Leftist Fascists Strike Again

[Jack Weber]

To be fair, they didn't have too clear a shot at PET.

Sure they did...Right across the street!!!

[DogOnPorch]

Sure they did...Right across the street!!!

Wasn't he up high in a balcony? That's the image I recall...

[Jack Weber]

Wasn't he up high in a balcony? That's the image I recall...

No...It was a reviewing stand for the St.Jean Baptiste Day parade...

The FLQ losers got all pi$$y and started throwing bottles and rocks at him...They new if Trudeau won the election,which he called the next day,the proverbial poop was going to hit the fan for all of them.

Say what you want about Pierre Trudeau,the guy had pills!!He did'nt run and hide from those Marxist twits when they tried to get him out of there....

[jbg]

Netanyahu is a punk!

Trudeau did'nt run from rocks and bottles in '68!!

Do you mean 1970? As an American I'm ignorant of the anti-Trudeau violence of 1968.

Edited to read "I was wrong" but it happened the night before the election, not the night before he called it.

Edited May 17, 2011 by jbg

[WIP]

And yet another commentator prevented from speaking at a University in Canada.

When will these fascist thugs/leftwing brownshirts be confronted and stopped? Sooner or later people are going to start to fight back. And I have to imagine the temptation of knocking the shit outta one of these pathetic freedom deniers must be overwhelming.

You call 20 people sitting in an auditorium a mob? Nevermind that, get your terminology straight. You rightwing fantatics continually try to conflate fascism and communism, as if they are the same thing. Well, leftist totalitarian movements are not fascists, no more than nazis can be communists. Fascism is built on the unholy alliance of wealthy business and landowners and the military. There is no such thing as a leftist fascist whatever point your stupid video was supposed to be about!

[TimG]

Fascism is built on the unholy alliance of wealthy business and landowners and the military.

Facism is about the intolerance of dissent and brutal measures to enforce social rules. The label most definately applies to many people on the left today.

[WIP]

Facism is about the intolerance of dissent and brutal measures to enforce social rules. The label most definately applies to many people on the left today.

No, you can call that thuggery or mob rule, or whatever you want, but fascism goes far beyond intolerance of dissent. Nevertheless, all of the brutal rightwing FASCISTS, starting from Hitler and Mussolini (the man who created the term) and their followers and acolytes such as Pinochet, Stroessner, Duvalier, and the many banana republic dictators, also suppressed freedom of speech.

[TimG]

Nevertheless, all of the brutal rightwing FASCISTS, starting from Hitler and Mussolini (the man who created the term)

I suggest you actually take the time to learn what Hilter's economic policies were:

Nazi control of business retained a diminished investment profit-incentive, controlled with economic regulation concording a company’s functioning with the Reich’s national production requirements. Government financing eventually dominated private investment; in the 1933–34 biennium, the proportion of private securities issued diminished from more than 50 per cent of the total, to approximately 10 per cent in the 1935–38 quadrennium. Heavy profit taxes limited self-financing companies, and the largest companies (usually government contractors) mostly were exempted from paying taxes on profits—in practice, however, government control allowed “only the shell of private ownership” in the Third Reich economy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Germany

In other words, Hilter would be quite at home with the anti-private enterprise types in the left wing. Obviously, Hilter was no fan of unions but that does not make up for his take over of free enterprise in Germany.

[WIP]

I suggest you actually take the time to learn what Hilter's economic policies were:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Germany

In other words, Hilter would be quite at home with the anti-private enterprise types in the left wing. Obviously, Hilter was no fan of unions but that does not make up for his take over of free enterprise in Germany.

That's not anti-private enterprize. The only reason he railed against capitalism is because he believed that the Jews controlled the banking and industry of Germany. The Nazis had no problems with German industrialists like the Krupps:

German Industry and the Third Reich: Fifty Years of Forgetting and Remembering

By S. Jonathan Wiesen

The great majority of German businessmen behaved in a decidedly unheroic manner during the Nazi era. Most of them, especially leaders of larger companies, not only refrained from risking their lives to save Jews, but actually profited from the use of forced and slave labor, the "Aryanization" of Jewish property, and the plundering of companies in Nazi-occupied Europe.

http://www.adl.org/Braun/dim_13_2_forgetting.asp

[TimG]

That's not anti-private enterprize.

Turning private enterprise into extensions of the state is not anti-free enterprise? Nonsense.

The Nazis had no problems with German industrialists like the Krupps:

What does that have to do with the fact that private enterprise was taken over by the state?

[bloodyminded]

In other words, Hilter would be quite at home with the anti-private enterprise types in the left wing.

First of all, the "anti-private enterprise types" are vanishingly are, among the left or otherwise. Sure, the Left generally--along with about 70-80% of the population--has a deep distrust of large corporations. But that's hardly "anti-private enterprise."

At any rate, Hitler despised liberals, and hated socialists even more, his party's name notwithstanding. And he drew his support largely from the political right.

Edited May 17, 2011 by bloodyminded

[TimG]

First of all, the "anti-private enterprise types" are vanishingly are, among the left or otherwise.

The argument was made his Hilter was right wing. He was not by any stretch of the imagination. That said, his anti-union stance would put him at odds with most left wing parties too. I would say Hilter belongs in a category of his own.

[MiddleClassCentrist]

Fascism is a far right trait, hope it has been pointed out already in this old thread.

[MiddleClassCentrist]

Facism is about the intolerance of dissent and brutal measures to enforce social rules. The label most definately applies to many people on the left today.

No...

That is totalitarianism.

[Moonlight Graham]

No...

That is totalitarianism.

Agreed, i made a thread about it.

Edited May 17, 2011 by Moonlight Graham

[bloodyminded]

The argument was made his Hilter was right wing. He was not by any stretch of the imagination. That said, his anti-union stance would put him at odds with most left wing parties too. I would say Hilter belongs in a category of his own.

Fascism itself has many unique attributes, so I agree with you that far. But that's part of my argument against the "leftist fascist" thesis, which has gained some ground among ahistorical conservatives who cherish nothing more than decrying this sinister entity they deem "the left."

Scholars of fascism once had to bemoan liberals calling every bit of right-wing authoritarianism "fascism," which simultaneously oversimplified and confused the matter.

Now they feel compelled to go after the "liberal fascist" theorists, who actually are worse. The old, lefty, promiscuous cries of "fascism!" were simply ill-conceived and ill-considered knee-jerk responses; the new, right-wing version of the same ahistoricism is deadly serious, explicitly trying to concoct inane "theories," in order to fit a round present into a square past. And, of course, to discredit anyone who leans left on anything as being a reincarnation of Hitler.

[Black Dog]

What do you expect from a university system that allows Benjamin Netanyahu to be driven away from speaking by showers of thrown rocks?

So you are a forum member and you are reading some old threads. Suddenly you see an extremely interesting thread, maybe a few months old, sometimes even years old. You like it, you don't understand why it was abandoned... You want to revive it

Now you are a thread necromancer! Supply your own Evil Laugh.

-link

Edited May 17, 2011 by Black Dog

[WIP]

Turning private enterprise into extensions of the state is not anti-free enterprise? Nonsense.

They got what they wanted from their alliance with the Nazis: guaranteed monopolies for their industries, no unions or strikes to worry about, and protection from the state. They certainly considered it the better choice than what happened behind the Soviet Union, where they had their properties and businesses confiscated by the state! In 1920's and 30's Europe, that was where the left/right divide stood; calling the fascists in Germany, Italy and Spain "anti-capitalist" today is an absurd ignorance of historical context, created by people who are trying to blind us towards the corporate-controlled fascism we are headed towards.

What does that have to do with the fact that private enterprise was taken over by the state?

Read your history! Stalin took over private enterprise, not Hitler!

[WIP]

First of all, the "anti-private enterprise types" are vanishingly are, among the left or otherwise. Sure, the Left generally--along with about 70-80% of the population--has a deep distrust of large corporations. But that's hardly "anti-private enterprise."

At any rate, Hitler despised liberals, and hated socialists even more, his party's name notwithstanding. And he drew his support largely from the political right.

I think the real story is that most of the corporate class is so full of hubris since the fall of communism, that they have no fear or respect for the majority of working people who produce and purchase their products. The invocation of Godwin's Law in this thread provides us a chance to re-examine the history of the 20th century, and look back at how much more pragmatic and moderate the wealthy were when they feared communism and confiscation of their wealth as existential threats.

Nowadays, in the U.S., they send their minions out in the media to tag a slightly watered down version of corporate capitalism - President Obama, as a radical socialist! This game is all about trying to change definitions to shift the goal lines of the playing field, so that every politician who even whispers about raising corporate and high end tax rates, and increasing environmental regulations is branded as a radical leftist. These idiots who spend their time 24/7 in the rightwing propaganda world need an introduction to real socialism!

[bloodyminded]

I think the real story is that most of the corporate class is so full of hubris since the fall of communism, that they have no fear or respect for the majority of working people who produce and purchase their products. The invocation of Godwin's Law in this thread provides us a chance to re-examine the history of the 20th century, and look back at how much more pragmatic and moderate the wealthy were when they feared communism and confiscation of their wealth as existential threats.

Yes, the social safety net was a practical concoction, whatever one's position. The ill-considered, contemporary reflex towards "libertarianism" (which isn't even that, actually, a topic for another post) is bad for the very interests in which it appears, short-sightedly, to enrich.

Nowadays, in the U.S., they send their minions out in the media to tag a slightly watered down version of corporate capitalism - President Obama, as a radical socialist!

Good Christ. This stuff is hard to believe. He's a capitalist. I say that not as a criticism, but as reportage. Hell, he received more support from Wall Street than did his Republican rival...and (as predicted) he's governed less from the left than what he campaigned on!

Meanwhile, some have actually claimed that he ran as a "centrist" (whatever that means, another bucket of worms)...and has moved "sharply to the Left." It is inane.

I remember well that before the Tea Party went media-big, national, and increased its political and corporate support, there were some loud complaints about "Wall Street."

I note well that those cries have disappeared, in favour of decrying the "socialist" Obama.

This game is all about trying to change definitions to shift the goal lines of the playing field, so that every politician who even whispers about raising corporate and high end tax rates, and increasing environmental regulations is branded as a radical leftist.

Oh hell, you should be used to that. In early 2003, during the heated debates about the Iraq War, we were continually informed that only "the left" was really opposed to it. "The Left" evidently signifying overwhelming majority global opinion, with which the Left just happened to be in agreement on this particular issue....but it was somehow "radical."

That's what happens when a raving minority of screechy ideologues--the actual "radicals," since it's a comparative term--determines itself arbiter of the proper parameters of public debate.

Edited May 17, 2011 by bloodyminded

[WIP]

That's what happens when a raving minority of screechy ideologues--the actual "radicals," since it's a comparative term--determines itself arbiter of the proper parameters of public debate.

I noticed a recent example yesterday, when a Daily Beast writer penned a surprisingly sympathetic article on Cindy Sheehan -- who is still fighting the good fight, and doesn't care whether the supporters of the wars are Republicans or Democrats. This is what really bothers me about two party systems, especially since it is the direction that we are heading towards as well. Cindy Sheehan only became a celebrity because Democrats, and their media allies used her and the Code Pink cause as a tool against the Bush Administration. Once they got their man in the Whitehouse, it's amazing how the antiwar movement was so successfully kept out of the media (which is another reason why I am suspicious of the do-gooder billionaires mentioned in another thread - Soros has made sure that Moveon.org doesn't talk about the wars and military budgets since Obama was elected). When both parties in a two party system are carrying out similar agendas, it is almost effectively a dictatorship that prevents alternative voices from getting through!

[Jack Weber]

They got what they wanted from their alliance with the Nazis: guaranteed monopolies for their industries, no unions or strikes to worry about, and protection from the state. They certainly considered it the better choice than what happened behind the Soviet Union, where they had their properties and businesses confiscated by the state! In 1920's and 30's Europe, that was where the left/right divide stood; calling the fascists in Germany, Italy and Spain "anti-capitalist" today is an absurd ignorance of historical context, created by people who are trying to blind us towards the corporate-controlled fascism we are headed towards.

Read your history! Stalin took over private enterprise, not Hitler!

Spot on!

It's also istructive to know that in every one of those European Fascist states,evry person or organization with a scintilla of left leaning thought was brutally repressed...That goes from social democrats to Marxists...

[Jack Weber]

I think the real story is that most of the corporate class is so full of hubris since the fall of communism, that they have no fear or respect for the majority of working people who produce and purchase their products. The invocation of Godwin's Law in this thread provides us a chance to re-examine the history of the 20th century, and look back at how much more pragmatic and moderate the wealthy were when they feared communism and confiscation of their wealth as existential threats.

Nowadays, in the U.S., they send their minions out in the media to tag a slightly watered down version of corporate capitalism - President Obama, as a radical socialist! This game is all about trying to change definitions to shift the goal lines of the playing field, so that every politician who even whispers about raising corporate and high end tax rates, and increasing environmental regulations is branded as a radical leftist. These idiots who spend their time 24/7 in the rightwing propaganda world need an introduction to real socialism!

That is a spectacular observation!

It's probably at the root of why we see the post war social contract being slowly eaten away....

[Jack Weber]

Yes, the social safety net was a practical concoction, whatever one's position. The ill-considered, contemporary reflex towards "libertarianism" (which isn't even that, actually, a topic for another post) is bad for the very interests in which it appears, short-sightedly, to enrich.

Good Christ. This stuff is hard to believe. He's a capitalist. I say that not as a criticism, but as reportage. Hell, he received more support from Wall Street than did his Republican rival...and (as predicted) he's governed less from the left than what he campaigned on!

Meanwhile, some have actually claimed that he ran as a "centrist" (whatever that means, another bucket of worms)...and has moved "sharply to the Left." It is inane.

I remember well that before the Tea Party went media-big, national, and increased its political and corporate support, there were some loud complaints about "Wall Street."

I note well that those cries have disappeared, in favour of decrying the "socialist" Obama.

Oh hell, you should be used to that. In early 2003, during the heated debates about the Iraq War, we were continually informed that only "the left" was really opposed to it. "The Left" evidently signifying overwhelming majority global opinion, with which the Left just happened to be in agreement on this particular issue....but it was somehow "radical."

That's what happens when a raving minority of screechy ideologues--the actual "radicals," since it's a comparative term--determines itself arbiter of the proper parameters of public debate.

Wow!!

A Grand Slam!!!

On ename about the underwriting of the Tea Party and it's "grass roots"...

Don Blankenship of Massey Coal....

Look up this piece of work and see why Big Business/Wall Street is no longer one of the objects of scorn for the "grass roots" Tea Party....

Edited May 18, 2011 by Jack Weber

[Shady]

You call 20 people sitting in an auditorium a mob? Nevermind that, get your terminology straight. You rightwing fantatics continually try to conflate fascism and communism, as if they are the same thing.

There's little difference in the tactics used by both. Stalin's Russia isn't much different than Hitler's Germany, or Mao's China. But if you want to hide behind semantics, so be it.

It's probably at the root of why we see the post war social contract being slowly eaten away....

Not really. It's because it's a bad contract, bankrupting every country it's latched on to.