Search This Blog

Thursday, January 22, 2009

Liberal Fascism, God's Law, Godwin's Law and the Final Solution

On Fascism

I have to agree with Rich Lowry!

~

Quote from George Bernard Shaw via Jonah Goldberg:

"Nowadays the Capitalist cry is: "Nationalize what you like; mu-
nicipalize all you can; turn the courts of justice into courts martial
and your parliaments and corporations into boards of directors with
your most popular mob orators in the chair, provided the rent, the
interest, and the profits come to us as before, and the proletariat still
gets nothing but its keep."

This is the great corruption of Socialism which threatens us at
present. It calls itself Fascism in Italy, National Socialism (Nazi for
short) in Germany, New Deal in the United States, and is clever
enough to remain nameless in England; but everywhere it means the
same thing: Socialist production and Unsocialist distribution. So far,
out of the frying pan into the fire."

I have noticed a sad lack of knowledge in the area of political science in my comments thread and it shows up when someone suggests that Nazis were conservatives! What part of National Socialist Party don't you understand? The totalitarian governments of WWII were all socialistic (fascist, communist, whatever your label) as were/are the governments involved in the Korean War and the Vietnam War (Red China, Cambodia, Laos, NVM) in conflict with the USA and our allies. Fascism is a liberal philosophy and fascism is the enemy of individual freedoms.

When government seeks to tell us what car to drive, whether we can have weapons, what fuel we must use to heat our homes, it is a fascist government.

On Darwin and Godwin's Law (and The Final Solution)

I want to call your attention to an earlier blog post of mine: Radaractive versus Scientific American...point by point.

Here are the words of Darwin:

"At some future period not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes...will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest Allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla (1874, p. 178). " From The Descent of Man.

Here is Darwin again:

"With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed."

Now allow me to make the case that the Nazi leadership was following a Darwinian creed in killing off Jews and Christians and Gypsies and Negroes and the handicapped, etc. From the website of The United States Holocaust Museum:

“OUR STARTING POINT IS NOT THE INDIVIDUAL, AND WE DO NOT SUBSCRIBE TO THE VIEW THAT ONE SHOULD FEED THE HUNGRY, GIVE DRINK TO THE THIRSTY, OR CLOTHE THE NAKED . . . . OUR OBJECTIVES ARE ENTIRELY DIFFERENT: WE MUST HAVE A HEALTHY PEOPLE IN ORDER TO PREVAIL IN THE WORLD.” JOSEPH GOEBBELS, MINISTER OF PROPAGANDA, 1938

and

"From 1933 to 1945, Nazi Germany's government led by Adolf Hitler promoted a nationalism that combined territorial expansion with claims of biological superiority—an "Aryan master race"—and virulent antisemitism. Driven by a racist ideology legitimized by German scientists, the Nazis attempted to eliminate all of Europe's Jews, ultimately killing six million in the Holocaust. Many others also became victims of persecution and murder in the Nazis' campaign to cleanse German society of individuals viewed as threats to the "health" of the nation."

THE BIOLOGICAL STATE: NAZI RACIAL HYGIENE, 1933-1939

"

Nazism was “applied biology,” stated Hitler deputy Rudolf Hess. During the Third Reich, a politically extreme, antisemitic variation of eugenics determined the course of state policy. Hitler’s regime touted the “Nordic race” as its eugenic ideal and attempted to mold Germany into a cohesive national community that excluded anyone deemed hereditarily “less valuable” or “racially foreign.” Public health measures to control reproduction and marriage aimed at strengthening the “national body” by eliminating biologically threatening genes from the population. Many German physicians and scientists who had supported racial hygiene ideas before 1933 embraced the new regime’s emphasis on biology and heredity, the new career opportunities, and the additional funding for research.

Hitler’s dictatorship, backed by sweeping police powers, silenced critics of Nazi eugenics and supporters of individual rights. After all educational and cultural institutions and the media came under Nazi control, racial eugenics permeated German society and institutions. Jews, considered “alien,” were purged from universities, scientific research institutes, hospitals, and public health care. Persons in high positions who were viewed as politically “unreliable” met a similar fate."


Joseph Mengele

Holding two doctoral degrees, in anthropology and genetic medicine, Josef Mengele worked in 1941 with the Genealogical Section of the SS Race and Resettlement Office in Posen, screening persons for hereditary and racial fitness. In 1942 he joined the Waffen SS and was wounded in combat. Posted to Auschwitz in 1943, Mengele took rotations with other SS doctors at the unloading ramps, dispatching Jews to the gas chambers. Mengele also conducted experiments using Jewish and Roma (Gypsy) twin subjects. He either killed or ordered killed some of his subjects so that organs could be harvested for study.

Reinhard Heydrich

Under Heydrich, the Security Police and the SD was the primary agency responsible for intelligence analysis and executive measures in suppressing numerous internal and external enemies of the Nazi state. The SD established intelligence departments to study the alleged long-term machinations of each of the Reich's enemies: “World Jewry,” “Marxists” (Communists, Social Democrats, and trade unionists), “political churches” (e.g. Lutherans and Catholic clergy who opposed the regime as well as members of other Protestant denominations -- such as the Jehovah's Witnesses -- whose members did not accept the authority of the Nazi state), right-wing nationalist opponents, and Freemasonry. The Gestapo arrested these political opponents and, where deemed appropriate, incarcerated them in concentration camps using the police authority granted by an order of Protective Custody (Schutzhaftbefehl).

The Kripo investigated so-called non-political criminal acts and behavior. Kripo officers arrested those whose alleged criminal or anti-social behavior was deemed dangerous to the Reich. In addition to persons with past criminal records, Kripo officials arrested homosexuals, Roma and Sinti (Gypsies), and people who engaged in whatever the Kripo deemed to be “asocial” behavior. Analogous to the Protective Arrest Order, the Kripo used a Protective Detention Order (Vorbeugungshaftbefehl) as the instrument of indefinite arrest and incarceration.

Heydrich and Himmler had a shared view both of the identity of the long-term enemies of the German race and of the measures to be taken against them. Like Himmler, Heydrich believed that the destruction of overt, “visible” opponents was not sufficient to guarantee the security and survival of the German race as the Nazis defined it. These opponents included: Communist and Social Democratic activists; intellectual and organizational adherents of liberal democracy, traditional conservative nationalism, and Christian values; and Jews who held leading positions in the Marxist and liberal democratic movements in Germany and Austria as well as non-affiliated Jewish intellectuals who opposed the Nazi regime.

These “visible” enemies, however, possessed international ties and aligned themselves with “camouflaged” enemies, who sought from within to destroy the “natural” bond between the Nazi leadership and the German people. As Heydrich explained in April 1936, racially conscious Germans must realize that “effective struggle against the enemy must derive from recognition of the fact that all visible, apparent enemies are but the tip of the iceberg of eternal, unchanging dangerous spiritual forces.” The enemies themselves were “eternally the same”: “the Jew, the Freemason, and the politically-oriented cleric.” The “invisible,” submerged, camouflaged ideological wellsprings of these “enemies” lay in the “infectious residue” of “Jewish, liberal and Freemasonic spirit,” modes of thinking (democracy, communism, Christian and liberal individualism) that were outgrowths of allegedly inherited racial characteristics. Only the complete destruction of the “biological sources” of such thinking would eliminate the danger presented by such influences.

Ultimately, “invisible” Jewish opponents were the Jewish people themselves -- as the Nazis defined them -- and those who “thought like Jews”: Communists, liberals, democrats, champions of minority rights, Freemasons, Christian clerics who opposed the regime, Soviet communists, and the U.S. and British leadership classes who opposed the “natural” expansion of Nazi Germany. To be absolutely safe, the Nazis had to destroy the members of the so-called Jewish race, whose genetic makeup created the basis for such thinking, as well as the Slavic and Asiatic leadership classes, whose heredity incorporated a propensity to follow that Jewish leadership."

The Final Solution

The term was applied to the process by which the Jews would be eliminated, but in practice the Nazi regime began killing off all peoples not thought to be either racially or politically correct. Eugenics, based on Darwinism, was at the heart of Hitler's goal of developing a master race of Aryan or Nordic people, led by Germany, controlling and conquering the world and cleansing the human race of all "lesser" races. You have to be willfully ignorant not to see and understand this. If you claim to be offended by having the role of Darwinism in the making of the Holocaust exposed, I don't know what to tell you. Is ignorance bliss?


Darwinism is not the only cause of racism, far from it! Racism has existed since long before Darwin was born. I am not claiming that Darwin invented racism. I am claiming that racism is supported by Darwinism. Hitler was a racist. Darwinism provided an excuse for a madman.

Ethnic cleansing/Eugenics is based on Darwinist philosophy. Why are the majority of Planned Parenthood clinics located in or near low-income and minority neighborhoods? Do you think that those who believe in eugenics have given up the fight?

Godwin's Law

From the notparticularlydistinguishedbutsometimesusefulwikipedia site:

Godwin's Law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies)[1] is an adage formulated by Mike Godwin in 1990. The law states:[2][3]

"As an Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."

Godwin's Law is often cited in online discussions as a deterrent against the use of arguments in the reductio ad Hitlerum form.

The rule does not make any statement about whether any particular reference or comparison to Adolf Hitler or the Nazis might be appropriate, but only asserts that one arising is increasingly probable. It is precisely because such a comparison or reference may sometimes be appropriate, Godwin has argued[4] that overuse of Nazi and Hitler comparisons should be avoided, because it robs the valid comparisons of their impact. Although in one of its early forms Godwin's Law referred specifically to Usenet newsgroup discussions,[5] the law is now applied to any threaded online discussion: electronic mailing lists, message boards, chat rooms, and more recently blog comment threads and wiki talk pages.


Okay, so often the subject of Hitler is not germane to a discussion. In this case, it is unavoidable. I am not seeking to be unkind but what I am saying is not offensive to those who do not choose to be offended because it is true and historically accurate.

God's Law

The Nazi regime was, indeed, socialist more than conservative and definitely anti-Christian. Darwinist thought as expressed by Hitler's regime was racist and hateful. I suppose if one truly believes that human beings evolved then we would believe that the human race is growing towards something better while outgrowing a form less desirable.

Remember what Goebbels said: "...WE DO NOT SUBSCRIBE TO THE VIEW THAT ONE SHOULD FEED THE HUNGRY, GIVE DRINK TO THE THIRSTY, OR CLOTHE THE NAKED..."

Now read what God said in Matthew 25:31-40 - "When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'

"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'

"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'


Let us do some concluding


An impartial observer does not see a continuum of creatures changing from one thing to another. He would expect to see lesser and greater horses. He would expect to see apish men and monkeyish apes and so on down the line...if Darwinist thought were correct. But we have horses and monkeys. We have men and apes. We never see half-cow/half-whale. Nor do we see any humans who are less valuable genetically than other humans.

God made man in His own image. He did not make Jews better or worse than anyone else. He did not make Gypsies better or worse than anyone else. He did not make black or yellow or white men better than anyone else. A follower of God would know better than to fall for the idiotic line of garbage Hitler and his minions believed and spread concerning a master race.

~

Now Ephesians 2:4-10 - "But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved. And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus. For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do."


Aha! Nothing in here about whether you believe in an old or a young earth. I believe in the Bible as written by the inspiration of God. I believe the Bible teaches things about more than spiritual lessons, I believe it is the first and best history of mankind. Therefore I believe He created in six days. I believe he completely flooded the Earth and wiped out all traces of early civilization after about 2,000 years. I believe all men and women on Earth are descendants of Noah who was descended from Adam. But most of these beliefs are not directly relevant to whether or not I am a born-again believer in Christ.

You know, God began by giving man one law, and man broke it. He gave them ten laws, and they broke them. He gave them a whole long line of laws and requirements and the sacrifices that would allow them to receive forgiveness for the breaking of those laws and the failure to meet those requirements and man not only failed to keep the Law and make the sacrifices but he made a way of appearing to be a Lawkeeper while his heart remained alien to God.


Then God provided the ultimate sacrifice in Jesus Christ and turned it all back to one law again. Man must either trust in Jesus Christ or not. As to whether Jesus could actually take all the sins of the world upon Himself and pay our penalty for sin, He was God in the form of man, but yet still God. Is anything too hard for God? I say only God could be able to pay the penalty for all of mankind and that is why God came to Earth as a man to do it.

God - Powerful enough to cause the Universe. Just enough to demand justice, merciful enough to provide a way for man to escape that justice by satisfying the demand Himself.

~

James 2:14-19 - "What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds."
Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.

You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder."

~

What is my motivation?

A man can be born again and do evil things. A man can be an atheist and do good things. The Bible says that a believer is not true to God and himself unless he does good rather than evil.

If I am inspired by God to do good, it is a credit and a glory to God. If I do happen to sin, it is something that discredits my God and myself. I am motivated to do good for the sake of God and also because the Spirit of God within me is pleased by right actions. If I obey God and live a life that honors Him the credit belongs to God. Not me.

No one knows what motivates a guy to give to a charity, to help a poor family, to choose to give back money to a cashier when she makes a mistake...if I do something good to make me look good or to make others like me better then I am actually doing it for myself and not for others. Some may be trying to impress people, some may like the feeling that they are a good person by doing good deeds.

Therefore, you cannot tell if a person who is doing good is a Christian or not just by his actions. But you can determine whether his actions are those typical of a Christian. I have no idea if Highboy is going to Heaven or Hell but it sounds like he is because it sounds like he is a born-again believer and not because he goes to church or believes God created all things. If Highboy goes on a homicidal killing spree I would tend to think that he was not actually a believer. Lucky for me, I don't have the responsibility of deciding who goes to Heaven and who goes to Hell.

~~~~~~~~~~


By the way, shame on all Christians who voted for Barack Obama! One of his first orders of business was to okay the funding of baby-killing by the United States Government! Murdering Babies - that is change and hope?




13 comments:

highboy said...

Good post.

radar said...

There is an ongoing holocaust against babies:

"Sadly, what I have been warning you about has come to pass.

Today, in a quiet, low-key ceremony, President Obama, has overturned the pro-life Mexico City Policy.

The Mexico City Policy, which President Bush enacted on his first day in office, was originally established by President Reagan to keep your money from overseas abortion providers.

President Obama campaigned on finding ‘common ground’ on abortion policy, but his first presidential decision to roll back the commonsense Mexico City Policy signals to American taxpayers that the abortion bailout has begun.

It’s unfortunate that President Obama has made subsidizing international abortion groups one of his first priorities, even as abortion numbers here at home are on the decline. America should respond to women's needs in developing countries with real assistance that also upholds their dignity, not by promoting or paying for abortions.

I am disappointed by President Obama’s decision to bypass the will of American taxpayers and promote the radical agenda of Planned Parenthood and the abortion lobby.

President Obama tried to pull a fast one on the country by holding a quiet ceremony on a Friday evening when the mainstream media wasn't paying attention. President Obama must know how unpopular the funding of international abortions is, if he is trying so hard to hide it.

Thanks to your support we are able to make sure that the American people know what President Obama is up to! With your continued support we will be able to stop him from giving more money to abortion providers.



For Life,

Marjorie Dannenfelser
Susan B. Anthony List President
703-875-3370
www.sba-list.org

highboy said...

It doesn't stop there radar. Obama has taken "pro-choice" to obscene levels with his open support of infantcide and across the board tax payer support of abortion. Any guy that would let babies lay under a blanket in agony until they die, preventing doctors from intervening is scum of the earth. Now every time I look at my paycheck I have to wonder how many abortions I helped pay for.

chaos_engineer said...

I have noticed a sad lack of knowledge in the area of political science in my comments thread and it shows up when someone suggests that Nazis were conservatives! What part of National Socialist Party don't you understand?

I'm not sure how you're defining the word "Conservative". The Nazis did have some liberal economic policies, but that's not what they're famous for. They're famous for being *Nationalists*. (That means that they had a belligerent foreign policy, and also that they were suspicious of people who didn't hold "traditional German values"...immigrants, urbanites, non-Christians, Gays and Lesbians, feminists, etc., etc.)

Nationalism is usually seen as a deeply flawed form of Conservatism, just as Communism is a flawed form of Liberalism.

In fact, look at people who espouse Nazi-like views today...groups like Stormfront, or al-Qaeda, or Focus on the Family, or the KKK. If you ask them where they stand politically, they'll tell you they're "Conservative, and proud of it!"

The only way I can make sense out of what you're saying is if you're defining "Liberal" as "someone who disagrees with you".


As to the abortion issue...I've decided that we-as-a-country are never going to come to an agreement about the morality of it, and there's no point in going over old arguments. But I'm wondering if maybe we could find common ground.

What if we all started lobbying for better access to contraception, more comprehensive sex education, and more support for single mothers? The pro-life side would be happy because the abortion rate would go down, and the pro-choice side would be happy because women would have even more control over their lives.

I don't see a downside. Sure, taxes would go up a little, but how could anybody be so petty as to whine about mere money, considering what's at stake?

radar said...

Chaos,

I am a member of more than one group that not only lobbies for education and making adoption more available but also work to make life better for single and/or abused and/or homeless women. Worthy causes...On the other hand, abstinence needs to be included in all sex education because only abstinence outside of marriage avoids disease as well as pregnancy as well as emotional entanglements without commitment.

Nazis were National Socialists and Italians called themselves Fascists. In either case, this European form of socialism was nationalist in nature as well as super-federalist, with big government intruding into and controlling the lives of the common man. Much of what American liberals seek to do is similar - they want to control what we drive, how we get our energy and what we use for energy, what materials we use in our homes, what and in what quantities we eat and yadda yadda yadda. Facism is big government is socialism to an extent.

So far as I can tell, neither American conservatives or liberals are imperialists like the Nazi or Soviet regimes. There are negative aspects of failed communism and failed fascism that are not typical of today's liberal. However, I would contend that much of the liberal platform is similar to the old fascist point of view. It still boils down to the idea that they think the government knows better than you and needs more control of your life.

Conservatives are for free enterprise, freedom of speech and action, small government and less regulation on businesses and private citizens. Nothing conservative about fascists but there is much in American liberals that reflects fascism.

radar said...

As to abortion itself, there is no common ground. Killing babies will always be killing babies. It is the most shameful aspect of modern-day America. I cannot compromise on this issue.

highboy said...

Contraception based sex education has little verifiable support to suggest it reduces unwanted pregnancies, and to suggest that eliminating every single restriction on abortion will not sky rocket an abortion rate that is already over a million per year is absolutely ridiculous, as is suggesting that because there is such a sharp disagreement in regards to abortion, that sides need to find common ground. We're talking about innocent babies with scissors rammed into their skulls. There is no common ground and no way I should have to pay for it.

scohen said...

"Facism is big government is socialism to an extent."

No, it is not. Just because government is intrusive doesn't automatically make it socialist. How do you square the quote from Goebbels:

"WE DO NOT SUBSCRIBE TO THE VIEW THAT ONE SHOULD FEED THE HUNGRY, GIVE DRINK TO THE THIRSTY, OR CLOTHE THE NAKED"

with socialism? It seems to be the very *opposite* of socialism, which seeks to feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty and clothe the naked. If you don't like that philosophy, that's fine (though it does sound a bit Jesus-y to me), but please, use the correct nomenclature.

During the election, I watched with slack-jawed amazement at your conflation of just about everything you didn't like with socialism. You appear to be doing it again. No Radar, a graduated income tax is not socialism. Nor does socialism necessarily lead to genocide. The swedes are doing quite well these past several decades.

Then you go off and compare government regulation with socialism. I ask you, would your ideal "conservative" government just let you burn whatever the hell you want to produce electricity? Would you be happy in a world where we allowed people to burn plastic to heat their homes? Are liberals popping out of your fried-twinkie dinner at Applebee's and swatting the fork from your mouth? Did we make you turn in the keys to your SUV? Where does this outrage come from? Or are you against all regulation? Meat inspection? Clean water/air acts?

I can see what you're arguing against, but what are you arguing for? Are you a laissez faire capitalist? Are you a libertarian? What kind of regime would make you happy?

Tim: I only wish we could adjust the allocation of what our taxes are used for, but sadly, we can't. The rule you speak of has ping-ponged back and forth since Reagan. It will no doubt be reversed many more times in our lives. I read your blog from time to time, and I'm not touching that contentious debate with a ten foot pole.

radar said...

"Facism is big government is socialism to an extent."

No, it is not. Just because government is intrusive doesn't automatically make it socialist. How do you square the quote from Goebbels:

"WE DO NOT SUBSCRIBE TO THE VIEW THAT ONE SHOULD FEED THE HUNGRY, GIVE DRINK TO THE THIRSTY, OR CLOTHE THE NAKED"

with socialism? It seems to be the very *opposite* of socialism, which seeks to feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty and clothe the naked.


Goebbels was referring to basic Christian doctrine and denying it as a valid philosophy. But the Christian doctrine is that individuals would do these things, not a government entity. There is a vast difference between people voluntarily helping others and a government taking money from the populace and determining how to pass it out to the less advantaged...while supporting a massive bureaucracy, keeping political implications uppermost in mind and often doing great damage to the social structure of society in the process.

Lyndon Johnson's Great Society helped make a ghetto culture where families grew up on the dole and without fathers and much of the economy was under-the-table and criminal in nature.

The Nazis didn't want to feed or clothe the "undeserving", which would translate into the not-Aryan peoples, while taking the goods and businesses from those same non-Aryans who were successful and passing them out to those of their own political persuasion and genetic background. It was a weird mixture of socialism, capitalism and highway robbery in totalitarian form.


If you don't like that philosophy, that's fine (though it does sound a bit Jesus-y to me), but please, use the correct nomenclature.

You are denying that the Obama administration is avowedly liberal and absolutely pro-big government and for increasing both government regulations and giving the government more responsibility and authority in areas such as health care and energy?

During the election, I watched with slack-jawed amazement at your conflation of just about everything you didn't like with socialism. You appear to be doing it again. No Radar, a graduated income tax is not socialism. Nor does socialism necessarily lead to genocide. The swedes are doing quite well these past several decades.

I did not say that a "graduated income tax is socialism", did I? We already have a graduated income tax. I did state that the Fair Tax would be a big improvement and I also said that making the already-graduated tax system into a Robin-Hood-on-steroids would hurt business and thereby hurt the economy.

You really don't want to use Sweden as an example. That nation became more and more socialistic up through the 1970's and the economy began going gradually downhill. It would be overly simplistic to blame it all on big government, but they did reach a point where government was eating up half of the gross national product, so no big surprise the Swedes were hurting financially as time went on from the initial post-war boom, when the country was not dominated by the Swedish Democratic Party.

As a nation, they went through a crisis much like we are right now in the 1990's and responded by deregulation and turning away from big government and welfare-state policies to more privatization and free market principles to turn around their economy. In other words, they went the opposite way of the Obama crowd. Sweden is an example of socialism's failure and the fact that Reaganomics works. Sadly, Sweden has shaken off socialism to the extent that they can be considered a shining example of economic success, but they have grown since they began turning away from socialism and towards capitalism.

Then you go off and compare government regulation with socialism. I ask you, would your ideal "conservative" government just let you burn whatever the hell you want to produce electricity? Would you be happy in a world where we allowed people to burn plastic to heat their homes? Are liberals popping out of your fried-twinkie dinner at Applebee's and swatting the fork from your mouth? Did we make you turn in the keys to your SUV? Where does this outrage come from? Or are you against all regulation? Meat inspection? Clean water/air acts?

I probably eat a lot healthier than you might imagine. But that aside, liberals are in fact radically over-regulating industry to the detriment of the economy and therefore the common man.

I give you the states of Washington and Oregon and California. Restrictive logging regulations combined with more restrictive environmental legislation has hurt the logging industry terribly in those three states.

Washington and Oregon not only have lost jobs and income as a result, the tax base was therefore shrunk, causing the government to cut both jobs and services in those areas not readily apparent to the common man at first, such as roads and infrastructure care or maintenance of IT systems.

As a result, the economies of Washington and Oregon tanked and they have in some areas a housing crisis far greater than that of the US average. I have seen neighborhoods in Washington State where over half the homes have either been foreclosed upon or otherwise abandoned, although at times the original homeowners wind up squatting there without utilities.

I have seen new subdivisions full of recently constructed homes without buyers and partially constructed homes abandoned as the builder has gone belly-up. The perfect storm of liberal State policies and restrictive Federal regulations has turned an army of formerly middle-class families into the newly impoverished.

In California the hit has been primarily from the environment itself. Not only can normal logging not take place, but homeowners are even forbidden to clear brush that could threaten their home in a fire situation. Guess what? When you don't log and replant forests, they catch on fire and do the job themselves. How many acres of California have been burned, how many homes lost, how many lives sacrificed in the name of "Old Growth Forests" and subspecies of various common animals?

I can see what you're arguing against, but what are you arguing for? Are you a laissez faire capitalist? Are you a libertarian? What kind of regime would make you happy?

I am a Reagan conservative. I believe that government regulation should be minimal and designed to stop criminal activities and only the gross misuse of power and opportunity. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, so we must have regulation to prevent monopolizing and price-fixing, etc.

I believe in capitalism and free trade, free speech and free ownership of firearms, freedom of religion (rather than freedom from religion) so that all can express their opinion fairly and openly.

I believe in life rather than death. After long thought on the subject, I agree that the death penalty for murderers should be eliminated as well as the death penalty for infants. Let's be consistent. God knows whether Casey Anthony killed her daughter or not but a jury of 12 peers and a judge, being fallible, should not be able to have the right to take life from another person.

I believe our national security interests must be defended above and beyond question. We must understand that we are in the middle of World War III, that the guys sitting in cells (and being treated like guests at a Holiday Inn) at Guantanamo are prisoners of war and Congress needs to let the Department of Defense handle the care and treatment of prisoners of war.

I know for a fact that the world is not dying to emigrate to Sweden. Sweden is not erecting fences and spending millions upon millions of dollars every month securing their borders because Sweden is not the land of opportunity, the USA is that place. The more we become like European-style socialists, the more vulnerable we will be to economic disaster and terrorist attacks.

The uniformed public thinks our current economic downturn is the fault of George Bush because they have no clue about how our country got in this situation. It was largely the fault of a Democratic Congress enacting lending laws and overseeing programs that, in effect, gave home loans and money to people who had no resources and often no intention to pay anyone back. These same politicians got millions of dollars in campaign contributions from the financial entities that led us down the primrose path to economic downturn.

It then benefitted the Democrats to declare that we were entering a depression, an emergency, and the major news media picked up the banner and convinced Joe Public it was so. Therefore a downturn became an emergency and businesses far and wide are failing. Self-fulfilling prophecies have been made by people who themselves are not hurt by them. God hopefully has a special place in Hell for the unrepentant Barney Franks of this world. Guys like him have hurt this country far more than Osama Bin Laden, in my opinion.

Yes, we can burn plastic. We are learning how to burn plastic and other formerly unusable substances without causing nasty emissions while turning them into energy. The inventive nature of Americans will allow us to continue to find new ways to do things better and use resources in new ways if Big Government doesn't stop them

However, the Obama Administration has declared that they will stop them in the name of the mythical and nonsensical idea of anthropomorphic global warming and the glorious hugging of trees.

This winter my area received nine straight days of recorded snowfall for the first time in history. We recorded the third lowest temperature this month in the history of the area (-26 degrees F). The Artic ice is growing. Glaciers are growing. Sunspot activity is low. Earlier, colder winters are coming. Maybe burning lots of plastic and the dirtiest possible coal would help insulate us?

But, no, the amount of CO2 that is able to exist in the atmosphere is so small that it cannot have a significant effect on the weather. One big volcano has more effect on the weather than ten years of mankind's machines.

Okay, I am getting a bit off-course. Give us laws based on tried-and-true absolutes, give the people an opportunity to succeed and you have the America that has been the success story of the world.

If the government has programs to catch the poor and ill before they go completely down the drain, great, as long as the programs point people towards work rather than receiving a dole. Welfare brings out the worst in humanity, workfare and training brings out the best.

The school systems got their start in church buildings. Our first colleges were Bible colleges. Our communities used to have more control over education. Now our Universities are the home of the most leftist possible idiots, many of them criminals and phonies, intent upon indoctrinating our youth with the religion of Humanism.

I don't mind evolution being taught as long as creation is also presented. I have no qualms with Marx being taught as long as Christ gets a place in the curriculum. Teach kids about condoms but suggest the benefits of abstinence. Ungodly socialists don't just want their point of view to win, they want other points of view to be stifled. I call it censorship.

Okay, well that is a part of what I believe on the subject.

Tim: I only wish we could adjust the allocation of what our taxes are used for, but sadly, we can't. The rule you speak of has ping-ponged back and forth since Reagan. It will no doubt be reversed many more times in our lives. I read your blog from time to time, and I'm not touching that contentious debate with a ten foot pole.

I do think, though, that Obama made it obvious that "Hope" and "Change" includes forcing people to contribute to the funding of murdering babies even if we are opposed to the very core of our beings. This is just as I predicted: Obama is simply a construct of the Chicago Democratic Machine and he is all about politics as usual no matter what he says or people think he represents. His actions are already speaking louder than words.

radar said...

I left out the "not" in a sentence describing Sweden. I meant to say,

"Sweden is an example of socialism's failure and the fact that Reaganomics works. Sadly, Sweden has NOT shaken off socialism to the extent that they can be considered a shining example of economic success, but they have grown since they began turning away from socialism and towards capitalism."

radar said...

As to Nationalism:

Soviet Union
Imperial Japan
Nazi Germany
Red China
Iran
Venezuela
Cuba

How many of these are/were free-market capitalist countries? Are they closer to socialism than capitalism?

Nationalism and totatitarianism go hand-in-hand. The more power a central government has, the less power to the individual and the greater the likelihood of a dictatorship. Many of these totalitarian states were commmunist/socialist in nature. I would say that socialism must tend to lead to totalitarianism because it must lead to the growth of central government which begets central power which begets corruption.

Our government has been heading dangerously more and more down the Federalist road and States Rights are more and more being over-ruled. We need to remember to vote for people who will defend rather than revise the Constitution. The USA is heading towards a fork in the road. FDR took a left last time it happened and then Reagan took a right. I hope Obama is no longer in power before we reach another significant intersection but we won't know until we get there.

scohen said...

Radar,
From my point above, what I want you to take home with you is that Socialist countries seek to do for all their people what Goebbels explicitly stated his country did not do. Thus, Nazi Germany wasn't Socialist and Jonah Goldberg continues to be an idiot.
QED.


My point with Sweden isn't to hold it out as a shining example of governmental awesomeness, but instead to show that it's a socialist country that is not war-mongering. Sure, they have problems, but so do we. Comparing our border problems with their lack of border problems is silly --they don't share a border with a third-world country.

For burning plastic, I'm not talking about some new-fangled clean plastic initiative (by the way, I've *never* heard of this), but your neighbor actually burning plastic in a fireplace. Are you cool with this?

"I believe in capitalism and free trade, free speech and free ownership of firearms, freedom of religion (rather than freedom from religion) so that all can express their opinion fairly and openly."

Are you for puppies and babies? Almost all of these are content-free. Are you saying you're for unrestricted capitalism? Unencumbered ownership of arms? Should you be able to employ children? Make people work 100 hour weeks? Should you be able to buy grenades? A tank? A barrett .50 caliber rifle? Are liberals against free speech? Who was it who made the free speech zones again? Who defended the Nazis when they wanted to march in Skokie, Illinois?

You've provided a list of countries where nationalism was "bad" and insinuated that more were socialist than not --I have to take issue with it:

Soviet Union (clearly bad)
Imperial Japan (were they anything resembling socialist? Nope, they were a Monarchy)
Nazi Germany (not even close to socialist, not free market either)
Red China (Are they good now that they've embraced free market Capitalism? Are their people any more free?)
Iran (Socialist? Seriously? Try Theocracy)
Venezuela (Socialist)
Cuba (Communist, and a total wreck)

You left out:
Fascist Spain (facism, and *not* socialist)
Italy (Fascist, and quite bad)
Chile (right wing, belligerent and brutally oppressive)
Nicaragua (Right wing, brutally oppressive)
El Salvador (currently *very* right wing, oppressive "moralistic" government)

Nationalism is a problem independent of ideology. You're also conflating Socialism, an economic policy with Totalitarianism, which is a type of government. What you should be doing is comparing Socialist democracies with Capitalist democracies. You'll find that they compare favorably (though I doubt anyone values free speech as much as Americans do).

You see, one of the differences here is that I have no problems calling out Communism as a fatally flawed style of "liberal" government, while you do everything in your power to paint Fascism as somehow liberal. I'm not advocating communism or socialism, so I don't feel that my argument is weakened by the existence of either on "my side". I wonder why you don't feel the need to understand the flaws inherent at the fringes of your ideology.
From where I sit, I don't see much of a difference between the outcomes of Communism and Fascism. Oppression is oppression no matter who the perpetrators are.

"But that aside, liberals are in fact radically over-regulating industry to the detriment of the economy and therefore the common man."

...and you go on to show that the *logging* industry has suffered in California. Is the current economic downturn due to over regulation of the logging industry? Is the current economic downturn the result of too much or too little regulation? Did the steel industry in my hometown of Cleveland go away due to environmental laws? Do you mean to ask people to choose between being unemployed and living in a city where the river catches on fire? That's a tough choice indeed.

Blaming congress for the current economic downturn is weak sauce. They have as little to do with it as the president. The economy is too big for either to control. I'm no fan of Bush's economics, but he's not to blame for the current situation.

highboy said...

Its all moot now.The savior Obama is going to reduce abortions by allowing tax payer funding for them across the globe. Paying for all these abortions on top of all of our debt will also get this economy out of its current regression. Kudos to Obama.

"Thus, Nazi Germany wasn't Socialist and Jonah Goldberg continues to be an idiot."

...who writes more factually correct columns than nearly every writer in every rag across America. The Nazi Party was originally founded as a socialist party and was even originally named the German Socialist Workers Party. One of their policies was to give social welfare to those deemed to be of Aryan race. When Hitler became head of the Nazi party he was more interested in the nationalism rather than the socialism, yes, but the fact remains that it was still predominantly a socialist group. That is verifiable history. Just because the socialism focused on one specific class doesn't make it not socialism.

"Are you saying you're for unrestricted capitalism? Unencumbered ownership of arms? Should you be able to employ children? Make people work 100 hour weeks? Should you be able to buy grenades? A tank? A barrett .50 caliber rifle? Are liberals against free speech? Who was it who made the free speech zones again? Who defended the Nazis when they wanted to march in Skokie, Illinois?"

1. When the economy is left alone and the government keeps its fingers out of it, it flourishes.
2. Children have to be alive to be employed. Lets start there.
3. U.S. citizens have a right to bear arms, as they should. What difference does it make what size hole I blow in my attacker's head? Will he care? Do we or do we not have a right to form a militia in case our government should ever decide to oppress our rights? All current liberal legislation has done is make sure the government has all the best guns if such a thing should ever happen.

"Do you mean to ask people to choose between being unemployed and living in a city where the river catches on fire? That's a tough choice indeed."

I agree. LOL.

"Blaming congress for the current economic downturn is weak sauce. They have as little to do with it as the president. The economy is too big for either to control. I'm no fan of Bush's economics, but he's not to blame for the current situation."

I agree again. LOL. Its funny, because under Clinton, I had a job, paid my bills. Under Bush, I had a job, paid my bills. I've said what you've stated above for a long time now. But politicians on both sides rely on voter stupidity, that we won't know how our government actually works, and its a convenient way of shifting blame and taking credit for stuff that the politician in question had little control over. Awesome stuff. Truth be told, if my own brother wasn't a Chief of Staff in the senate, I probably wouldn't take as much interest in the inner workings of our government.