We Are All Fascists Now

Newsweek magazine, which has given us many of the most damaging deceptions about America in recent years (remember the “Koran-Down-the-Toilet” hoax?), now weighs in with a pretentious and embarrassingly ignorant cover story, “We Are All Socialists Now.” To be sure, the basic theme–that the huge “stimulus” and the big big big TARP is leading once-capitalist America down the dangerous road to socialism–is not limited to the skinny weekly.
There’s a element of truth to the basic theme (although not to the headline): the state is getting more and more deeply involved in business, even taking controlling interests in some private companies. And the state is even trying to “make policy” for private companies they do not control, but merely “help” with “infusions of capital,” as in the recent call for salary caps for certain CEOs. So state power is growing at the expense of corporations.

But that’s not socialism. Socialism rests on a firm theoretical bedrock: the abolition of private property. I haven’t heard anyone this side of Barney Frank calling for any such thing. What is happening now–and Newsweek is honest enough to say so down in the body of the article–is an expansion of the state’s role, an increase in public/private joint ventures and partnerships, and much more state regulation of business. Yes, it’s very “European,” and some of the Europeans even call it “social democracy,” but it isn’t.

It’s fascism. Nobody calls it by its proper name.
In both countries, however, its most durable consequence was the expansion of the ability of the state to give orders to more and more citizens, in more and more corners of their lives.

  1. dvorakfan99999 says:

    Man, there are some good posts in this commentary. I should have waited before posting my stupid #15 off-the-cuff comment. This string is a keeper! Thanks to y’all for some great, intelligent contributions.
    As #51 said, this is why I come here.

  2. arpie says:

    First of all, kudos to all on the overall civil tone of this thread. Hard to find on the interwebitubes these days.

    # 59 bobbo:

    I apologize I did not get the gist of your question, to me it did sound like you were defining them as mutually exclusive.

    Analogies are always limited. The point of my analogy was picking a “favorite restaurant” from a group of items that are related to restaurants but not any of them an actual restaurant. I guess it wasn’t clear.

    AFAIK, pipe dreams are an idea that could never be attained, not necessarily positive but rather an idea that some people would like to have, but alas it can’t be.

    I don’t really have an answer for what is “bad” or “good” or “not bad”. I think many systems could work… or not. A lot depends on the people on “average” and also a lot can depend on powerful individuals. So I can’t really say that I think this system is better than another one.

    My pipe dream is a world where there’s a baseline so that basic needs of everyone are met (food, shelter, health, security, education) but that allows individuals with developed potential, drive and dedication to excel and reap rewards above the others (not necessarily in physical goods or property alone). Maybe a mix of the “social credit” system and “adhocracy”.

    > Of course, no pure form of any system exists and all systems need regulation to prevent their own excesses


  3. Deeler77 says:

    The signs are all there that we are being led into a fascist state. Wells Fargo had it’s arm twisted hard to accept the government blood money. The hastily written and congress approved “stimulus” bill is riddled with laws and conditions of government demands that no one was given a chance to read. Opposition was silenced and ignored. The congressional report saying the bill would worsen the economy was dismissed. Americans are clueless as our tax cheat evil genius treasurer works behind the scenes.
    States have frantically begun to submit resolutions affirming states rights based on the tenth amendment when it was revealed the stimulus laws may have dire consequences. The stage is now set. We’ve been taken for our money and our freedom. change=fascism

  4. 888 says:

    IMHO, everything is going as planned.

  5. lickAmaxima says:

    Hi everyone

    [url=http://www.internetmosque.net]Compared Translations of the meaning of the Quran (6470 pages) [/url]

    Dear brothers and sisters,

    Christians claim that the only way to remove sins is through the blood of Jesus, they claim that the Old Testament supports their views.

    The Christians point to the Old Testament and claim it supports their views that sin is only removed through blood.

    Let us have a closer critical look at the Old Testament and see if it supports the Christian views that the only way to be saved is through the blood of Jesus.

    The most commonly used verse from the Old Testament by Christians is

    Leviticus 17:11;

    ” For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul. ”

    If this was the only verse in the entire Old Testament, then it may support their views but this is only a fraction of the guidelines of removing sins.

    The Old Testament goes into numerous Different methods of removing sins and blood is at the bottom of the list.

    For Example the Old Testament says you can also remove sins by giving charity Exodus 30:15-16 and Numbers 31:50, incense Numbers 16:46-47, etc…

    ” The rich shall not give more, and the poor shall not give less than half a shekel, when they give an offering unto the Lord , to MAKE AN ATONEMENT FOR YOUR SOULS . And thou shalt take the atonement money of the children of Israel, and shalt appoint it for the service of the tabernacle of the congregation; that it may be a memorial unto the children of Israel before the LORD, to MAKE AN ATONEMENT FOR YOUR SOULS . “( Exodus 30:15-16 )

    “We have therefore brought an oblation for the Lord , what every man hath gotten, of jewels of gold, chains, and bracelets, rings, earrings, and tablets, to MAKE AN ATONEMENT FOR OUR SOULS before the Lord . ” ( Numbers 31:50 )

    Furthermore, blood sacrifices were only preformed for unintentional sins (Leviticus 4:2-3 ,Leviticus 5:15 , and Numbers 15:22-31).

    “If a soul commit a trespass, and SIN THROUGH IGNORANCE , in the holy things of the Lord; then he shall bring for his trespass unto the Lord a ram without blemish out of the flocks, with thy estimation by shekels of silver, after the shekel of the sanctuary, for a trespass offering: “(Leviticus 5:15)

    “Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a soul shall SIN THROUGH IGNORANCE against any of the commandments of the Lord which ought not to be done, and shall do against any of them: If the priest that is anointed do sin according to the sin of the people; then let him bring for his sin, which he hath sinned, a young bullock without blemish unto the Lord for a sin offering. “( Leviticus 4:2-3 )

    “And if any soul SIN THROUGH IGNORANCE , then he shall bring a she goat of the first year for a sin offering. And the priest shall make an atonement for the SOUL THAT SINNETH IGNORANTLY , when he sinneth BY IGNORANCE before the Lord , to make an atonement for him; and it shall be forgiven him.” ( Novembers 15:27-28 )

    If we take a closer look at the Logic behind Leviticus 17:11, we see that the Christian opinion that the only way to remove sin is through blood is even further not supported in the Torah.

    For Example, Blood sacrifices would only be available to the rich who can afford a animal.

    Therefore the Blood sacrifices would not be for everyone as Christians suggest.

    The Old Testament made it clear that blood sacrafices was not the only way to remove sins becuase it stated that if someone was too poor for a lamb, they then could offer two turtledoves or two young (Leviticus 5:7)

    It even goes further to show that blood was not the only means to salvation by saying if you couldn’t even afford pigeons, then use flour;

    “But if he be not able to bring two turtledoves, or two young pigeons, then he that sinned shall bring for his offering the tenth part of AN EPHAH OF FINE FLOUR FOR A SIN OFFERING ; he shall put no oil upon it, neither shall he put any frankincense thereon: FOR IT IS A SIN OFFERING .” (Leviticus 5:11)

    Since flour could be used for a sin offering, it is clear that blood was not the only way to forgive sins.

    The Christian claim that only blood sacrifices can forgive sins contradicts the Old Testament.

    Throughout the Old Testament, it states that everyone is responsible for their own sins;

    “But everyone will die for his own sin; each man who eats sour grapes, his teeth will be set on edge” (Jeremiah 31:30).

    “No man can by any means redeem his brother, or give to God a ransom for him” (Psalms 49:7).

    “So you shall not pollute the land in which you are; for blood pollutes the land and no expiation can be made for the land for the blood that is shed on it, except by the blood of him who has shed it!” (Numbers 35:33).

    “The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself” (Ezekiel 18:20).

    “Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin” (Deuteronomy 24:16, II Kings 14:6).

    Therefore the Death of Jesus for everyone’s sins is not supported by the Old Testament.

    For more details [url=http://www.internetmosque.net]click her[/url]


Bad Behavior has blocked 18899 access attempts in the last 7 days.