statements based on it are invalid and untruthful.

    You lose, Cas. Reason and logic have once again trumped your fanatical incoherence, and you are once again made the fool by simply using your own statements.

    Heliotrope and I are well-aware of Craig’s sources. You are not. It is clear to anyone who has read your ravings that you are cherry-picking passages from the book and twisting them to support your predetermined conclusions based on your own bigotry. You are using Craig as a drunk uses a lamppost — less for illumination than for support – and thus have never bothered to actually read or research from where he got his information.

    This is why your worldview is so hilariously incoherent, Cas. You can easily be tricked and manipulated, as Heliotrope did, into condemning your own sources — because your arguments are based, not on logic or on reason, but on your always being right, regardless of the stupidity of your assertion.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 17, 2011 @ 12:19 pm - October 17, 2011

  62. The point still stands–you argue from some position of authority–sorry, mate, its not a rational argument. At no point do you defend a claim with evidence. And that is part of your modus operandi, HT. I get it. You like to drop names, and walk away.

    Projection.

    Remember this, Cas?

    That’s right, name-drop, provide no evidence, then walk away when confronted with facts.

    So you are slandering Heliotrope with your own failings.

    A typical liberal leftist. No self-awareness, blind narcissism, and seething hatred towards those like Heliotrope, ILC, and myself who have proven themselves to be your intellectual, social, and spiritual betters.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 17, 2011 @ 12:25 pm - October 17, 2011

  63. I’ve never struck a pose about being perfect, or above it all. Cas has. Harboring the malice within of all fascists, Cas now finds that she can’t keep up the mask. The solution? Change the subject, to someone else’s alleged offenses. Leftism at work!

    Exactly.

    Cas has stated that those who insult other posters should be banned.

    By calling me a “deranged monkey”, Cas has insulted me.

    Since Cas has now insulted another poster, Cas should ban itself.

    If it were consistent and non-hypocritical, of course. But leftists like Cas are not; they consider themselves to be exempt from the rules they demand of others.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 17, 2011 @ 12:27 pm - October 17, 2011

  64. What are you asking here–that not many have been?

    No, he’s asking you a direct question — how many countries have been Fascist.

    And the reason you are spinning, Cas, is because actually providing a list of examples would subject them to scrutiny and fact-checking.

    As we see with your article on bonds and interest rates, you don’t like that, because your statements don’t stand up well to fact-checking. You would rather drop names and walk away.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 17, 2011 @ 12:29 pm - October 17, 2011

  65. Hi ILC,
    I will say, again, you can assert whatever you want with regards to fascism–but history doesn’t support you. Again–Franco and Spain. Go check it up. Explain how right wing leaning folks support a “leftist ideology.” It is a simple request, ILC. So have at it…

    Comment by Cas — October 17, 2011 @ 12:51 pm - October 17, 2011

  66. I will say, again, you can assert whatever you want with regards to fascism–but history doesn’t support you.

    Really? Prove it. List all Fascist regimes and countries, Cas, and have them fact-checked and scrutinized.

    It’s a simple request. Why won’t you do it, Cas?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 17, 2011 @ 12:57 pm - October 17, 2011

  67. Oh, and Cas, you still are running away and refusing to engage from your statements.

    You stated that the Federal funds rate was at zero percent.

    Basically banks borrow money from the Fed at zero interest, and park it in government bonds (and at the Fed) at above zero interest, to make risk free returns.

    I provided facts and evidence, including your own words, that demonstrated conclusively that a) the rate banks pay to borrow money from the Fed is far greater than zero and b) according to your own statements, bonds are paying zero interest.

    You walked away and refused to engage. You then turned to insulting me.

    Since you have insisted that failure to engage means you are unwilling to learn or have a rational discussion, clearly your failure to engage demonstrates both.

    And since you have insisted that insulting other people is grounds for banning, you should ban yourself.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 17, 2011 @ 1:03 pm - October 17, 2011

  68. Cas @ #52:

    I mean: you are going to try and convince me about the validity of your argument by–telling me that you fact checked Shirer’s book?

    Heck, no. I didn’t even address the remarks to you. But since you assume I am “arguing” with you, why did you not take notice of the opening of my remarks that began the post at #49? It was inconvenient to your “argument.” That’s why.

    So, Cas, man up or woman up or transgender up and let it all hang out. What bit of instructive information from Craig informs yours elite interjection that would benefit us numbskulls?

    Cite away.

    Comment by Heliotrope — October 17, 2011 @ 1:06 pm - October 17, 2011

  69. ILC,

    I have no issue with your use of the word fascism. If Cas can use it to make a frontal attack, so can anyone else. Cas is using it as a code word for the leftist pejorative to smear you with Hitler without using his name. That much is clear.

    What is not clear is that Marxist, Leninist, Maoist, Fascist, Castroist dictators are not left wing socialists with a cruel tendency to control the society from top to bottom culturally, socially, economically, entirely. At least Pol Pot, Idi Amin and the Duvalier father/son team didn’t waste time with ideology.

    Comment by Heliotrope — October 17, 2011 @ 1:15 pm - October 17, 2011

  70. you (ILC) I(Cas) can assert whatever you I want with regards to fascism–but history doesn’t support you me (Cas), and I don’t care, or even notice, because I project my bad traits onto others.

    FIFY, Cas.

    The reality being, of course, that Nazism was a mass movement… based on German workers… that cultivated resentment against the rich among others, identified capitalism / individual freedom as its ultimate enemy (just like communism), and put into practice the mandate-heavy, State-directed economic system that Cas advocates.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 17, 2011 @ 1:31 pm - October 17, 2011

  71. (continued) And that OWS advocates.

    Again: the only major thing left, that can separate Obama/Cas/OWS from fascism, is that the latter are still generally anti-military. And even then, they are often pro-draft / generally dewy-eyed over mandatory national service; so that there is no assurance whatever that their anti-militarism can last.

    For the above reasons, both American Communists and American Nazis heart OWS – and to an extent, Obama. They emphatically don’t support the Tea Party. Why? Because the “freedom under limited government” model, which the Tea Party embodies, is the ultimate enemy of all forms of socialism: whether communism, or national socialism / OWS / Cas.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 17, 2011 @ 1:39 pm - October 17, 2011

  72. Aargh, sorry – “is that the -former- are still generally anti-military.”

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 17, 2011 @ 1:40 pm - October 17, 2011

  73. Again: the only major thing left, that can separate Obama/Cas/OWS from fascism, is that the latter are still generally anti-military.

    “Anti-military” is perhaps an imprecise term in this point in time.

    They are against the current United States military as it exists in this time, just as Hitler ranted against the existing German army, just as Mao fought the Chinese army, and as Stalin merrily purged the Russian officer corps.

    They are not against militarization, as we see from Hitler’s SA and SS, Mao’s “Peoples’ Army”, and Stalin’s popular fronts.

    It would be more accurate to state that they are “anti-military” only inasmuch as it represents the current “establishment”. Once in power, as history has shown us, these nascent fascists will eagerly embrace the existing machinery and twist and turn it to their ends. The firebrands of the French Revolution were quite in favor of lettres de cachet, disappearances, imprisonment without trial, confiscation of private property, summary executions, and the other mechanisms of the ancien regime — as long as it was their Committee of Public Safety doing it. Hitler did not abolish the military, despite his rants; instead he co-opted it, purchasing its loyalty in exchange for the purging of the SA.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 17, 2011 @ 1:58 pm - October 17, 2011

  74. NDT, agree and well stated.

    As a sidebar: Cas’ “you must explain why the German Officer Corps supported Hitler” non-point is demolished (or never held water). The answer is: they didn’t… except maybe in Hitler’s mid-flight, and reluctantly. Hitler rose to power on the SA, a *non-establishment, mass* paramilitary movement. The German military regarded Hitler with great skepticism. They were sworn to obey the legal government (which was Hitler), so they did – but reluctantly. He had to buy them eventually by sacrificing the SA. The fact that he had to do that – the fact that their support had to be bought, and could only be bought with a serious and late change to Nazism – illustrates not that he rose with their support, but that he *didn’t* rise with their support. Anyway, by that point Hitler was giving them Germany some war successes, and especially the younger / non-Junker officers started to develop enthusiasm for Hitler. Until they didn’t… until the third phase of the Hitler-military relationship, when the latter started trying to assassinate Hitler.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 17, 2011 @ 2:16 pm - October 17, 2011

  75. Hi ILC,
    I will say, again, you can assert whatever you want with regards to fascism–but history doesn’t support you. Again–Franco and Spain. Go check it up. Explain how right wing leaning folks support a “leftist ideology.” It is a simple request, ILC. So have at it…

    Here Cas is naming Franco as a fascist and says that Spain under Franco was fascist.

    Really? Says who?

    Cas, I asked you how many countries have been fascist. You refused to answer. Can you name the characteristics that identify the fascist state? No. Because, if you could, you would be able to define fascism without long paragraphs full of weasel words.

    Now you are saying Franco’s Spain was fascist. So, prove it. Apply the fascist test to Franco and Spain.

    This should make for plenty of amusing twists and turns.

    The stage is yours.

    Comment by Heliotrope — October 17, 2011 @ 5:37 pm - October 17, 2011

  76. Heh :-)

    Now let’s see. Franco was:
    - A most reluctant monarchist. He tried to appease the Spanish right-wing (monarchist) forces by saying he’d bring the King back, but it took him decades to get to it.
    - Nationalist (as opposed to internationalist) and pro-Axis.
    - Rejected by more usual “right wing dictators” such as Batista.
    - Anti-Semitic.
    - OK with trade unions that supported him.
    - Initially (and for years) socialist in his economics. Franco favored a bloated government running heavy controls (transferring much of the substantive power of ownership to the government), with elements of anti-competition and extreme protectionism as demanded by Spanish workers. It did a lot of harm. I don’t know if he was as big on social spending as Hitler was, but to be clear: Spain was very poor and had no real surplus to spend, so it may have been a moot point. Part of why Franco lasted so long is that after a couple decades, he moved part way toward the free-market pole (allowing the Spanish people to be more prosperous).

    Insofar as Franco operated always as a military officer, did favor the Catholic Church (in contrast to Hitler, who opposed Christianity), and *eventually* (after decades) brought back a King and partial free markets, that may make Franco kind of a left-right hybrid, rather than a pure national socialist (leftist). Big. Deal.

    It comes down to this. Lefties know that national socialism has a bad name; that it would be bad for their cause, to be tied to it. Therefore, for the last 3 generations or so, they have done everything in their power to warp the words, so that the fascism of Mussolini and Hitler (which, again, is and always has been a form of socialism: namely, national socialism) is somehow “right wing”.

    The commie-leaning lefties were probably first to undertake the task: following Stalin, they labeled Bukharinism “right wing” when Bukharin was never anything but a full-on Marxist. Anything even slightly right of Stalin was, by definition and to them, “right wing”. In the 1930s, fascism was still recognized as a left-wing movement by many people. After Hitler attacked Stalin, commies stepped up their efforts to give fascism – which was in effect a rival form of socialism – the worst name possible, namely “right wing”. Then when WW2 ended and the Holocaust was exposed, the remaining American fascists found it imperative to dis-associate fascism from leftism, i.e. to NOT tell the truth about fascism. So they joined the campaign of defining fascism by non-essentials.

    As you would expect, the definitions they promulgated – being definitions by non-essentials, to serve their warped agenda – make no sense. The left-wing definitions are wrong, and intended to obfuscate.

    My definitions are the opposite. I define movements by their philosophical essentials. The essential characteristic of all forms of socialism is the attempt to have the government be the provider of (either some, or all) private goods. From that base, communism goes on to expropriate property de jure, and to emphasize Marx and its pretensions to internationalism. While fascism goes on to expropriate property de facto (retaining some private forms de jure), and ignores internationalism. That makes them different… but with a common underlying LEFT-WING base, namely the dedication to realizing socialism in some form.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 17, 2011 @ 7:48 pm - October 17, 2011

  77. Sorry, hit the Send key too early. The above is (obviously) me composing my version of the challenge… not that Heliotrope would agree with me 100%, just giving my version. Now as for the Cas version… or this question to Cas:

    Here Cas is naming Franco as a fascist and says that Spain under Franco was fascist.

    Really? Says who?

    It is a great question, because according to many scholars, Franco was not in fact a fascist. That we here would even entertain the question – of whether/how Franco was a fascist – shows generosity toward Cas.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 17, 2011 @ 7:56 pm - October 17, 2011

  78. My view in summary would be this: Franco was a fascist to the extent, or in the years, that he tried to realize national socialism… and not-a-fascist (i.e. more of a Catholic traditionalist / a true “right wing dictator”) to the extent that he backed away from national socialism.

    Simple and logical. Since the terms “fascist” and “national socialist” are basically synonymous, and since Franco spent a little under 2 decades going there, a little over 2 decades backing off it.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 17, 2011 @ 8:12 pm - October 17, 2011

  79. Hi HT,
    Busy night.

    If there is such a thing as Fascism, then you should be able to write down its principles and how it is structured in dry, scholarly terms.

    So, what is your definition of “fascism”? I ask, since you would like to chat–apparently. After all, you are one who demands clarity, Given that you are willing to share that

    I have no issue with your use of the word fascism

    with ILC, you must have some clarity as to what fascism is, HT. Or do you? I am happy with the “dog’s breakfast” because Fascism isn’t easy to pin down (except that it is certainly NOT a left wing ideology). You are not happy with that “confusion…”. So step up and explain yourself. And if you don’t have a definition, how on earth are you patting ILC for his view of what constitutes “fascism.” After all

    If Cas can use it to make a frontal attack, so can anyone else. Cas is using it as a code word for the leftist pejorative to smear you with Hitler without using his name. That much is clear.

    as an explanation just looks like you twisting yourself into a pretzel to defend something that is indefensible with something unintelligible.

    Second, I appreciate your invitation and opportunity to “gender up” and explain my views, @ #68. Two points.
    1. I asked ILC to explain how it was that the Reichswehr, a conservative organization, would be willing to work with Hitler, this apparent leftist. Apart from some mumblings about attempted assassinations, and an hopeful start mentioning the army corps deep ambivalence, ILC has shown that he cannot or will not answer this historical question. I think it is a fair question. You came in talking about the differences between ideology and ideologues, but left it hanging out there, with no where to go but Sweden…
    So–its not up to me to set the scene for you and ILC. That was ILC’s job, and he didn’t want to do it. If you want to set out the argument that you think he could have, please feel free to do so.
    2. Even without this, you have made it clear, on numerous occasions, that you are not interested in actually arguing the merits of any particular issue we happen to discuss, even as you have either asked me to outline my position or I have shared my position in different instances. Frankly, I have zero interest in arguing with someone who is unwilling to engage in good faith. So, I would love to engage you HT, especially given your self-confessed encyclopedic knowledge of this era, but I only wish to do so, if you can do so in a good faith. And your track record in this is pretty poor, where I am concerned. So, if you want to “gender up” and meet me half-way, I am willing to participate; otherwise, please do not waste my time.

    Comment by Cas — October 17, 2011 @ 11:53 pm - October 17, 2011

  80. Hi ILC,
    A lot of comments, so I will keep this brief:

    My view in summary would be this: Franco was a fascist to the extent, or in the years, that he tried to realize national socialism… and not-a-fascist (i.e. more of a Catholic traditionalist / a true “right wing dictator”) to the extent that he backed away from national socialism.

    This is interesting. Let us grant you your divide, ILC. I would point out that in the fascist phase (when Hitler & Mussolini helped him before WWII), Franco basically gathered his support from the landed classes, the Church, and the army officer corps. So, as a variant of the question, I have asked you previously: “Why do these archly conservative groups of Spanish life support a “fascist-in-training” if said “fascist-in-training” is actually holding a leftist ideology?

    Comment by Cas — October 17, 2011 @ 11:57 pm - October 17, 2011

  81. Franco basically gathered his support from the landed classes, the Church, and the army officer corps

    First, I don’t grant the implication that he gathered support only/primarily from them. But taking your comment at face value… so what? Obama gathers his support from the top banks and billionaires on Wall Street – the same people who pay the activist groups to pay for the astroturfing of OWS, to try and get coverage and votes whipped up on Obama’s behalf. Do you seriously not understand, after everything I’ve said, that aristocrats profit from Big Government and often back the socialist, especially the national-socialist who will exploit the masses for them – legally and in with the masses’ support? Do names like Roosevelt, Kennedy, Soros, Kaiser or Pelosi ring a bell with you? Do you really not see that national socialism – as practiced by Obama, Pelosi, Hitler, Roosevelt, the Kennedys, etc. is the greatest racket yet invented?

    Oh, wait – I know you do understand it; in fact, Obama and you count on it. But, socialism it remains (a system of political economy that seeks to have government manage / guarantee / provide private goods). Yes, Franco came from the military – just as Franklin Roosevelt came from the U.S. aristocracy. Both men, for whatever reason, went national socialist in their economics. Franco was fortunate, in a sense, to live long enough to learn at least a little from the terrible suffering that it, and he, caused.

    In short: your question is, why do aristocrats love Big Government? Stated that nakedly, it answers itself and that answer is something I’ve been wrapping into nearly every comment I write, only for years now.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 18, 2011 @ 12:48 am - October 18, 2011

  82. Cas, unfortunately, you can’t lie your way out of this one.

    To repeat Heliotrope’s demands of you:

    Cas, I asked you how many countries have been fascist. You refused to answer. Can you name the characteristics that identify the fascist state? No. Because, if you could, you would be able to define fascism without long paragraphs full of weasel words.

    Now you are saying Franco’s Spain was fascist. So, prove it. Apply the fascist test to Franco and Spain.

    This should make for plenty of amusing twists and turns.

    The stage is yours.

    Wd understand that you will not engage, Cas. You have made it clear that you have no interest in facts, rational behavior, or logic. You are simply a talking-points repeater who believes that if it screams long enough, everyone will cave and give it its way.

    You lose. You have been systematically humiliated throughout this thread. You have been exposed as an ignorant fool and a coward. Your inability to even acknowledge basic facts presented to you demonstrates how delusional and foolish you are, how dependent on others is your worldview, and how thoroughly shallow and indolent your education has been.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 18, 2011 @ 12:51 am - October 18, 2011

  83. Or to say it with a little more eye-roll: Golly, why would ***aristocrats*** be in love with ***Big Government***? On this Earth, how could such an occurrence possibly come about? Are there any conceivable reasons?

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 18, 2011 @ 12:53 am - October 18, 2011

  84. (to say my conclusion, that is)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 18, 2011 @ 12:54 am - October 18, 2011

  85. Hi ILC,
    The question is this: Why would these big landowners support someone who–according to your lights, would actually do the equivalent of expropriating their property?

    Comment by Cas — October 18, 2011 @ 1:07 am - October 18, 2011

  86. I asked ILC to explain how it was that the Reichswehr, a conservative organization, would be willing to work with Hitler, this apparent leftist.

    You do not accept the concept that national socialism is leftist, but you are darned certain that that the Reichswehr that is working for national socialism is conservative. Your premise is a conclusion which destroys your syllogism. Basic logic. To accept your terms for the sake of discussion in meaningless and the outcome of such discussion is beyond meaningless.

    I am happy with the “dog’s breakfast” because Fascism isn’t easy to pin down (except that it is certainly NOT a left wing ideology).

    Fascism is not easy to pin down. CORRECT. You know why? Because it has no founding documents that state its principles against which you can measure it. It is a term plucked from the minds of journalists and political “scientists” of yore. They coined a term and then invested themselves in protecting it. “I may not know what fascism is, but I sure know it when I see it.” would be a fair assessment of how the term has come to be used.

    But the hilarity of your blustering rises to a crescendo when you declare without equivocation (rare for you) that it is certainly NOT a left wing ideology.” Terrific. A conclusion reached without a single premise. A decree, as it were. You own the definition, convoluted as it may be, but one thing is certain in the definition you own and protect: Fascism is certainly NOT a left wing ideology. Shall we all bow low and roll a pea with our noses? The Great and Wonderful Cas has spoken.

    And if you don’t have a definition, how on earth are you patting ILC for his view of what constitutes “fascism.”

    Pathetic. Really pathetic. You follow this whine by foolishing quoting the very words I used in “permitting” ILC his foray into challenging your use of the term. I simply allowed as how ILC was a free to use the term as you are. (You, of course, recall calling me a fascist.) These are the words I wrote and you quoted:

    If Cas can use it to make a frontal attack, so can anyone else. Cas is using it as a code word for the leftist pejorative to smear you with Hitler without using his name. That much is clear.

    The American Revolution resulted in a constitutional representative democracy. The French Revolution splintered into factions and ended up with an old fashioned dictator who became emperor. The Russian Revolution was based on Marxism as modified by Lenin and was waged in the name of the masses in search of state socialism and it morphed into dictatorship immediately. The Nazi party was all about state socialism, but not communism. Mussolini was all about the little guy, but not Leninism. Franco was all about the little guy, but….. and Salazar and Castro and Mao and Tito and so forth. The leftist American Revolution started it all, but America enshrined free enterprise. The others went straight to national socialism and state control of everything down to the smallest plot of soil.

    Socialism is now a form of dictatorship by the state in which the state takes from each according what he has and pees it away on a bureaucracy that argues and postures over who should get to spend it.

    And you come here with some medieval concept of the utopian state where great elite minds micromanage the birthing of babies and making the trains run on time and everyone is for enlightened social justice, equality, fairness and lollipops and roses and free merry-go-round rides for all, world without end. Amen. And you darn sure know that the ends justify the means and fascists are cretans who want to make women die from botched abortions and children starve and old people have to sit in an abandoned parking lot eating garbage and drooling to death.

    My hyperbole about you leftists is not a bit more far-fetched or rancid than your disgust and disdain for conservatism.

    Your propensity to “chat” is really quite an aptly named term. To “chat” is to strut your stuff, make mountains out of molehills, to pick issue with which end of the egg to open, to proclaim and declaim, to set the terms according to your whim and needs, to ignore basic questions, points and fallacies and to forever blather on.

    Finally, I can not define fascism or identify one fascist country. That is because, there is no benchmark against which to measure it. Jonah Goldberg wrote a wonderful book (Liberal Fascism) which had a smiley face with a Hitler mustache on the cover. In the opening pages, Goldberg wrestles with the problem of defining the term. Any scholar who is attempting to examine fascism is soon put into the problem of actually understanding the term in any useful fashion.

    Fascism is not a form of government. It is pejorative concept used to imply cruel narcissistic dictatorship. It is a term that has been wholly owned by the left as a way to slur the right. After the WWII era, no one ever labeled a person as fascist as a compliment.

    Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Tito, Salazar, etc. were all national socialists (leftists) who quickly short circuited the messiness of “socialist democracy” and cut to the chase by becoming dictators. Dictators of the left. There is not a dime’s worth of difference between Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Mussolini, Franco or any other dictator regardless of what platform they abuse. (Michael Moore, though, still insists that Cuba is the Valhallah of miracle medicine for all. Even though Chavez is dying under their care and they darn near killed Castro himself.)

    And now you folks are ducking away from admitting your roots in Marxism, socialism and even liberalism. You are progressive. And I agree. You progress from one eely nomenclature to another like a chameleon changing color and markings. You really have no principles to stand on, because you are grounded momentarily in your feelings and feelings are subject to constant change.

    So, news flash Cas. Absolute monarchs and dictators are far to the right of constitutional representative democracy. Governments that set rules under the amorphous concept of social justice and fairness and equality are dictatorial. Obama openly opines for the ability to do what “needs to be done” without the interference of Congress and a messiness of representative democracy. After all, many of the people don’t know what it good for them. Why, it takes a village to raise a child. Never stifle potential, because a killer on death row might not only be innocent, but he may hold the key making Jello without water. At the same time, a woman can kill any clump of cells that inconvenience her and opposing gay marriage is hate speech and every human life outside of the womb is sacred unless a snail darter is endangered.

    Not briefly stated, I admit, but it is clearly why “chatting” with minds like yours is futile. You are an extreme right wing bigot charged with the emotional yearning for dictatorial socialist government and eternal welfare that shows up on time and continues to grow and expand until some darn fool government (think Greece) screws you over. Then you are free to riot and burn down your house and destroy the remaining grocery stores.

    Comment by Heliotrope — October 18, 2011 @ 10:39 am - October 18, 2011

  87. Not briefly stated, I admit, but it is clearly why “chatting” with minds like yours is futile. You are an extreme right left wing bigot charged with the emotional yearning for dictatorial socialist government and eternal welfare that shows up on time and continues to grow and expand until some darn fool government (think Greece) screws you over. Then you are free to riot and burn down your house and destroy the remaining grocery stores.

    FIFY

    Comment by Eric Olsen — October 18, 2011 @ 10:55 am - October 18, 2011

  88. The [very] question [that ILC JUST ANSWERED] is this: Why would these big landowners support someone who–according to your lights, would actually do the equivalent of expropriating their property?

    Not too good at that whole ‘listening’ thing, eh cas? LOL :-)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 18, 2011 @ 11:15 am - October 18, 2011

  89. And actually, ILC, I can do even better than that.

    Why would these big landowners support someone who–according to your lights, would actually do the equivalent of expropriating their property?

    Because “actually do” is a misnomer.

    As we see from the example of Charles Rangel, who committed blatant welfare fraud, received checks, kickbacks, and rent control from the government despite being “rich” by every OWS definition, and who simply refused to pay his taxes, “progressives”, for all their blather about taxation and the evil rich and “fair share”, do not enforce the laws they demand against their supporters.

    It is easy to create laws imposing rules on others when they don’t apply to you. As we see from Cas’s “chat”, that’s typical; Cas exempts itself from rules it tries to apply to others regarding insults, facts, evidentiary requirements, etc.

    All one needs to do is to purchase an indulgence from the Progressive Pope. Everyone knows that the Mocha Messiah Barack Obama and the Barack Obama Party are pay-to-play; make a campaign donation, and sit back and watch regulations be swept away, accounting fraud be covered up, and “stimulus” money rain down from the heavens. Why, Warren Buffett purchased such an indemnification that the Mocha Messiah is sitting there blessing him and pointing out what a wonderful person he is while his companies owe a billion dollars in back taxes.

    The hilarious thing about “progressives” is how delusional they are regarding the ideals of their regimes and the reality of what they create. Castro and Chavez do not live in “equal” housing, drive “equal” cars, or have “equal” income, as their regimes state; instead, they use the rhetoric of “equality” to trick ignorant leftists like Cas into rationalizing their statist redistribution of wealth, with the lion’s share going to them and their favored elites.

    The stark and simple difference between capitalism and socialism is this: in capitalism, wealth concentrates in those who earn it, and in socialism, wealth concentrates in those who are deemed fit by the governing authority.

    What the silly Cas wants is to completely divorce the concept of productivity and replace it with entitlement. Cas thinks society should pay indolent boors like itself the same amount as it pays a doctor who worked her way through school and runs a private practice. Despite all the benefits she provides to society as opposed to lazy Cas, Cas demands that the government take her wealth and give it to Cas instead.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 18, 2011 @ 11:45 am - October 18, 2011

  90. Eric,

    I actually wrote “Right” wing in the spirit that all dictators huddle with Atilla the Hun and the nationalist socialist dictator state is no different than Hitler or Castro or Mao or Pol Pot. They all say one thing and do another.

    I thought it would be interesting for Cas to consider itself extreme right wing. It certainly can not make a case that it is to the left of constitutional representative democracy. Dictatorship of the government over “we the people” is hardly moving toward the left. Unless, of course, you use terms interchangeably to suit your moods and feelings.

    Comment by Heliotrope — October 18, 2011 @ 12:21 pm - October 18, 2011

  91. All I know is: Obama/Pelosi/Cas economics are national socialism. There is precious little daylight between theirs, and the people that they claim to believe are fascists. They worship at the altar of Big Government.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 18, 2011 @ 1:30 pm - October 18, 2011

  92. Hi HT,
    I am unsure if you are being sincere right now, or just arguing in bad faith. I will make one observation in defence of my uncertainty, since I do not want to waste my time (as I told you earlier) as well as yours.

    You do not accept the concept that national socialism is leftist, but you are darned certain that that the Reichswehr that is working for national socialism is conservative. Your premise is a conclusion which destroys your syllogism. Basic logic. To accept your terms for the sake of discussion in meaningless and the outcome of such discussion is beyond meaningless.

    I have used Reichswehr as short-hand for the German Army Officer Corps–a point that I made consistently with ILC. Where the officer corps goes, so go the enlisted troops (especially in Germany). The German Army Officer Corps was conservative. You apparently want to argue this point, or do you? It has been some time since I read Shirer, but, as a self-acknowledged expert on Shirer, what does he say? You ain’t interested in my source–so let us go to yours. Well? As I recall, he made the point that the Army Officer Corps was conservative, and a major impediment to implementing a radical socialist agenda. Feel free to contradict that claim. Do you? If you don’t, then what we have here, is you arguing about a “premise being a conclusion” when it is something that we both know to be true, and not a conclusion at all. So, do you reject the claim of officer corps conservatism, or not?

    Also–I noticed that you say: “Reichswehr that is working for national socialism.” Interesting. My claim was about the initial days of Nazi rule, when the army officer corps is way more ambivalent about Hitler. So when do you see this “working for NS” being the case? I see the Army being far more cooperative after the Night of the Long Knives, as Hitler jettisons the potential threat of the SA. Is your claim about the period after the NLK? If so, that is not what I am talking about.

    Comment by Cas — October 18, 2011 @ 10:47 pm - October 18, 2011

  93. Hi ILC,

    The question is this: Why would these big landowners support someone who–according to your lights, would actually do the equivalent of expropriating their property?

    You answer that:

    I’ve said, that aristocrats profit from Big Government and often back the socialist, especially the national-socialist who will exploit the masses for them – legally and in with the masses’ support? Do names like Roosevelt, Kennedy, Soros, Kaiser or Pelosi ring a bell with you? Do you really not see that national socialism – as practiced by Obama, Pelosi, Hitler, Roosevelt, the Kennedys, etc. is the greatest racket yet invented?

    To put it bluntly, you ALREADY assume that Obama is a National Socialist. You are entitled to your opinion, of course, but please notice that there are zero degrees of difference between Obama, Franco, or even Mussolini and Hitler, for that matter. Of course, in that circumstance, I would sneer at my question as well! After all, I am assuming that the reason that Soros et al support Obama is that Obama isn’t showing the fascistic intent that you see, and that they don’t think he will expropriate/over-regulate their property to extinction, but rather enact legislation that they think will be helpful to them (and maybe the rest of us–but I agree–the jury is out on that one). As well as not starting a bloody civil war that will engulf the whole country, to stop the effect of popular democratically run election results. You obviously are feeling that.

    Two points:
    1. Most political commentators would disagree with you. Of course, this will not worry you, but I mention it for completeness.
    2. Cleaning this quote up, and substituting a bit (hat-tip, HT), we get:

    but you are darned certain that that Obama is a National Socialist. Your premise is a conclusion which destroys your syllogism. Basic logic. To accept your terms for the sake of discussion in meaningless and the outcome of such discussion is beyond meaningless.

    Those that live by the introductory logic text, … well, you get the idea.

    Comment by Cas — October 18, 2011 @ 11:05 pm - October 18, 2011

  94. I am unsure if you are being sincere right now, or just arguing in bad faith.

    Irrelevant, Cas, since you are clearly arguing in bad faith at this point.

    I will make one observation in defence of my uncertainty, since I do not want to waste my time (as I told you earlier) as well as yours.

    Again, a lie. You are here to entangle and stop intelligent conversation. If you were truly uninterested in wasting your time, you would have left. You are here throwing another of your typical verbal tantrums, having been thoroughly humiliated by those who are clearly your moral and intellectual betters.

    It has been some time since I read Shirer, but, as a self-acknowledged expert on Shirer, what does he say? You ain’t interested in my source–so let us go to yours. Well? As I recall, he made the point that the Army Officer Corps was conservative, and a major impediment to implementing a radical socialist agenda. Feel free to contradict that claim.

    False. You asserted the claim; therefore you must provide evidence to prove it. Your failure to do so and your inability to provide such evidence demonstrates that you are acting in bad faith and with no command of the information.

    Furthermore, Cas, your demands for evidence are clearly false, as we see in your failure to respond when your “facts” were proven wrong.

    You have been publicly humiliated, Cas, and since you are incapable of the humility that underpins learning, continue to make a fool out of yourself in the desperate belief that, like your uncaring parents and indolent teachers, the adults will finally leave the room and let you have your way if only you scream loud and long and often enough.

    But unfortunately for you, you have met your match here. ILC, Heliotrope, and I will continue to push back against you and wave the ever-growing mountain of evidence of your duplicity, ignorance, bad faith, and hypocrisy in front of you.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 19, 2011 @ 1:29 am - October 19, 2011

  95. Shirer, what does he say? … he made the point that the Army Officer Corps was conservative, and a major impediment to implementing a radical socialist agenda.

    …which would explain, then, the fact that THEY DID NOT SUPPORT HITLER (a socialist) except minimally as their oaths required, until the very LATE date of 1938 when Hitler wrote in Rohm’s blood, basically, the message “I am now finally prepared to show you guys with some respect.”

    you are acting in bad faith

    Yes NDT – as Cas generally does. ‘Nuff said.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 19, 2011 @ 2:54 am - October 19, 2011

  96. What a wind storm! Everything got twisted every which way and turned inside out.

    I just happened on the most amazing caterpillar who was sitting on a giant mushroom and smoking a hookah. At his feet was a small plate with little tea cakes that said “bite me.” I was put in mind of the last time I snacked on something in Wonderland and decided instead to search in vain for the end of infinity. I believe that it is just beyond the rainbow where blue birds fly and unicorns play near the lemonade springs.

    But I am off to generalization and stereotyping school to argue my point that all that is not as it seems actually is. Wish me luck. They are fascists, you know. Oh, and another thing, never turn your back on an opportunity to pull a loose thread and claim it is attached to the meaning of the universe.

    I am darned certain that Obama is a national socialist and worse. Can I prove it? NO. Does my certainly about his Marxist views inform my opinions of what I hear and see of him? YES. Have I reached my own conclusions? YES. Did I violate basic logic? NO. I have only proclaimed my opinion, I have not stated a “fact” beyond my opinion.

    Strange, isn’t it, how insufferably confining it is to have to color between the lines of logic.

    Ta, ta, Cas. Watch the Queen of Hearts, she is treacherous. She changes the rules in mid-game, keeps her own secret score and ultimately cuts the heads off of all who frustrate her imperial rectitude. But, then again, you may be the Empress of Hearts and we stumps of lard just don’t know it.

    Comment by Heliotrope — October 19, 2011 @ 9:25 am - October 19, 2011

  97. Correction, the elimination of Rohm was 1934, earlier than I typed above – but, still to my point, after Hitler rose to Chancellor, President (in constitutional substance; he shunned the title) and Fuehrer.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 19, 2011 @ 11:56 am - October 19, 2011

  98. Hi iLC

    …which would explain, then, the fact that THEY DID NOT SUPPORT HITLER (a socialist) except minimally as their oaths required, until the very LATE date of 1938 when Hitler wrote in Rohm’s blood, basically, the message “I am now finally prepared to show you guys with some respect.”

    Actually, that is quite wrong. You would need to look at the progress of German rearmament, and changing Army attitudes towards Hitler that went along with it, which started long before 1938, ILC. The Night of the Long Knives was also much earlier than 1938 (I assume the Rohm comment refers to that event…), I think you will find.

    And it is nice to think that I might be the Empress of Hearts in your heart, HT. :)

    Comment by Cas — October 19, 2011 @ 12:05 pm - October 19, 2011

  99. As always Cas, I’m way ahead of you.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 19, 2011 @ 12:07 pm - October 19, 2011

  100. (or at least 9 minutes… as a minimum ;-) )

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 19, 2011 @ 12:08 pm - October 19, 2011

  101. Hi ILC,
    Yes, it took time for our posts to clear! Good correction, but the rearmament issue remains, and that was started much earlier than 1938.

    Comment by Cas — October 19, 2011 @ 2:38 pm - October 19, 2011

  102. Yes, it took time for our posts to clear!

    Are you claiming that yours was held up in the spamfilter? Or are you trying to make it sound like I somehow didn’t correct my own error on the historical date?

    the rearmament issue remains

    No, it doesn’t. Hitler was a socialist. His party was a mass workers’ movement, the National SOCIALIST German WORKERS’ Party. He rose to Fuehrer und Reichskanzler, on that. He did NOT rise with the support of the Reichswehr. As social conservatives (many of them traditional Prussian nobles), they were indeed very skeptical of Hitler. They thought he wanted to push them out. Hitler bought them off i.e. showed them that, although a socialist, he wasn’t going to push them out… by killing Rohm and deprecating the SA. That was a LATE change to Nazism, i.e., AFTER Hitler had achieved power. But, because he did that, THEN he had enough trust from the Reichswehr to proceed with the rearmament.

    Really, Cas – This is not hard. It’s called history.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 19, 2011 @ 2:56 pm - October 19, 2011

  103. Hi ILC,

    Are you claiming that yours was held up in the spamfilter?

    I don’t know. I took some time to formulate a reply to your post, and by the time I had posted it, you had apparently already posted. I say “apparently” because when I posted, your comment wasn’t in the #97 slot (at least from where I was). It then appeared there when I looked back a while later. This is weird, I agree, but it isn’t the first time that has happened to a post of mine. It posts, and then things shift around, so, that is what it looked like from my viewpoint, in this instance as well.

    He did NOT rise with the support of the Reichswehr. As social conservatives (many of them traditional Prussian nobles), they were indeed very skeptical of Hitler. They thought he wanted to push them out. Hitler bought them off i.e. showed them that, although a socialist, he wasn’t going to push them out… by killing Rohm and deprecating the SA. That was a LATE change to Nazism, i.e., AFTER Hitler had achieved power.

    I am glad you came back with some ideas, so we have the makings of a conversation. I will start by asking you what you mean by a “late change” for Hitler. Hitler used the SA to get leverage on the Weimar Republic’s officials and politicians. But he was ALWAYS aware that the army represented one institution that could seriously block his aims, if he were injudicious. Thus, from the start of his time as Chancellor in January 1933, Hitler made it clear that he wanted the army on his side. Thus, in February and March 1933, Hitler made speeches showing respect for the army’s traditions and position in German society, and followed it up with a new army law in July 1933 that removed some irritating oversight of the army, and the army really dug it when Hitler withdrew Germany from the Disarmament Conference in October of that year. The impediment was the SA to fully getting the army on his side (and with this, I agree with you). However, the army was complicit in cementing Hitler’s rise to power in the early regime. When the army made clear in the Spring of 1934 that something needed to be done about the SA, Hitler knew he had to act. There is little doubt that the action on the SA was carried out with the knowledge AND support of the Army Officer Corps (they provided logistical support and reserve troops in case the SA was difficult to deal with). And there is no doubt that Hitler knew that if he wanted to be President of the Republic when Hindenburg died, he needed to liquidate the issue of the SA. The army could block him, if it chose to do so, from taking that position. So, there was a convergence of interests. The army declared its loyalty in early August, 1934, and Hitler cemented his position with the army’s acquiesence.

    It is hard for us to really appreciate how “in-flux” the early rule of Hitler was.

    Comment by Cas — October 19, 2011 @ 11:27 pm - October 19, 2011

  104. Oh look; after lying, spinning, and arguing dishonestly, Cas tries to get in a last word — by ironically reversing itself.

    Or, put differently, it tries to rewrite history.

    You lose, Cas. ILC and HT win.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 21, 2011 @ 7:30 am - October 21, 2011

  105. I am glad you came back with some ideas, so we have the makings of a conversation

    Cas, you are so full of bullsh*t it is unbelievable. I’ve been saying the same things all along. Now **you finally** choose to engage a fragmant of the substance, including the climb-down that NDT points out; and to save your pride, you make it sound like you are deigning to do so because I finally decided to be reasonable. Pathetic.

    I will start by asking you what you mean by a “late change” for Hitler.

    But I have already exactly what I mean by it:

    Hitler was a socialist. His party was a mass workers’ movement, the National SOCIALIST German WORKERS’ Party. He rose to Fuehrer und Reichskanzler, on that. He did NOT rise [to Fuehrer und Reichskanzler] with the support of the Reichswehr.

    So that your spin:

    from the start of his time as Chancellor in January 1933, Hitler made it clear that he wanted the army on his side.

    is correctly translated to English as what I’ve been saying: At the start of his time as Chancellor in January 1933, HITLER MOST DECIDEDLY DID *NOT* HAVE THE SUPPORT OF THE ARMY.

    You are just pathetic, Cas.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 21, 2011 @ 10:17 am - October 21, 2011

  106. It is hard for us to really appreciate how “in-flux” the early rule of Hitler was.

    Translation: HITLER WAS A SOCIALIST… but, you desperately do not want to admit it.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 21, 2011 @ 10:19 am - October 21, 2011

  107. I noticed the Cas reversal yesterday morning. I started to blow a gasket and set in to respond. Then, I thought about the ramifications of Cas getting a second wind and closed the window.

    Marx, Lenin, Castro, Hitler, Mussolini, Mao all ended whatever propelled them with big, dictatorial government. Whether the pervasive, all controlling government takes from the rich and funnels the residuals to poor, it is still an elitist oligarchy in which “we the people” have restricted say and only get what the government giveth.

    In the respect that communism is a leftist ideology, then so was what Hitler believed and engaged in setting up. His extermination of the Jews, Gypsies, gays, blacks, etc. was just Social Darwinism gone full eugenics and the ends justifying the means.

    For Cas to come here and say that Hitler’s form of national socialism is conservative is to turn a blind eye to the mass murders of inconvenient people. Even the Ayres crowd in the Weatherman days was fully cognizant that recalcitrant people who wanted to preserve the old order would have to be reeducated or exterminated.

    These clowns on OWS and in rapture over rupture of the order in Italy, England, Greece, etc. have no plan other than chaos and the confusion of near anarchy.

    They are demanding that other people’s money be spent on them (the protesters) and they have no interest in how the confiscated money is generated. They only care that some people accumulate “too much” money. So, Cas and clowns favor confiscating more of other people’s money to expand access to things that marginally increase the socialist benefits to Cas and the clowns.

    Cas and the clowns are stuck on the stupid notion of utopia financed by unicorns and the tooth fairy.

    If I ran welfare, I would put the recipients in camps and I would see that they got reeducation which focused on how to get your arse off welfare. For those who prefer to do drugs and birth babies and watch TV, I would accommodate that as well. They would have barracks, a mess hall, basic recreation facilities, room to stroll, medical care and careful supervision to make sure they don’t get hurt playing with the concertina wire. If one is determined to suck off the teat of the government hog, so be it. Nothing says they have to get the Hilton.

    Comment by Heliotrope — October 21, 2011 @ 1:57 pm - October 21, 2011

  108. Every socialist leader desires the support of the army. EVERY one. No exceptions, no matter what branch of socialism she represents. Why? Because the very nature of her enterprise (enslaving the citizenry) requires police and military force, or it can’t be done.

    Saying “Hitler wanted the support of the army” is just like saying that Lenin, Castro, Mussolini or Mao wanted it. In other words, like saying “The sky is blue”, or “Water is wet.” To the extent that the socialist leader can’t hope to get it, she builds her own army – say guerrillas, or a paramilitary like the SA – and plans to fight the regular army. But she’d always prefer not to; she always *wants* “the army on her side”.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 21, 2011 @ 5:26 pm - October 21, 2011

  109. Hi ILC and HT,
    I would remind you that I asked you both to put up your views about Hitler and his rise to power, and to answer the question as to why the conservative German Army Officer Corps would work with a equivalently expropriating socialist leader. HT’s approach was to suggest that I was being “unreasonable” since I was “assuming” that the Corps was conservative in the first place. What twaddle! We all agree about that. You are just annoyed HT because I wouldn’t do the thread by your rules (e.g., “gender up & …”). Sorry about that. In a nutshell–you had no intention of mixing it up, so now stand finally back from the brink of “blowing a gasket” because I say something you don’t like. I’ll reconcile that in a minute, mate.

    ILC, you get all kinds of snarky when I point out that Hitler got the support of the Corps early in his rule. It is not like you actually made an historically based argument prior to this. And I note a happy reliance on assertions. Good for you! You want to beat me over the head with the idea that Hitler had a strained relationship with the army at the start. Well, if you read your history, you would see–the Army didn’t give a fig about Hitler’s supposed socialism; they gave a fig about the possibility that the Army would be superseded by Hitler’s SA, as the traditional guardian of the State–hence the speeches he made (which had nothing to do with socialism, or downplaying expropriation (excessive regulation). That does not fit your narrative.

    For ILC and HT–any socialist pretensions were cast off after June 1934. It wasn’t only Rohm that got liquidated; the “leftist wing did as well. Fascist Germany came into crystal clear focus at that point. Want to argue Hitler is a socialist after 1934–be my guest. But I want to see more than you relying on “regulating industry” as your crutch, I think you need a bit more than that! Because what I think you get is a set of totalitarian characteristics that do not bear “socialist traits” per se. So, shower me with your evidence. Because you haven’t done so in this thread, sport.

    Comment by Cas — October 21, 2011 @ 7:26 pm - October 21, 2011

  110. Cas,

    Here is how history works: Hitler forced himself to the dictatorship of Germany without the benefit of hindsight. He encountered what he encountered and planned strategies according to circumstances. He had a Reichswehr to contend with which was a truncated and defeated military charged with the national security. There was also the Black Reichswehr that illegally played footsie with Russia and was engaged in fudging the numbers vis a vis the oversight of the Treaty of Versailles commissions. The SA served a purpose for Hitler and succeeded in exceeding their usefulness. They had support of part of the Reichswehr, but so did Hitler.

    It became clear to Hitler that he had to throw the SA under the bus in order to get increased support of the German people. for this, he used the Reichswehr with a lot of trusted confidants. The Rohm Putsch occurred at the end of June and beginning of July of 1934. In September of 1934, the 6th Nazi Party Congress was held in Nuremberg and Leni Riefenstahl made her incredible film Triumph des Willens which gave minimal attention to the Wehrmacht. Many Wehrmacht generals were agitated by the “snub” and Riefenstahl returned to make a film in 1935 that was exclusively about the Wehrmacht: Tag der Freiheit: Unsere Wehrmacht.

    By 1936, the Reichswehr ceased to exist and the Wehrmacht took its place. Hitler remade the army officer corps in effect to respond favorably to his highly successful propaganda campaign about the supremacy of Germany.

    Whether Hitler was more motivated by national socialism or militant dictatorial zeal is beside the point.

    If Obama can triumph over the constitutional representative democracy military and force them to serve his purported national socialism ambitions is more of the point. Obama has spoken often about the cumbersome attributes of representative democracy in his drive to drag the recalicitant part of America kicking and screaming into the fundamental transformation of society.

    Dictators are all the same. Obama, still a wanna-be dictator, has not yet dared to show his true colors. He has no Mein Kampf other than his Ayres written Dreams of My Father. Whether he will pull some sort of Rohm Putsch on his useful idiots to gain a solidifying second term in which he finally brings down our system is anybody’s guess.

    You insist on using valence terms which are good only for extending mindless, circular arguments over the definition of terms. Fascism, justice, equality, fairness, and so many more subjective forays are argued only when important matters would crush the interlocutor. Whether you plan that or you play the game instinctively, is not important. The important point is that you are not capable of taking a stand and defending it. You are without principle. Or at least principle with a clear definition.

    Meanwhile, the useful idiots who comprise OWS are easily herded by Soros, the SEIU leadership, the Communist Party and a field of professional agitators. The medium is the message: Occupy, chant, trash, cause chaos, blubber, and, when directed, do violence and mayhem.

    That is who you defend. Rebels without a cause.

    Comment by Heliotrope — October 21, 2011 @ 9:25 pm - October 21, 2011

  111. Hi HT,
    That is more like it!
    As for the OWS, it is pretty clear that they have articulated a set of grievances, and they have a narrative; but they do not have a unified set of solutions; so I do not see them as rebels without a cause–they just don’t have a clear articulation about what they want to do about it–and whether they use “valence” words like “justice” or “fairness” does not invalidate their use. One might as well argue that Greek philosophy was a waste of time because they did not have a nice neat definition of “justice.” And if you want that, one can go with Rawls, but I have a feeling that you do not like Rawls’ arguments or definition.

    As for Hitler’s Germany–Hitler was still pretty cagey with the Army, right up to 1938 (rather than 1936, as you appear to suggest), when he took direct control (and sidelined a number of older, “less responsive” leaders, and replaced them with yes-men like Keitel). I will grant there was a cadre of those who resisted Hilter’s designs (culminating in the July 1944 assassination attempt), and they did so, not with a liberal persuasion, but following a decidedly conservative, illiberal, and anti-democratic stance. The majority of the armed forces’ Officer Corps took the oath of 1934 seriously, and enjoyed the benefits of rapid increase in armaments and army size (promotion, et al), which also included an influx of soldiers long indoctrinated with NSDAP thinking.

    As for why Hitler threw the SA under the bus, though I can grant that there was some discontent concerning the SA’s antics amongst the general population, Hitler’s calculation was more to do with positioning himself for the army’s support as well as worries over an independent Rohm’s effect on his own power base–the worries of an attempted coup, then anything else.

    As for the Reichswehr and “Black Reischswehr”, I think you give the impression that the BR were involved in Russia. That is not my understanding. Von Seeckt was the author of that arrangement with Russia–i.e., at the highest level of the Reichswehr, and it revolved mainly around the training of regular (not “black”) pilots, tank command tactics and doctrine, and (regular not black) officer training. The Black Reichswehr were not the focus of this work, being as they were the “work-commandos” that helped supplement trained members of the Reichswehr (within Germany), as a violation of the Versailles Treaty (on this, I agree with you).

    Note: The Reichswehr (at least the Army Corps) detested the Weimar Republic (consider von Seeckt!). Hitler’s reception was a lot warmer than the Weimar Republic ever got, and they were just a liberal democracy, SPD inspired as it was…

    Comment by Cas — October 22, 2011 @ 12:40 am - October 22, 2011

  112. Ugh!

    it is pretty clear that they [OWS] have articulated a set of grievances

    They [OWS] have “articulated” nothing. The same goes for the “grievances” at the G-8 meetings. They are bashing away at capitalism, that old bogey man “greed,” “too much” wealth accumulation and the law and order that protects those against whom they demonstrate. Those are not grievances. The ones demonstrating are not denied access to capitalism. They are not denied the opportunity to accumulate “too much” wealth, they are not singled out by law enforcement for “occupying” and parading without a permit and (in the case of the G-8 “grievers”) they are not singled out for setting fire to automobiles, breaking store windows and rioting among a diverse and representative crowd of citizens who are doing the same for entertainment.

    Soros, SEIU, the Communist party, and left-wing groups feed, organize and prompt these useful idiots. They are not, as of yet, wearing brown shirts or black shirts or green shirts, but they are also not spontaneous and amalgamated by any set of common goals other than defiance and chaos.

    What I wrote in #110 is not in contradiction to anything in this long and winding thread. You chose to call me a fascist. You have no idea of what the word means outside of its pejorative value to rather plain minded leftists who use it a weapon of name-calling in their arsenal of ammunition that will always arouse the useful idiots to do a group taunt.

    Then you went on some tangent about Hitler’s form of socialism not being liberal. Then you painted the near eunuch Reichswehr of left-over malleable foggies as a conservative force against national socialism and Hitler in particular. That is to entirely misread the role of the national police power in a cataclysmic time of hyper-inflation when local currency replaces trust in and the order provided by a sound national currency. To the extent that the Reichswehr was engaged in law and order and trying to preserve the nation, it was conservative. But you can not use the term conservative in those times and that place as interchangeable with conservative in the United States of today or as applied by leftists to the TEA Party.

    That last point in the continual point of many threads that have dealt with the CAS problem. Cas has no sense of honesty in the use of terms and meaning. And when Cas is confronted with the eely aspects of the Cas “chat” or “converstation” Cas ignores and blathers on.

    Liberals shift the topic, ignore the corrections and proceed to name calling. Cas is a master of the art.

    Comment by Heliotrope — October 22, 2011 @ 11:08 am - October 22, 2011

  113. At #! we hear this from Cas:

    I agree that some of what is motivating OWS folks is a disappointment with Obama’s performance, but I think the larger picture is one that suggests that they are unhappy with the economic-political structure of this country as a whole

    After all the goes before this point in the thread, Cas has assiduously avoided spelling out just what aspects of the “economic-political structure” of this country (USA) makes the “OWS folks” “unhappy.”

    Our Constitution allows for us to be a socialist nation. We can achieve it by Constitutional means and make it an aspect of our constitutional representative democracy.

    A critical component in socialism is the agreement on how to pay for the general welfare. The USSR, Cuba, The PRC have all wrestled with it and ended up with nations of wealthy bureaucrats and massive populations in state controlled poverty.

    European socialism has had a bit different history, but under the EU, it is becoming clear that it is a mare’s nest to try to unify the socialist practices of Italy, Spain, Portugal, Greece and Ireland with the socialist practices of Germany, Belgium, The Netherlands, and France. As an important side note, if moderately wealthy English were to abandon their residences in Spain and France, France would have a faster collapsing economy and Spain would be an even worse financial basket case.

    The United States has critical work to do to address the bankruptcy of Social Security and the Medicare/Medicaid system. To this, Obama has unleashed Obamacare that is a burden of additional entitlement debt of unknown and unthinkable magnitude. It is like Greece of today lowering the retirement age to 40 and ordering the flat broke pension system to pick up the load.

    The leftists see this moment in time as ripe for state socialism in which “we the people” are controlled by the state in nearly every aspect of our lives and we work for the state and instead of receiving payment for our labors, we get allowances and benefits from the state. (Nancy Pelosi, for example, got to fly her grandchildren in a government jet which was stocked with a five star bar and serviced by state employees who bowed and scraped. That alone is indicative of the perks the managers of the hoi polloi must have in exchange for the hard work of managing the masses.)

    That is my read on Obama and the fundamental transformation of America. If there is an argument to be had, it is not about the Reichswehr of a dead and gone time, but the door to the future and what lies behind it.

    The Obama people know full well they do not have enough leftists in the country to effect the fundamental transformation openly and honestly according the to Constitution and the two party system. So they are ruling by fiat and chicanery. They “deem” bills to have been passed. They demagogue. They regulate. They lie. They fund rabble-rousers. They cheat at the voting booth. They steal political money from the treasury through front groups they fund by crooked legislation. They specialize is the worst practices of politics as it has developed over the years in the US.

    There. That is something worth having a “chat” about.

    Comment by Heliotrope — October 22, 2011 @ 11:45 am - October 22, 2011

  114. Heliotrope – Agree, our focus should be on the present and future. I’m trying to identify why I would have spent any time on Cas, in this thread. There is a certain horrific fascination to seeing how low a leftie will go, in pretending to be noble – how shamelessly they will twist words and use the other tactics you mentioned. Part of me wants to assume human beings are better than that. When I have a negative conclusion about lefties, I sometimes go “Wait a minute – can that be true? Can people really be that bad?” Then I probe into what Cas or Levi or the others have to say, and yes, they are as bad as I feared – and worse. It’s a kind of data-gathering mission, to make sure my conclusions about them are just. They are.

    For ILC and HT–any socialist pretensions were cast off after June 1934…

    Bullsh*t, Cas. Yet another example of your being filled with unbelievable and vile bullsh*t. Hitler proceeded after 1934 to implement the very economic program that YOU advocate: Massive social spending, “stimulus”, money printing, regulation, mandates and regimentation of what could and could not be done with property.

    You, Cas, are in fact a fascist in the realm of economics. You stand for the economic ideology/program of Mussolini and Hitler. And you desperately need people to not notice.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 22, 2011 @ 12:09 pm - October 22, 2011

  115. (the overarching characteristic of fascists and all other socialists, being: worship of State power. Subordination of the individual to the State – sometimes euphemized as “the community” – as the answer to all problems, real or imagined.)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 22, 2011 @ 12:15 pm - October 22, 2011

  116. Lest we forget: Hitler also raised taxes on industry, undertook “shovel-ready infrastructure projects” (Autobahn), and either harassed or confiscated the property of those designated as State enemies. All elements of the Obama-Pelosi-Cas economic program.

    In 1934 Hjalmar Schacht, the Reich Minister of Economics, introduced the Mefo bills, allowing Hitler to spend money on rearming without giving the big businesses money, therefore gradually getting Germany into more and more debt. Between 1933 and 1939, the total revenue was 62 billion marks whereas expenditure (at times made up to 60 % by rearmament costs) exceeded 101 billion, thus creating a huge deficit and national debt (reaching 38 billion mark in 1939) coinciding with the Kristallnacht and intensified persecutions of Jews and the break-out of the war.

    They massively increased spending (not just rearmament; also social programs) and they borrowed 40% of every mark spent. That’s like 40 cents on the dollar. Hmm, why does “40 cents” happen to sound so familiar?

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 22, 2011 @ 1:52 pm - October 22, 2011

  117. Hi ILC and HT,

    You chose to call me a fascist.

    Well HT, I think you have made that claim twice in this thread. Where do you think I said that? Can you point that out to me? What I said, at #31, was that:

    I am as much a Marxist as you are a fascist.

    ILC went on to say, at #32, that he thought that:

    in the realm of economics, Cas, you are in fact a fascist, rather than a marxist.

    You appear to be under a misapprehension, unless you think I am a Marxist. But ILC thinks I am a fascist. You might want to get that straightened out between you…

    And I would add–you give NOT ONE shred of evidence to back the claim that the Reichswehr Officer Corps was in fact not conservative, as I have argued. And I would expect that any serious historian versed in German history would politely ask for the backing for this claim. As for this, HT:

    you painted the near eunuch Reichswehr of left-over malleable foggies as a conservative force … That is to entirely misread the role of the national police power in a cataclysmic time of hyper-inflation

    you seem to conflate 1923 with 1934. Out of curiosity, what would have made this group “conservative” enough in your eyes? Or is it a function of “enough strength” that drives you here–your meaning is unclear from what you wrote. Hitler seemed to believe that he needed them enough to tread very lightly and to liquidate the SA issue. Your claim of “left-over malleable foggies” is not supported by the historical record.

    Agree, our focus should be on the present and future

    And why talk about the past, when you so strenuously state that the time of importance is the present and the future, HT & ILC? Because, when you do, you talk about the past as a straight line affirmation of what you believe–evidence to the contrary. That is why I have been looking at history (and dragging you both–kicking and screaming, to do the same). You want to claim a historical narrative that is linear, simplistic and misleading. That is my point. The historical record doesn’t support your contentions, even if Goldberg and others want to tie a pretty little bow around it to say otherwise.

    Also,

    But you can not use the term conservative in those times and that place as interchangeable with conservative in the United States of today or as applied by leftists to the TEA Party.

    Both of you–HT & ILC, are guilty of doing exactly this–you both (to varying extents) equate current US liberal politicians with fascists and Marxists of the day. So, crying about this seems disingenuous at best. And at worst, it poisons any attempt to discuss issues. Believe in any collectivist impulse disapproved of by you–clearly, totalitarian; and those who disagree with you must be totalitarian. Sad. After all, HT, when you do say:

    The Obama people know full well they do not have enough leftists in the country to effect the fundamental transformation openly and honestly according the to Constitution and the two party system. So they are ruling by fiat and chicanery. They “deem” bills to have been passed. They demagogue. They regulate. They lie. They fund rabble-rousers. They cheat at the voting booth. They steal political money from the treasury through front groups they fund by crooked legislation. They specialize is the worst practices of politics as it has developed over the years in the US.

    I can almost feel the spittle through the computer monitor. I would only point out that a simple majority is no longer enough to pass legislation in this country. One needs at least 60%. I grant that Dems AND Repubs did and do this. The point is–as you tar one side–look to your own conservative side of things. It is absolutely amazing to me that even as you say what you do–in good faith, I might add–that others on the other side of the political spectrum say exactly the same things about the conservative side of politics. Can only one side be wrong here?

    I don’t think so.

    Comment by Cas — October 22, 2011 @ 2:24 pm - October 22, 2011

  118. Cas, there is a world of difference between arguing the fine points of the Reichswehr and comparing how the Ayres saturated Obama has significant parallels of likeness to the Mein Kampf narcissism of Hitler and how he proceeded to fundamentally transform Germany.

    The original subject always concerned the useful idiots who flock to do the bidding of Hope and Change and Superior Race and Workers of the World throwing off their chains and Social Justice and other such siren songs sung by manipulators and masters of deceit and the art of the demagogue. The OWS are useful idiots unhappy with the economic-political structure of this country as a whole. They are being played, payed and fed by leftist radicals and when they must be quelled for the gain of the puppet masters, they will be squashed like bugs.

    But you can’t take time to look at how Hitler, Mussolini, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro, and others manipulated their useful idiots. Nope. You have to first settle your little Reichswehr point. You can not find Gandhi, Martin Luther King, or even the Children’s Crusade in OWS, because those movements involved clear grievances with clear solutions. The radical left can not afford such principled actions.

    Jonah Goldberg made a remarkably good case for calling fascism a liberal concept. Take it up with him. All I know is that leftists can neither define fascism nor identify why it is “conservative.” They simply use fascism interchangeably with calling someone a racist or a Nazi or a Neanderthal or any of their other list of pejorative terms which, in their hands, are not considered politically incorrect. (Double standard, anyone? Or is it just blatant hypocrisy?)

    I called you a Marxist. You may not know what that is, but your views are decidedly Marxist. You may be a Leninist, but I have not plumbed what there is of your alleged wit and wisdom to determine that. I stand by my label: You, Cas, are a Marxist.

    You told me back: “I am as much a Marxist as you are a fascist.” That is neither nuanced nor subtle. “If” you are a Marxist, then you determine that I am a fascist. Had you wished to escape the branding, you would have used a facetious form of denial such as: “I am no more a Marxist as you are a pterodactyl.” Your non-denial, however, only parses syllogistically to return the favor of your being identified a Marxist with an identification of me as a fascist.

    What is trifling about this is that we can easily determine what characterizes a Marxist, but not even you in all your self vaunted high intellect can come close to making a clear definition of fascism.

    Cas, you are a typical, tedious intellectual wanna-be who can neither frame an argument nor stay on topic nor accept even small defeats. You represent a long line of liberal blunderbusses who, like Joe Biden, never learn and prefer to just blunder ahead rather than to reflect and be circumspect. That is at the heart of narcissism.

    Comment by Heliotrope — October 22, 2011 @ 5:13 pm - October 22, 2011

  119. Hi HT,
    Thanks for the explanation. I will just say that I don’t consider myself a Marxist (so my comment should be seen in that light). But then, I don’t think that Obama is a National Socialist either. I think that is just hyperbole. I don’t like what Obama has done in many areas, but I find that kind of rhetoric unnecessarily incendiary. As for the Reichswehr, I would point out that if ILC wants to make the case that Obama is a fascist, and that Hitler is a socialist, then he is going to have to accept that he can be challenged on his notions of history. The Reichswehr plays into this because it was a conservative organization. It swore its allegiance to Hitler. My question was for ILC to reconcile that apparent problem with his viewpoint. So, if you don’t want to hear me talk about the Reichswehr, then folks on this website should stop comparing Obama to Hitler, and saying Hitler is a socialist. Because, I am going to make cause against that set of claims. We might as well say that Bush was like Hitler (and I know some on the left did exactly this) but that was as dopey a claim as now comparing Obama to Hitler–having it come from the right doesn’t make it smell any sweeter, HT.

    As for a definition of fascism, I think you have a legitimate concern; it is an open question, and one that deserves consideration, though it does not do the work of delegitimizing that you think it does. I accept that its a bit broad and characteristic driven; and work needs to be done to narrow it down. Out of curiosity–what would you like to see in such a definition of fascism? Basically, it doesn’t have an economic ideology, as I see this subsumed within its essentially totalitarian and opportunistic structure.

    And HT, before you throw your stones, be aware that I have raised my points about inquiries you yourself raised. So, whether you think it is tedious, at least I supported my historically based arguments, not something you showed much of an appetite for, I might add. And as for tedious, please understand that whilst there are many on your side of the fence that enjoy hearing you state your points over and over again, to others on the other side–it also can be a little tedious. I do not begrudge you this–you believe these things. In any case, I appreciate the lesser heated nature of your rhetoric these last couple of posts.

    Comment by Cas — October 23, 2011 @ 12:31 am - October 23, 2011

  120. if you don’t want to hear me talk about the Reichswehr, then folks on this website should stop comparing Obama to Hitler, and saying Hitler is a socialist.

    Oh, my. A dictate.

    Poor, Cas. Hitler was a narcissist. He was a socialist. He found his way to become dictator. He was a propaganda expert and used it expertly. He morphed into one of the world’s great genocidal murders. (However, both Stalin and Mao outdid him in that department.) Like all socialist dictators, he finally short circuited the ends and just kept working at the means.

    Obama is a socialist. He is a narcissist. He has found a way to short circuit the Constitution through czars, a complicit Senate that will invent rules and ignore others and by issuing executive orders and manipulating by regulation. He is also engaged in money laundering borrowed money raised by selling bonds and taken from the US Treasury and given to crony causes in exchange for political kickbacks. Obama is good with the propaganda of setting forth non-ideas through valence terms like “hope” and “change” and “fundamental transformation” and “social justice” and whatever the focus groups reveal will cause the malcontents to drool. That is always the main power of the demagogue who would be dictator if the opportunity arose.

    This much is not an outlandish comparison with Hitler. Now that Obama and his radical friends are stocking up the useful idiots to occupy and demonstrate across the US and the Western world, it certainly puts one in mind of the socialists of the 1930′s in the US who held a huge American Nazi Party rally at Madison Square Garden in New York City at which Charles Lindberg spoke amidst swastika flags and Hitler salutes.

    I do not expect Obama to reignite the Nazi Party, but frothing socialists would be more than welcome in his camp.

    So, Cas, if you want to hammer away at how Obama dare not be compared to Hitler in any manner until your molehill of concern over the Reichswehr is fully excavated and studied and determinations are made, you go right ahead. That makes you a carbuncle on the ass end of intelligence.

    Out of curiosity–what would you like to see in such a definition of fascism?

    George Orwell wrote an essay entitled “Politics and the English Language” in which he noted: “The word Fascism has now (1946) no meaning in so far as it signifies ‘something not desirable.’”

    I made reference to Jonah Goldberg and I see no purpose to attempting to out think his answer concerning the meaning of Fascism:

    Fascism is a religion of the state. It assumes the organic unity of the body politic and longs for a national leader attuned to the will of the people. It is totalitarian in that it views everything as political and holds that any action by the state is justified to achieve the common good. It takes responsibility for all aspects of life, including our health and well-being, and seeks to impose uniformity of thought and action, whether by force or through regulation and social pressure. Everything, including the economy and religion, must be aligned with its objectives. Any rival identity is part of the “problem” and therefore identified as the enemy. I will argue that contemporary American liberalism embodies all of these aspects of fascism.”

    Marxism, fascism, socialism, progressivism are all aimed at a “New World Order” that embrace Utopian ideals of “liberty,” “equality,” “fraternity,” “social justice,” “unity,” “community,” “fairness,” “compassion,” and on and on and on.

    These are nobel ideals that are only possible by making war on “poverty” and making war on “poor health” and making war on “obesity” and making war on “ignorance” and making war on “discrimination” and making war on “greed” and making war on the politically incorrect issue de jour.

    Who better to make these wars than a totalitarian government carrying the banner of social enlightenment onto the battlefield where people who cling to their Bibles and guns and old fashioned concepts like limited government refuse to be “enlightened?”

    Fascism is the end of political debate and the Triumph of the Will to set the old world aright.

    Finally, you will note that Goldberg says that Fascism “…longs for a national leader attuned to the will of the people.” Since the state is supreme, obviously Fascism can not wait for representative democracy to turn to it. It has to impose itself through whatever means on representative democracy and then move forward (think “progressive”) to eliminate the enemies of the state. Therefore, “the will of the people” is not a conditional aspect of Fascism.

    Onward, socialist soldiers, marching as to war,
    with the ideals of Utopia going on before.
    Marx, the great Idealist, leads against the foe;
    forward into battle see his banners go.

    Onward socialist soldiers, marching as to war,
    with the ideals of Utopia going on before.

    Comment by Heliotrope — October 23, 2011 @ 10:21 am - October 23, 2011

  121. Let’s make this absolutely clear.

    - A socialist is anybody who thinks government should provide private goods (food, medicine, bailouts, monopoly privileges, union subsidies, etc.).
    - Hitler was a socialist. His party was the National SOCIALIST German WORKERS’ Party. He practiced that sub-species of socialism, called National Socialism at the time and Fascism by some today, which expropriates property de facto via regulation, mandates, systematic deficit spending and money printing, etc., rather than expropriating property de jure as with Marxist socialism.
    - It is the same economic program practiced or advocated by Obama, Reid, Pelosi and Cas.
    - NOT coincidentally, that political party also harbors the people in the U.S. today who call for suspension of the Constitution, democratic elections, etc.

    Examples of the latter are becoming increasingly common:
    - NC Gov. Purdue calling for suspension of elections.
    - Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. calling for suspension of the constitution.
    - Left-wing “economist” Paul Krugman indicating that a massive, World War-scale rearmanent program would be just the thing for the economy.
    - President Obama periodically whining that the U.S. isn’t more like China (a repressive dictatorship).

    Cas, your doctrines (and games) are an example of human evil.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 23, 2011 @ 12:37 pm - October 23, 2011

  122. (type, “NC Gov. P-e-rdue”)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 23, 2011 @ 12:39 pm - October 23, 2011

  123. Oh, ILC, can’t you see that Cas can not possibly accept your words or mine until this Reichswehr obstacle is removed? After all, we are ideologues trying to foist our “stuff” on the purity of Progressivism which transcends politics and replaces silly elections and electioneering with a universal religion of state primacy. What does it take to indoctrinate people like us? Perhaps we can think it out over time in a reeducation camp where we can toil at a menial job for the good of the state and arrive at an epiphany that causes us to be champions of the Progressive Way. Or maybe we will just have to stay in the gulag and obey.

    Comment by Heliotrope — October 23, 2011 @ 1:58 pm - October 23, 2011

  124. Heh :-) Needless to say (and to your point), the “Reichswehr obstacle” was removed many comments ago – or never existed.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 23, 2011 @ 2:23 pm - October 23, 2011

  125. Gentlemen, we must also remember that Cas is desperately trying to spin its way into establishing some credibility and intelligence when it was exposed as a lying idiot so easily above.

    I personally find it amusing that something like Cas can pretend to pontificate on the nuances of history when, as pointed out above, it can’t even read or understand basic English or mathematics. But what we need to remember is that in the universe of the Obama “progressive” such as Cas, facts are only facts inasmuch as they comport with the predetermined narrative. Your re-education, as demanded by the Obama Cas “progressive” movement, will consist of essentially beating you until you lose any capability to think beyond that which you are told by Obama.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 23, 2011 @ 3:54 pm - October 23, 2011

  126. Hi ILC & HT,

    Cas, your doctrines (and games) are an example of human evil.

    Thank you for making my point about being unnecessarily incendiary, ILC. Its a common tactic here, and one I cannot take seriously.
    a complicit Senate that will invent rules and ignore others and by issuing executive orders and manipulating by regulation. 60% to get anything passed. I don’t remember anything about that in the Constitution, HT. It used to be 50%; now we need super-majorities. Reconciliation could only work if there was a simple majority; like what used to be normal, way back when…

    - A socialist is anybody who thinks government should provide private goods (food, medicine, bailouts, monopoly privileges, union subsidies, etc.).

    To me, this is a serious hole in your logic. According to this, if I could provide it privately, as in the past, government shouldn’t do it now, even if there is a prima facie case of economic efficiency in doing so (firefighters, etc). That is just not sensible, in my opinion. Further, as you write this, you appear to be saying that if a government just does some intervention–its socialist. There is no degree of difference between a government that has its hands on the production of all private goods, and one that has much less influence. So, what happens when the government gives up a stake in a public company, as with GM? Can we agree that it is less socialist; or, temporarily socialist? This is important, because it is this move that allows you to smoothly move from Obama to Hitler with such facility. And I just don’t buy it.

    Oh, ILC, can’t you see that Cas can not possibly accept your words or mine until this Reichswehr obstacle is removed?

    There you go again–exaggeration. I raised a point you didn’t want to deal with, even as it is germane to the topic at hand–as it was discussed in its historical context. We did talk a little, but again, you boogied out. In any case, you have yet to convince me of the efficacy of your point–HT & ILC. We can talk about other issues, HT, as well.

    Like OWS. I do not think that these are necessarily Obama supporters. Why? Because, there are plenty of folks on the left who see them as equally as misguided as you do. This is not a Democratic Party institution, HT…

    Comment by Cas — October 23, 2011 @ 11:39 pm - October 23, 2011

  127. 60% to get anything passed. I don’t remember anything about that in the Constitution, HT.

    That is because you do not understand the Constitution. Nor do you understand the operation of the Senate. This is not a deficiency resulting from not “chatting.” It is a deficiency as basic as not understanding our system of government.

    (firefighters, etc).

    Classic! When you socialists are cornered, you immediately claim that fire fighters, police, the road maintenance department, the water system, etc are all in danger of returning us to the dark ages.

    you appear to be saying that if a government just does some intervention–its socialist.

    The intervention is socialist, which compromises laissez faire. No one here, that I know of, has ever promoted pure laissez faire capitalism. If you don’t understand the Constitution and Senate rules, then you probably have only passing knowledge of capitalism and surely no real understanding of Adam Smith.

    Rather than go on with more, I will just note that your slip is showing. Your ignorance of the basics here makes your pontifications in subjects as arcane as the Reichswehr stand brightly as just bull session chatter.

    Comment by Heliotrope — October 24, 2011 @ 8:15 am - October 24, 2011

  128. To me, this is a serious hole in your logic.

    Only because you’re you, Cas. You cannot afford to acknowledge that Hitler was a socialist… therefore, you must pretend not to understand (or perhaps you can make yourself really not understand, _1984_-style; I’m not sure which) what I’m saying. In the present case: you must (and you do) obscure/deny/ignore the distinction between public and private goods.

    you appear to be saying that if a government just does some intervention–its socialist.

    Already answered up at #54:

    Prime example of the Cas bullsh*t twisting [of words/concepts]. Did Adam Smith advocate the provision of private goods by public means? No, of course not. Just as I do, he advocated the provision of public goods by public means, and private goods by private means. I never said that a socialist was a person who advocated *any* role for government in the economy; only a person who advocates that government planners seek to provide PRIVATE (as opposed to public) goods.

    Really, Cas, you need to try a lot harder. You’re not even close to hitting your marks now. I’m not even going to bother with the rest of whatever you said; waste of my time.

    Onto Heliotrope:

    No one here, that I know of, has ever promoted pure laissez faire capitalism.

    Umm… I do. But I think we are just using the terms differently. Time to clarify them. To begin with, I do not promote anarchy; some people claim to be anarcho-capitalists and I am not one of them, as I find it a contradiction in terms. Government is essential for the impartial protection of individual rights to life, liberty and property. (Note that rights and justice, though they benefit individual e.g. crime victims, are public goods.) If it does its job there, government creates the field in which people can do productive things and will naturally proceed to. Having created that field, however, government ought to do as little as possible, because anything more that it does will inherently undermine the rights which it just ensured (making government the oppressor). Such a government lets people “do as they choose” or is laissez-faire, and is what I advocate.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 24, 2011 @ 10:46 am - October 24, 2011

  129. For the sane people: I do NOT fully endorse the following Wiki article on public vs. private goods, as it is wrong on some points, but it is a decent quick-n-dirty intro to the distinction – it not as demented and Left-biased as it might be (I suppose Cas should get to work on it): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good

    Interesting tidbit:

    Social goods are defined as public goods that could be delivered as private goods, but are usually delivered by the government for various reasons, including social policy, and funded via public funds like taxes.,

    Yeah… they are called SOCIAL (as opposed to public) goods, because they are private goods to be delivered by government planners, and the advocates of such delivery/planning are therefore SOCIALists.

    But I digress. I wanted to say something about fire protection services. They are in effect an insurance service. They could be provided privately. However, they are #68,026 on the list of things to be privatized in the laissez-faire Utopia. Job #1 is to repeal ObamaCare. Job #2 is to return to sound money. I believe in having a sense of priorities.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 24, 2011 @ 11:01 am - October 24, 2011

  130. Hi HT,

    That is because you do not understand the Constitution.

    BY all means show me the 60% rule in the Constitution, HT. And, I love that rhetoric of “cornered”! A wild beast is on the loose… arghhh…what silliness.

    You cannot afford to acknowledge that Hitler was a socialist…

    Please note that if you already assume this, you of course get your outcome; I remember HT complaining vociferously about these holes in logic back in the thread. It isn’t going to help you to claim as correct the very thing we are arguing about in this thread, ILC. If we agree on the premise, you can get to use it as a base for a claim. We don’t.

    Yeah… they are called SOCIAL (as opposed to public) goods, because they are private goods to be delivered by government planners, and the advocates of such delivery/planning are therefore SOCIALists.

    ILC, the key insight of pure public goods is that they be non-excludable and non-rivalrous (look it up). However, lighthouses were once provided privately (as they were can be considered a club good). No longer. Do you see them as “social” goods, “private” goods, or “public” goods? Hard core libertarians see defence as a privately provided good. Defense can also be provided socially and publically. Again, what say you? If you can provide defence privately, will you call a government who provides it, socialist? Where is your end point here, ILC? According to some views–all goods are private. It seems that definitions of public and private goods are a movable feast–depending on custom and imagination. So, what standard will you use to determine what is a REAL public good, and what is not, ILC? Because, I have no idea what “little as possible” would mean in this context… And at what point is a government who provides such a good deemed socialist?

    HT, thanks for your thoughts on fascism. I will think about it some. The one thing that strikes me as worth following up, is the ambivalent relationship that it has towards capitalism. Fascism is most comfortable with corporatism (& monopoly capital in general), and that might be the fruitful path in articulating fascism as a right wing phenomenon (don’t worry, I am not suggesting you agree with that thought!). Fascism is drawn to capitalism because it is the most efficient mode of production. If the aim is to turn the state into a paean of state sanctioned violence, then rearming is something that needs to be done as quickly and efficiently as possible; something that the capitalist mode of production can be very good at, when given the right kinds of state derived incentives. An interesting avenue to pursue.

    Comment by Cas — October 24, 2011 @ 11:43 am - October 24, 2011

  131. BY all means show me the 60% rule in the Constitution, HT.

    Oh, the hilarity.

    What the fascist Cas doesn’t realize is that it’s showing its colors quite nicely; it insists, for example, that the filibuster is “unconstitutional”, but ignores the fact that it and its fellow “progressives” in the Obama/OWS Party insisted before that it was an essential and constitutional part of our democracy.

    And therein we see the silliness of the pathetic fascist Obama and his puppet child Cas. These two fools are so desperate for power that they don’t realize they’re contradicting themselves. Obama and Cas both insist that the filibuster is unconstitutional and a grab of power away from the executive branch, but endorsed wholeheartedly its unlimited use when Obama and Cas were in the Senate minority.

    And then the desperate Cas fool tries to lie.

    According to this, if I could provide it privately, as in the past, government shouldn’t do it now, even if there is a prima facie case of economic efficiency in doing so (firefighters, etc).

    No. That is not what ILC said. You are a liar, Cas, and you are trying to lie and smear your way out of the trap you’ve found yourself in.

    And you know what, Cas? I will continue to show what a lying fool you are, because you can’t answer. You have been completely humiliated time and again in this thread. All three of us have used your own words to trap you and show the world what a helpless, ignorant, pathetic fool you are.

    Isn’t that wonderful, fool Cas? You can’t lie your way out. You can’t scream your way out. Mommie can’t save you. Pissing your pants and starting to fling feces are the only thing you have left, and all three of us are sitting here watching you and laughing at you as you do it.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 24, 2011 @ 12:42 pm - October 24, 2011

  132. Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a member.

    Get it? Each House of Congress writes its own rules of procedure.

    60% to get anything passed. I don’t remember anything about that in the Constitution, HT.

    Well, Cas, that is because it is not in the Constitution. But, if you had a wee bit of understanding of the Constitution, you would understand that “60% to get anything passed” is a Constitutionally recognized rule of procedure in the Senate. As a point of interest, were you all exercised over the “60% threshold” when the Democrats had a filibuster proof majority that locked the Republicans out?

    Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

    Obamacare had to pass the House of Representatives and then pass the Senate and then go to a Conference Committee to reconcile any differences. After the Conference Committee finished its reconciliation bill, that bill had to pass the House of Representatives and pass the Senate without any changes whatsoever. Then it would go to the President for his action.

    Surely you can point out where this process was carried out in the case of Obamacare. In fact, I would love for you to explain the method used to send Obamacare to the President, because I could then send it on to Senator Jim Webb of Virginia. Webb admitted in a public forum I conducted before political science students that he was not at all clear how Obamacare squared with House rules and Senate rules or if any member of the Congress could show how the process used in Obamacare could withstand scrutiny in a legal sense.

    Many of here could help you gain the basic education you need to first comprehend before you launch on one of your dictates or proclamations. The point is, this is not a free university where you chat your way to basic epiphanies.

    Comment by Heliotrope — October 24, 2011 @ 3:16 pm - October 24, 2011

  133. Hi HT,
    How does your quote have anything to do with what follows? You just gave me the part of the Constitution dealing with vetos HT? So … huh?

    If the two bills are identical, then there is no need for that bill to be reconciled, right? And if the bills are mandatory spending or tax bills only, they do not need more than 50 votes. So, from what I read, I have to say–sorry, no enchilada for you. And as for Senator Webb, since I have no independent ability (do you have an official transcript that you want to share?) to confirm what was said and how, I have no idea what he said and IN WHAT CONTEXT he said it. With all due respect to you HT, you would never accept something like that from me, so why try and argue from your lofty heights, especially since you know I don’t think your heights are that, um, “lofty.” It may also be the case that if the shoe was on the other foot, you wouldn’t give a brass farthing whether Repubs used Reconciliation to get a bill through (that you liked) that would otherwise be filibustered or threatened with filibuster. Well?

    As for the 60% rule, because that is what it is, the level of obstruction is unprecedented (and used on just about every occasion, not just occasionally)–feel free to object, but come with your stats on cloture votes from various Congressional sessions–OK?

    Comment by Cas — October 24, 2011 @ 11:18 pm - October 24, 2011

  134. If the two bills are identical, then there is no need for that bill to be reconciled, right?

    But they were not. You lie in saying so, Cas, and that is easily provable.

    And if the bills are mandatory spending or tax bills only, they do not need more than 50 votes.

    Irrelevant. No bill “needs” more than a majority of votes; Senate rules simply state that it requires a vote of 60 to cut off debate on a bill. Furthermore, as Heliotrope sets out, the Constitution explicitly and specifically allows each house of Congress to set its own rules.

    The hilarity, Cas, is that your blabbering about “reconciliation” and the like depend on — surprise! – a series of rules passed by the Senate, including the Byrd rule, named after your fellow KKK supporter and Obama Party member Robert Byrd. All of which you now deem unconstitutional, since you insist that the Senate and the House have no ability to make such rules.

    This is where your ignorance and desperation trip you up, fascist. Your blabbering and spin is easily unraveled by anyone not similarly blinded by your ideology of power uber alles; hence you are easily led into traps such as the one Heliotrope set for you to force you to invoke rules of procedure such as reconciliation — after insisting that any and all rules are unconstitutional.

    And as for Senator Webb, since I have no independent ability (do you have an official transcript that you want to share?) to confirm what was said and how, I have no idea what he said and IN WHAT CONTEXT he said it.

    And yet, you refuse to provide a single link or reference to verify all of your statements taken from various “sources”.

    So again, childish fascist, you are demanding of others rules you refuse to follow yourself.

    And again:

    With all due respect to you HT, you would never accept something like that from me, so why try and argue from your lofty heights, especially since you know I don’t think your heights are that, um, “lofty.”

    And yet you scream and cry and throw tantrums and demand that we take everything you say at face value, without providing any sources, any links, or any indication of your own credentials.

    So again, childish fascist, you are demanding of others rules you refuse to follow yourself.

    Choking yet, Cas? You and your fellow Obama Party fascists are having every trick, every game, every rule change you ever tried forced down your throat, and you’re screaming and bawling and bleating about how unfair it is.

    Childish little brat. We know your games, and we can all play them better than you can. You’re being humiliated every time you open your mouth in this thread, and we are making you dance like an idiot puppet on a string, tricking you into contradicting yourself and pulling up fact after fact to demonstrate your absolute lack of intelligence and education.

    If you weren’t such an ass, we might start feeling sympathy at some point. But unfortunately, you are an ass, and as a result, you’re going to be treated like one.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 25, 2011 @ 1:37 am - October 25, 2011

  135. So, I click on the link Cas provides and I come up with reconciliation goobledy-gook on the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities website that strains the credulity and clearly is written to exonerate any and all actions the Democrat Senate might take to shove Obamacare through the keyhole. If you read it, you will find where Cas gets the talking points.

    Then I went straight to George Soros in search of the rat and there it was:

    Soros and his foundations have had a hand in funding noteworthy leftist organizations. Since 1999, Soros’s Open Society Institute (OSI) has given grants to Center for American Progress ($1.8 million), Center on Budget and Policy Priorities ($3.7 million), Economic Policy Institute ($3 million), Institute for America’s Future ($965,000), and the Center for Policy Alternatives ($1.4 million), the Tides Foundation ($20 million).

    Other leftist groups Soros funds includes the following; [14] the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy, the Tides Center; the National Organization for Women; Feminist Majority; the American Civil Liberties Union; People for the American Way; Alliance for Justice; NARAL Pro-Choice America; America Coming Together; Campaign for America’s Future; Amnesty International; the Sentencing Project; the Center for Community Change; the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People Legal Defense and Educational Fund; Human Rights Watch; the Prison Moratorium Project; the Malcolm X Grassroots Movement; the National Lawyers Guild; the Center for Constitutional Rights; the Coalition for an International Criminal Court; The American Prospect; MoveOn.org; Planned Parenthood; the Nation Institute; the Brennan Center for Justice; the Ms. Foundation for Women; the National Security Archive Fund; the Pacifica Foundation; Physicians for Human Rights; the Proteus Fund; the Public Citizen Foundation; the Urban Institute; the American Friends Service Committee; Catholics for a Free Choice; Human Rights First; the Independent Media Institute; MADRE; the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund; the Immigrant Legal Resource Center; the National Immigration Law Center; the National Immigration Forum; the National Council of La Raza; the American Immigration Law Foundation; the Lynne Stewart Defense Committee; and the Peace and Security Funders Group.

    Then I went to Wikipedia and not surprisingly found that the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities entry takes great pains to describe it as the go-to think tank for unbiased and credible budget information.

    The Soros Goebbels arm is amazing and reaches deep into every niche where one-world-socialist-government propaganda can reach.

    Nice useful idiot work, Cas. You have carried the water like a trained ass, even if you do not have a clue about what you are talking about.

    Now come tell us how the 2,000 bill was in the hands of the Parlimentarian and every member before the vote was taken. There must be a Soros site you can cite. Link away.

    Comment by Heliotrope — October 25, 2011 @ 10:16 am - October 25, 2011

  136. That should be: 2,000 page bill ….

    Comment by Heliotrope — October 25, 2011 @ 10:18 am - October 25, 2011

  137. Hi HT,
    Glad to see you looking for who pays for an institute (do I get brownie points if I point out those behind right-leaning think-tanks?. Or would you point out what I am about to say…). Whether that is relevant or not is depends on whether the information offered is relevant or not, biased or not. I notice that you dismiss the link with out actually explaining why you think it is biased or not relevant, apart from saying: “goobly-gook.” Excuse me if I don’t feel inclined to think that is a winning argument, or much of an argument at all.

    As for “exonerating” a Dem Senate–I believe that both sides will sometimes work within the bleeding edge of what is allowable, or stretch rulings, or overturn established procedural precedent to get what they need done. How about acknowledging that your side of the aisle does the same–and that currently, it is offering an unprecedented level of obstruction, HT? Or are you going to maintain the fiction that this is solely a “Dem issue”?

    And as for your Soros “argument,” you sound like those on the left who excoriate the Koch brothers. So, let the defence that this website and many right-leaning commentators offer for the Koch Brothers provide inspiration and a road-map for those who desire to spend the time and effort to defend Soros…

    Comment by Cas — October 25, 2011 @ 11:41 am - October 25, 2011

  138. Oh, my.

    The existing order is a constitutional representative democracy. Soros and his minions are engaged in overthrowing the existing order. The Koch brothers are engaged in preserving the existing order.

    Fundamentally transforming America can be done by Constitutional means with openness and transparency according to the rules of both Houses or it can be done by the chicanery or legislative sleight of hand, ignoring the process, hiring voters, demonstrators, infiltrating and manipulation.

    We conservatives believe in openness. The Obamanauts have circumvented openness and engaged in widespread demagoguery, propaganda and outright lying.

    When you ignore Soros and rely on the “equivalence” game by calling in the Koch brothers you tip your hand. You are welcome to come to this site with all manner of actual facts concerning the Koch brothers attempting to overthrow the existing order of an open constitutional representative democracy in order to establish ….. ? …..

    Reread your link and you will note that Social Security, Medicare, Food Stamps, Public Housing, WIC, Earned Income Credit, Section 8, Head Start, Affirmative Action, Americans with Disabilities Act, the EPA, the Civil Rights Act(s), the WPA, the TVA, the NRC, TARP, the Stimulus bill and all the other major social welfare programs DID NOT come into being by “reconciliation” shenanigans. If any had been “tricked” into existence, it surely would have been referenced as a model.

    Obamacare is equal to and exceeds any social welfare program ever enacted. Your little special interest group from the Soros camp draws a pathetic outline of how the “reconciliation” sleight of hand is perfectly normal.

    I did not blindside Senator Webb. I asked if he felt he could write a paragraph or two explaining how Obamacare became law that would be readily understood in a citizenship study guide and by all high schools students not being left behind in their quest for a GED or high school diploma.

    Senator Webb is a practical man and a fine citizen. He did not pretend to say that the job could be done. In fact, he chose to be quite honest by saying that if he had to explain the process on the spot that he would fail the test.

    Perhaps, Cas, you can write that entry for the civics text book. I would love to read it.

    Comment by Heliotrope — October 25, 2011 @ 1:15 pm - October 25, 2011

  139. Glad to see you looking for who pays for an institute (do I get brownie points if I point out those behind right-leaning think-tanks?.

    You have already stated, Cas, that information from sources you deem “right wing” or who are funded by the “right wing” is always biased and never factual. You have clearly established that funding or affiiliation alone, NOT relevance or bias, is what matters.

    So what Heliotrope has again manipulated you into doing is demonstrating your basic hypocrisy, duplicity, and contradictory assertions. You quoted a source that by your own definition is invalid.

    As for “exonerating” a Dem Senate–I believe that both sides will sometimes work within the bleeding edge of what is allowable, or stretch rulings, or overturn established procedural precedent to get what they need done.

    Which you have already stated is unconstitutional.

    So what you are acknowledging is that your Obama Party engaged in unconstitutional theatrics to pass Obamacare and that it unconstitutionally filibustered whenever it was in the minority.

    Again, Cas, Heliotrope has easily manipulated you into showing off for everyone your rank and bigoted hypocrisy. Bluntly put, you support and endorse methods that are by your own definitions extralegal and unconstitutional in order for your Obama Party to get its way.

    No surprise, your fascist Obama has announced this morning in one of his usual blabbering speeches that he will ignore Congress and the Constitution and do as he pleases.

    That is called assuming dictatorial powers, idiot Cas, and it is patently unconstitutional. Furthermore, it is epic-level hypocrisy, given that you, your fellow OWS Obama Party members, and Obama himself shrieked during Bush’s entire Presidency that ANY action taken without the consent of Congress was unconstitutional and grounds for impeachment.

    You have ripped off the mask and gone full-bore fascist, Cas. You and your Obama Party have made it abundantly clear that you want to abolish elections, that you want Congress eliminated, and to utter hell with the Constitution if it doesn’t let Chancellor Obama do as he wants.

    If you want to retain a shred of power in this country, Cas, I strongly suggest that you and your OWS Obama Party repudiate Dear Leader. You’re already hiding from him on his bus tours; now you just need to take the next step and state that he’s a con artist who lied to you about his intentions.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 25, 2011 @ 1:42 pm - October 25, 2011

  140. And, HT, my point still stands–please I would love the official transcript of your public forum with Senator Webb. That way, I can read for myself what was said, in relation to what, and in what context. As it stands, your comments can be read as an argument supporting the “complexity” of an explanation, rather than an unwillingness to engage with something that was “illegal” or of “dubious validity according to the rules of the Senate.”

    As for saying:

    and all the other major social welfare programs DID NOT come into being by “reconciliation” shenanigans.

    That is great HT, but would they have come into effect, had they been filibustered with a solid 40 minority? Why were they not filibustered? I know there are some on the Right that wished that they had been, if they had had the opportunity then, that they now have to do this sort of action. So, your examples don’t fit the issue.

    Soros and his minions are engaged in overthrowing the existing order. The Koch brothers are engaged in preserving the existing order.

    I do not “ignore” Soros, but, and as would hardly surprise you, I do not have the same view of Soros that you and others here do. I just have zero interest in comparing, attacking, and defending either one or other of these right and left bugbears, especially on the field you want to lay before us. They are all extremely rich individuals who like to use money to support the causes they like. If we want to talk about the provable illegality of their actions, that at least is something (hopefully) supportable with proof. But I haven’t seen any of these individuals frog-marched in hand-cuffs, so I am dubious about finding the goods on any of them! And pray tell, what would an argument about the nature of “openness,” Koch, & Soros do here, apart from telling us that our basic assumption sets are very different, and create more heat than light?

    Also, even the idea of “openness”–sounds a bit like “justice,” “fairness,” and other such words, HT…

    Comment by Cas — October 25, 2011 @ 3:36 pm - October 25, 2011

  141. 140.And, HT, my point still stands–please I would love the official transcript of your public forum with Senator Webb. That way, I can read for myself what was said, in relation to what, and in what context.

    Oh, isn’t that entertaining.

    Because Cas certainly wasn’t capable of providing any actual links, page numbers, or references for all the bull it was supposedly pulling from its magical book on Germany.

    Once again, the brat won’t live up to the standards it demands of others. Just another example of how Cas is a failure at logic and a complete and total hypocrite.

    And one more thing, fascist Cas; your Obama and his minions just called for political opponents to be put on trial and executed.

    Who does that sound like? Hm?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 25, 2011 @ 4:37 pm - October 25, 2011

  142. Cas,

    1.) Write the simple explanation of how the Obamacare bill became law that can be readily understood by people seeking to pass the citizenship examination and by students seeking a GED or high school diploma. You have nothing to learn from Senator Web. He said he could not do that task. He said he was not even prepared to take the mike and explain exactly how Obamacare proceeded to the President’s desk no matter how convoluted and long the explanation might be. The idea that you can review his understanding through a transcript, is ludicrous. All you could possibly achieve is calling me a liar or mistaken as to the Senator’s meaning in his words. That does not address the point in any manner whatsoever. You are shifting the topic, which is one of the three key plays in the liberal play book. That dog won’t hunt.

    2.) The Democrats filibustered the daylights out of the Civil Rights Act. But more importantly, you have failed to excoriate the Democrats and The Won for peeing all over the Republican Senators when the Democrats had a filibuster proof Senate. What, pray tell, is the difference between the arrogance of operating under filibuster immunity and using the filibuster to try to pry the Democrats into accepting some bipartisanship by threatening a filibuster. Furthermore, why don’t the Democrats have the Moxie to let the Republicans filibuster and wear themselves down? And why did the Democrats drag judicial nominations into the realm of the filibuster during the Clinton Presidency? And why did the Democrats rewrite the cloture rules and the vote size required for cloture? And why can’t the Democrats take as good as they have given time and time and time again in the whole filibuster history? They have become world class crybabies over having to take what they so liberally dished out and crowed about.

    3.) Soros has plenty of money to have a legion of lawyers who keep his actions legal. I never, ever said he has acted illegally, So, Cas, lets not take your shift the topic train to that station.

    Soros wants to put European socialism into practice in the US. Read his books. Like Mein Kampf, he is quite direct. Soros wants to create one world bank and one world currency and one world government. In the process, he nearly wrecked the British Pound, has got the Euro on the skids and has created a lot of pressure on the US Dollar. He caused the Asia panic of 1997 in Malaysia and Thailand. He weakens economies to make huge hedge fund profits in a manner that would enrage the average Wall Street Occupier if the useful idiot occupier had any concept of what real Wall Street greed is all about.

    He has made enormous profits in the money laundering through banks in Colombia, Switzerland, France and the Caymans by buying into shady banks and manipulating their transactions. If there is dirty money anywhere, Soros is there too. He is like a pay-day lender charging usurious amounts for check cashing or short term loans. He made a fortune off of manipulating the war in Kosovo. Check up on his Southeast Europe Equity Fund to understand his gyrations in Kosovo.

    I will merely mention that there is voluminous information and speculation of Soros taking a direct action in being positioned to profit mightily from the legalization of drugs.

    4.) I beg you to bring to us the equivalent information concerning the Koch brothers. You guys are so desperate to nail them, I would think you would being all a-drool at the opportunity.

    5.) “Openness.” This is hardly a valence term. Something is open or it is not. An open meeting is available to all. An open statement is neither laced with guarded terms nor shielded from challenge or questions of clarification. An open hearing is possibly televised, but at least subject to the Freedom of Information Act.

    We have a long history of “openness” in our country. Our trials are public, our government meetings are public, our House of Representatives and the Senate are required to keep journals and records. The rules of both houses call for reading the bills into the records and reading the bills to each house. Committees have open hearings. C-Span is predicated on the concept of openness.

    You are completely off base in trying to compare openness with “fairness” and “justice” which are extremely subjective terms. But this does not surprise me, as you continually stretch semantics out of shape in order to fit your conclusions. But, then again, that is typical of liberals in general, because clear meanings are the worst enemy of topic shifters and folks who “think” via their feelings.

    Comment by Heliotrope — October 25, 2011 @ 4:45 pm - October 25, 2011

  143. NDT,

    I am quite familiar with the writings of the Founding Fathers and I have always been pretty impressed with their clarity of thought and expression. I have also read the reactionary writings of many of the Loyalists of the time who supported the king in what they viewed as a civil war.

    I bring this up, because our Founding Fathers were fighting for a liberal replacement of a colonial government. Now we are engaged in defending what the Founding Fathers fought for by defending against a powerful state government “leviathan” that will regulate every walk of our existence.

    Standing up for clear principles and the process of Constitutional representative democracy is fairly easy and does not call for revolutionary rhetoric, demagoguery or lying.

    It is the state socialists who have to invent enemies, slop around in valence terms, emote through gushing feelings and strive to manipulate the psyche of the common man.

    The peril is clear. The socialists have created a populace that is dependent upon the state and which largely has no skin in the game in that they are net welfare recipients rather than tax payers.

    Illegal immigrants pour in to grab the brass ring of the welfare merry-go-round which automatically and immediately elevates them to a level of “poverty” that would make them local princes in their home countries.

    Cas is a Marxist and dedicated to the socialist leviathan. The poverty of spirit among bottom feeding socialists is palpable. The “safety net” is so comfortable and embracing, they venture nothing because there is little to gain from risking their welfare nest. They have no ambition to escape the communal porridge and create a world of opportunity for themselves.

    Socialists are always locked onto misery as they see it. There is no trifle too small that can not be cured by unleashing a whirlwind of bureaucracy fueled by other people’s money.

    Therefore, Cas can not really debate the issues, because everything is subject to change on the moment of a whim. State socialism is just feudalism with the state bureaucracy as the aristocracy.

    If we do not stop this movement now, we can not win. The tipping point has been reached where people will vote for the state goodies over their own best interests and the posterity be damned.

    Cas says it doesn’t see it that way. Big deal. In the end, what difference is the view of a useful idiot dedicated to stuffing its gut at somebody else’s expense. It is amoral and lustful to be such a person. ILC used the term evil, which is the correct term in Western philosophy. But liberals can not accept the razor thin bright line between good and evil. They like to babble about the wide divide that permits acts to be judged by them as relative. They will not allow themselves to understand that we all must recognize evil and strive to avoid it and atone when we do not. That requires way too much responsibility and self reliance. That is why they turn themselves over to the state for maintenance. That is why they can not debate. They live in an upsidedown world which is just wasting energy unwittingly waiting for a powerful force to crush the vacuum that has formed between their ears.

    Comment by Heliotrope — October 25, 2011 @ 5:41 pm - October 25, 2011

  144. Hi HT,

    The idea that you can review his understanding through a transcript, is ludicrous.

    Interesting. I guess that there is no point reading books by dead people who cannot tell me directly what they mean, because its to–what— complicated? What silliness. The proper course is to say a.) you have the transcript but you don’t want to share it; b.) you don’t have a transcript; or, c.) you have the transcript and you are willing to share it. Three choices, and we avoid the inflammatory statements about accusations of lying, etc. If you don’t have a transcript, we drop it, because I dislike arguments to authority, especially when I cannot read them myself, to make up my own mind,. At the moment, its an interesting eyewitness account, but it is unclear what weight to give it. Sorry, to quote you: “That dog won’t hunt…
    As for giving you my opinion of the manoevurings, I will admit right now that I am not up on the arcane rules of the Senate. That the bill passed, and was not stopped by Repub Senators for being in clear violation of Senate rules, says more than anything else. Dubious? Maybe. Ambiguous? Possibly. Outright violation–unlikely. Given the fact that Repubs have been creative when using reconcilaition themselves in the recent past, I can hardly think that this process is etched in unbreakable stone, HT. May-haps, it is a case of the pot calling a kettle black. If you think it was out and out illegal, explain to us why you think ythat. As it stands, you just appear to be saying: “Cas, its really complicated what they did. I don’t like it because I smell a rat. Can you explain it to us?” I agree. It is complicated, but I am not smelling that dead rat, HT

    But more importantly, you have failed to excoriate the Democrats and The Won for peeing all over the Republican Senators when the Democrats had a filibuster proof Senate.

    What is there to excoriate exactly, HT? That the democratic process enshrined in the constitution (even counting the super-majority requirement in the ad-hoc senate rules), together with majorities in each house, and the Presidency worked as it was meant to? If you had had 60 plus votes, and the whole enchilada, I could not excoriate Repubs for dismantling Social Security because “they ran roughshod over the minority.” I might not like it, HT, but I would just think that the American people were wrong to allow it to happen by allowing so many Repubs with that intent. Fix it at the ballot box with a majority voting decision–next time–if I could. I think that will be the way it gets handled in Wisconsin, if it gets handled. Maybe the majority of people in Wisconsin want what the governor wanted–we will see! But this Congress takes us to the brink over debt default, doing something we have never seen before–not a majority–but a MINORITY, actively setting out to play chicken with the country’s economy… uh, no thank you. I don’t even pretend to see these as similar events. Sorry.

    I never, ever said he has acted illegally

    I know. I said I thought this was the only way we could have a vaguely rational discussion of these left and right bugaboos. I still maintain that. Since the Kochs haven’t been indicted on anything as yet (just like Soros, I am sure they have tons of lawyers, right?), I have no interest in that pissing contest. So my drool and I will await another opportunity, thank you very much.

    Openness; an interesting term. You point to one aspect of the “openness” of the political system. Well, bucko, both sides are part of that process, so, I don’t see this as a beacon of conservative light. Plenty of progressives want light and space. We don’t get it always.There was a lot of bitching and moaning over this term, when the last Repub President and his VP were holding the reins of executive power. You talk about all the things that we can see. But there is much we cannot see, and which is hidden from us, in the name of national or financial security; political or electoral considerations (do you know the funding lists and amounts for the Super-PACS?–wait till the end of December, when much of the primary race will probably have been decided…); or in the name of self-interest. I disagree with your sense of the “openness” tag, when it comes to this, because (for example) the very mantle of national security hides much that might otherwise benefit from the antiseptic nature of light. The issue of what to share and what not to, is a serious one, so I get the objections. We have argued about this already–”enhanced interrogation” or “torture” depending on one’s view; “illegal” or “necessary” electronic surveillance, depending on one’s views. Security for the nation versus violation of civil rights. “Openness” varies depending on one’s view of it, and the value of the trade-offs one has to weigh–and what should be included or not included in “openness”. Again, much like the concepts of “justice” and “fairness” which are also easy to see on first light, until one starts asking questions about what exactly one means by these terms and how they should be applied; as well as thinking about ideas such as what constitutes “dessert” etc. So again, I don’t share your level of certainty about “openness” HT.

    Comment by Cas — October 26, 2011 @ 1:18 am - October 26, 2011

  145. That’s it.

    You are scraping bottom, now. You are down to the level of arguing what the “meaning of ‘is’ is.” That level of intellectual disintegration is indicative of pure obstinacy.

    You no longer have a point. You have only your narcissism to hang onto. So, I will leave you patting your back in the smug satisfaction that you threw the hook another two thousand times. That is fine by me. You are easy to hook and easy to play, but I have no idea of what I would do if I actually hauled you aboard. Now drop back to the bottom and feed away and lurk around.

    Comment by Heliotrope — October 26, 2011 @ 8:44 am - October 26, 2011

  146. You’ve got a point, HT.

    Cas has acknowledged that Obamacare was passed through use of the Congressional rules that Cas previously stated were unconstitutional.

    Cas is insisting that “appeal to authority” arguments are invalid after having spent numerous posts citing Craig as an authority.

    Cas is demanding that you provide a written and labeled transcript after adamantly refusing to provide any statement, page number, or reference from the Craig book it invoked in its appeal to authority.

    Cas is blathering on about the importance of “openness” even as it endorses and supports Obama’s argument for Federal agencies completely exempting themselves from freedom-of-information acts.

    And Cas STILL won’t even answer for its most basic screwups.

    Fortunately, your persistence has now made completely and blatantly obvious that Cas is acting, not out of any sort of intellectual or rational motivation, but out of sheer narcissism and obstinancy.

    And as a result, we have won. Cas is silenced because it is incapable of and unwilling to answer my posts, and because you have cut it off. The petulant, spoiled brat is now exposed as exactly that, with no one here seriously believing its credibility in any way, shape, or form.

    Well-done, HT. And that is what it will take to recapture our country from the Cas types. Just as before, the American public is being asked to shoulder the burden of a lazy, unproductive entitlement class that thinks it their birthright to demand from others what they refuse to lift a finger to get themselves.

    Before they called themselves the nobility. Now they are the welfare addicts like Cas, convinced that the world owes them a living based on who they are, not on what they do.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 26, 2011 @ 11:42 am - October 26, 2011

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.