It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
I am a registered "unaffiliated" voter, and yes - (as largo said) we get disenfranchised.
In the book, Goldberg argues that fascist movements were and are left-wing. He claims that both modern liberalism and fascism descended from progressivism, and that prior to World War II, "fascism was widely viewed as a progressive social movement with many liberal and left-wing adherents in Europe and the United States".
en.wikipedia.org...
originally posted by: raymundoko
Illegal immigrants make more than minimum wage on average and don't pay income taxes, so I'm not sure where you got your information from....
a reply to: Dfairlite
originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
- am I the only person who realizes that the 3rd party candidates get no "debate time"?
That they don't have 'primaries'?
PEW studies on unauthorized immigrants estimates that the average household of 3.1 persons earns about $36,000 per year.
originally posted by: 2ndthought
originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
Seriously, you right wingers need to stop being brainwashed into calling anybody who fights for labor rights or calls out big money "marxists."
THAT Is a tried and true manipulation/propaganda technique BY big business and the military-industrial complex for a century now.
Fox News is that you?! Good to see you've joined ATS
originally posted by: amfirst1
a reply to: BuzzyWigs
She is still a hack piece if she doesn't expose the Central Banking Oligarchs.
She can blame wallstreet all she wants but the Federal Reserve is where the true power lies.
THis is more Marxists type rhetoric to further demonize the free market for destablization in order to push their Socialist Marxists agenda.
Now u know why the Central Banking Oligarchs love to bankroll Marxists to power. It helps further enslave the country in debt through socialism to the globalists bankers.
I suggest you study the Russian Revolution of 1917. You know. The one where low class labor rights people overthrew the Csarist government? The one where those same labor people not just called out big money, but destroyed it.
Yeah, study that revolution and see how well it worked out for them. And don't think that 'we'll do it different'. As with all revolutions of that type, it'll devolve to the point where the oppressed become the oppressors.
originally posted by: Semicollegiate
The Liberal Fascism graphic is the cover of a book, copy written material, so should have sourced it better.
In the book, Goldberg argues that fascist movements were and are left-wing. He claims that both modern liberalism and fascism descended from progressivism, and that prior to World War II, "fascism was widely viewed as a progressive social movement with many liberal and left-wing adherents in Europe and the United States".
en.wikipedia.org...
The first half of the book is pure history, up to FDR and Hitler. As the book moves closer to the present day, through the 1960's, it becomes more republican but still largely historical. Liberal Fascism is definitely more Republican than Libertarian.
The roots of Progressivism in the 1800's, Woodrow Wilson, Mussolini, Hitler, and FDR's New Deal are presented mainly from an historian's point of view.
I don't remember if Herbert Hoover's New Deal (Hoover started the New Deal style of government) is covered in this book or not.
originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
Okay, so far, of the participants, I've heard a couple of people saying they listened to her;
but
A) they don't believe her.
Fair enough. I don't trust anyone in politics either.
B) they are pointing out other issues, such as Israel and Monsanto.
Fine. Neither of those are the issue I wanted to address - or that SHE addresses in this interview
C) she's speaking as a Progressive Democrat, so must be dismissed.
THIS I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH. Because those who refuse just based on her 'party affiliation' aren't paying attention to the quagmire going on right now.
So -
can anyone join jacobe001 and myself (and sheepslayer and Lyx, et al) in addressing HER POINTS IN THIS INTERVIEW?
Pretend it's someone you never, ever heard of. Pretend you don't know what her "political affiliation" is at all - and just address the POINTS SHE MADE.
Can you all do that?
Can we not focus on just THIS issue??
The ownership of Washington by money and power, at the expense of the regular American families
Just that ONE thing? Please?
originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14
However, I said (to their chagrin) that given the current state of the Democratic party, with it being aligned with the military-industrial complex, she will not be given the spot to run.
Really, are they aligned with that? Well - yeah, I guess some of them are.
Personally, I am against the Military/Industrial Complex.
If she is aligned with that, then....well - so much for my support.
I am very much an anti-interventionist peacenik.
I wish Jesse Ventura was serious about running, actually.
originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
Sorry, unfortunately for your book, both Mussolini and HItler were considered far right wingers and fascism is not a progressive nor liberal system. Virtually all historians agree with that.
originally posted by: Semicollegiate
The Liberal Fascism graphic is the cover of a book, copy written material, so should have sourced it better.
In the book, Goldberg argues that fascist movements were and are left-wing. He claims that both modern liberalism and fascism descended from progressivism, and that prior to World War II, "fascism was widely viewed as a progressive social movement with many liberal and left-wing adherents in Europe and the United States".
en.wikipedia.org...
The first half of the book is pure history, up to FDR and Hitler. As the book moves closer to the present day, through the 1960's, it becomes more republican but still largely historical. Liberal Fascism is definitely more Republican than Libertarian.
The roots of Progressivism in the 1800's, Woodrow Wilson, Mussolini, Hitler, and FDR's New Deal are presented mainly from an historian's point of view.
I don't remember if Herbert Hoover's New Deal (Hoover started the New Deal style of government) is covered in this book or not.
originally posted by: Semicollegiate
originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
Sorry, unfortunately for your book, both Mussolini and HItler were considered far right wingers and fascism is not a progressive nor liberal system. Virtually all historians agree with that.
originally posted by: Semicollegiate
The Liberal Fascism graphic is the cover of a book, copy written material, so should have sourced it better.
In the book, Goldberg argues that fascist movements were and are left-wing. He claims that both modern liberalism and fascism descended from progressivism, and that prior to World War II, "fascism was widely viewed as a progressive social movement with many liberal and left-wing adherents in Europe and the United States".
en.wikipedia.org...
The first half of the book is pure history, up to FDR and Hitler. As the book moves closer to the present day, through the 1960's, it becomes more republican but still largely historical. Liberal Fascism is definitely more Republican than Libertarian.
The roots of Progressivism in the 1800's, Woodrow Wilson, Mussolini, Hitler, and FDR's New Deal are presented mainly from an historian's point of view.
I don't remember if Herbert Hoover's New Deal (Hoover started the New Deal style of government) is covered in this book or not.
Left and Right devolve from the French Revolution. The Left wanted changes, the Right wanted to keep the status quo.
Mussolini and Hitler and the Bolsheviks all wanted to change the system in the name of faster improvement (progressive) of social conditions. All users of bigger government are claiming to work for the greater good and are progressives and on the Left.
Today the terms right and left are strictly relative, they have no concrete meaning except in comparison to each other.
All major parties are on the left, because they all use a relatively new governmental system that is only 100 years old, and the major parties also change the government as much as they can suit their ideas. All major parties are also on the right because they want to keep the 100 year old system that has been bequeathed to them.
Everyone using the system of governance of the last 100 years is on the left. Using left and right to discriminate between totalitarians is obfuscation. All totalitarians gained and kept power by appealing to progressive ideas, all totalitarians are progressive and so are all modern national politicians.
How can you make equality without control of everything?
On the traditional GLOBAL left to right scale, the Republican Party stands far right and the Democratic party is center right. Ask people outside of the US and Britain.
There is no mainstream leftist party in the US.
originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14
On the traditional GLOBAL left to right scale, the Republican Party stands far right and the Democratic party is center right. Ask people outside of the US and Britain.
There is no mainstream leftist party in the US.
Sounds like the brainwashing has worked better outside of the US and Britain.
Anything authoritarian is Left Wing Progressive.