and it is not a circle. it goes like this. on the extreme right you would have Anarchism. then Libertarianism. next Classic Liberalism. next would be what we have now corporate capitalism with some socialism, then it splits. one branch would lead to pure corporatism followed by fascism on to totalitarian fascism, the other branch would lead to mixed socialism followed by communism leading to totalitarian communism.

So, in my view moving to the left always leads eventually to totalitarianism, and moving to the right will logically lead to a breakup of all large power structures to their smallest community groups.

That is because the essence of right wing ideology is personal freedom and responsibility, while the essence of left wing ideology is forced equality and group consciousness.

Since the atrocities committed against the Jews have become synonmous with Hitler’s name, most everyone (except some real gems on the Left) is cautious when drawing a comparison to this horrific man and does so only when facts can support the comparison.

Having said that, throughout the entire Chapter 2 of Liberal Fascism, my heartbeat accelerated and stomach sank in the same way it does whenever I feel a sense of dread. While I do not fear that Obama has evil plans to exterminate an entire race, I am fearful not only that Obama’s liberal ideology draws a striking resemblace to the Nazi Party’s platform (as factually outlined in Liberal Fascism), but more so that the tactics Obama has been using to convince people to follow him blindly (e.g.,shallow speech and symbols, and other propganda -assisted by the media and entertainment industry - that promise his utopia), seem eerily similar to those used by a man who was successful in convincing most of Germany that his Nazi agenda would substantially improve their lives. Let us never forget he was a very popular man who was voted into office.

Again, I am not fearful of evil plans of extermination, but I am concerned that our country is poised for a massive transformation similar to the way that Germany was when Hitler ascended to power, as the state of “crisis” has an amazing ability of opening people’s minds to whatever ideas bring “hope” that their current circumstances can be “changed.”

If President Obama has his way, our country will be massively transformed. I don’t think the President himself would disagree with this point.

Like was said above, I noted a number of times that there were many similarities between Hitler’s techniques and President Obama’s. In the section where Mr. Goldberg talks about Hilter’s gifter oration, I wrote “telepromter ? ” in the margin of my copy. What does President Obama bring to the table other than a great oration ability? He doesn’t have any fresh idea’s, he doesn’t show any great leadership ability to bring people together to work towards common solutions. He is simply great at delivering a speech, much as I expect Hitler was.

Its official name is/was “The National Socialist Party”
(you can look it up) - so Naziis have always been “left-wing” …
The “far right” distinction was conceived by intellectuals to distance themselves from the uncomfortably similar methods Nazis and Communists employed in “executing” their grand stragety.
They needed to create a distinction to point to a ‘bright future’ of Commmunism as the antidote to Nazism.

“While I do not fear that Obama has evil plans to exterminate an entire race”

4 my friend, you haven’t researched Der ObamanFuhrer enough, yet. He absolutely has a racial group targeted for extermination.

Although they are very hard to find now, back before about 2007 you could all kinds of speeches and videos of both Michelle and Barry lecturing on their desire to wipe out “Middle Class, white, Christian culture” and redistribute all the wealth our “oppression, racism, and greed” has stolen from the world and as Michelle specifically stated ” to end Middle-classness”.

What the heck do you think that whole “bitter clingers” line from Barry was all about?

They want us dead, 4.

They want to use Universal Healthcare to wipe out the seniors.

They are bankrupting average white guy or gal (more than 70% of the jobs lost are those of white workers and most of the ones they are creating are going to minoriities - and who do you think most of the taxes for health will support and who will pay?)

They want to take our guns (Conservative ideals are a form of mental illness and sick people can’t have guns).

They want to take our homes and cars (too much energy heats up the planet).

They want to stop us from reproducing (kids encouraged to be gay don’t breed and the rest will be encouraged to abort - Barry is a huge abortion fan).

They are at war with us and we are the Jews of this cycle and the camps and ovens will come in short order.

Erick Erickson
Redstate Morning Briefing

Mr. Erickson,
.
Norman Mattoon Thomas (November 20, 1884 – December 19, 1968) was a leading American socialist, pacifist, and six-time presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America .
The Socialist Party candidate for President of the US , Norman Thomas, said this in a 1944 speech:
“The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of “liberalism,” they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.”
He went on to say: “I no longer need to run as a Presidential Candidate for the Socialist Party. The Democrat Party has adopted our platform.”

There is some doubt that Thomas said these exact words. However, the truth of the words are evident. The question is why do you and people like you help sell the socialist agenda hiding behind liberalism. There is no such animal as liberal fascism. They are like water and oil as a philosophy and in practice.

Regardless of your motives you are no different than the Democrat nutballs that lie and deceive about what it means to be a conservative. We as a people deserve the truth. Not some partisan crap which has as it’s main purpose self glorification and book sales.

You have the admirable ability to extract the essence without getting caught up in the weeds as I often do.

However, you did go into the “health nut” aspects of Hitlerism while I did not. I know they are covered more fully in another chapter, but it’s important to bring them out in the open now, too. Especially the idea that, especially with the specter of natl healthcare looming, personal choices involving health will become a matter for the state’s control.

And think about that for a minute. What we eat, how we spend our relaxation time, even what profession we’re in (”you know, being a [conservative] lawyer is quite stressful Mr. Erickson, it’s running your blood pressure up. Maybe you should work on the farm for a while…”) will all be ripe for gubmint intrusion.

And the rest will be under their control disguised as some measure to “protect the environment.” They already tell us what kind of toilet to use. Next it’s light bulbs, soon it will be electric cars only, and on and on…

The kicker is many of the people supporting this take-over think that, since they were on the statists’ side, they themselves won’t suffer from it. Sorry. No such luck. A small cabal of elites will enjoy a luxury lifestyle free of encumbrances, but the rest of us, including avowed leftists, will be doing all the suffering. The breadlines will be for everyone…

I think Obama was an anomaly, elected as a result of the careful and studied production of artificial “middle class white guilt” and will not be re-elected. The only question is, will he get away with hijacking our democracy before we can get rid of him.

I certainly hope my faith in the individualism, courage and common sense of the American people has not been misplaced. If it has, we’re all going to be in a world of hurt…

The “American Form of Government” video articulates an accurate political spectrum. Pass it on.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DioQooFIcgE

Before getting into this post, I feel that people serious about politics, need to agree that serious politicians and political parties (not the fringe crazies) have pure motives. That is, we shouldn’t be impugning the motives of leaders, and that when we do it allows for out of line comparisons and straw men arguments that take away from the true argument over policy.

For example, Liberals did this with Bush. They argued the Patriot Act was a secret way for Bush to get rid of the 4th amendment for totalitarian control. Impugning motive is a dangerous thing. I don’t think any of us would doubt that Bush’s motives for the Patriot Act were to protect Americans. By implicitly impugning his motives you distract from the real argument over 4th Amendment protections and when they should bend to National Security concerns.

By not impugning motives, the argument stays pretty much within the boundaries of American political ideology. It allows for a reasoned debate regarding the role of government without setting up the straw man of an argument that detracts from genuine concerns. It might be easier to create bright lines between arguments by casting the opposing side as have a bad motive for their reasons, but this is a straw man, and it detracts from where the real argument usually is in American politics, and that is at the margins.

So, when you start comparing politicians to Hitler or Stalin, etc. you instantly impugn their motives, and the argument moves to straw man territory. This is disingenuous, and detracts from the real arguments that are trying to be made.

Now, I think, no, I know, the President wants America to succeed. He wants what conservatives want: Freedom, economic stability, better healthcare/coverage, etc. The difference is one of means, not ends. I disagree with his means to those ends, but that doesn’t mean I think his intention is to attain an ends that is subversive of American ideals. So, the problem with a comparison to Hitler, or even an implicit one as we see here, is that it impugns the President’s motives, it assumes his ends are not within the American collective, and, therefore, his purported means are to be seen with grave suspicion, because he has a secret motive. This instantly sends the debate off the rails.

In addition to this, America’s political trajectory swings within a band between progressive and conservative (think radio waves), but the ingenious structure of our govt. prevents the extremes on both ends from ever functioning without the Constitution being drastically altered. You can’t have totalitarianism without wiping out constitutional protections. You can’t have anarchy without, well, literally wiping out the govt. These are the extremes, yes, but even communism wouldn’t work without getting rid of the 1st amendment and I’m sure many other constitutional/statutorial protections. There are fringe elements on both political wings, but the balance in this country is far more toward the middle, and we stay within the bandwidth of an FDR type progressive and a Reagan-type conservative.

So, with these two ideas in mind - not impugning motives, and the range of political rule that our constitution allows - there is a problem with implicit comparisons between Hitler and our administration, and then saying, “but no, I’m not comparing Obama to Hitler.” The problem is that you *are* comparing the two. When someone says “Hitler wanted Universal Healthcare, and so does Obama,” people then say to themselves, “well if his health plan is similar then he must have other odious similarities to Hitler.”

It creates this slippery slope. When anyone is compared with Hitler, everyone listening goes down that slippery slope. People start jumping to conclusions, such as one above claiming that, basically, Obama will treat conservatives like a Jew in Nazi Germany. This isn’t going to happen, and I would bet lots of money on it, but taking that posture to the argument of political philosophy weakens the totality of debate.

Comparisons to Hitler are also disingenuous, because of the weakness in the flip-side of the comparison. For example, many of Hitler’s domestic policies (healthcare, education) are similar to those imposed in European countries, but these same governments aren’t fascist and aren’t implementing any final solutions. These points are never mentioned.

When you set up a straw man, people tend to not listen to you. I have enough belief in our govt. structure that a American Hitler/Stalin/any authoritarian will never get a chance to implement their programs. We have a constitutional govt. with proper checks and balances. We have the Supreme Court to knock down unconstitutional laws/policies, and Impeachment. Sure, one can imagine a President taking authoritarian control, but our system of govt. and its values are so entirely ingrained in us as Americans that we would never stand for it. All Americans, of all ideologies, would rise up in revolt of a totalitarian govt.

So, I guess what I am trying to say is that our political arguments should begin with the knowledge that our leaders, although believing in different means, share a rather uniform belief in giving Americans the best possible path toward prosperity, and that making comparisons that question this only serve to set up straw men arguments that undermine the core argument over the role of govt.

If ACORN and SEIU were (originally) funded by CPUSA, and created by (former) SDS activists, that money and man-power was not from and for “American liberal” interests, it was from and for International Communism interests. Those links and connections are all over the place in this Administration, from Frank Marshall Davis to all of the “czars” to Obama himself, and can be back-tracked to the days of Bella Dodd’s testimony about her work as head of CPUSA in NY in the 1930’s and ’40’s (Google “Bella Dodd”).

No matter how much we all may have wanted to believe the fall of the Soviet Union meant the end of a threat of communism, that just isn’t so.

And, as the Chicago-area old-neighborhood saying goes: “Show me who ya hang wit, ‘n I’ll tell ya what ya are.”

There are comparisons of course between the two megalomaniacs known as Obama and Hitler. Doubtful lineage. Immense ego and the immeasurable willingness to stop at nothing to achieve a goal no matter how nefarious. Hitler had his straw men. Obama has his feigned enemies. Start by giving the people everything they think they need and in short order you have an army of robots so beholding anything may be possible. Anything but libery and freedom.

I suppose we can be relieved that Obama is not like Hitler in the sense that he wont be doing the slaughtering.. instead he’s creating the geopolitical dysfunction that will enable those who will.

Lets not forget the great Collectivist Revolutionaries in Asia.. especially since the most murderous of them all seems to be a particular favorite of the people in the White House.

BTW: If you watch the docu “Weather Underground”, I do beleive Ayers calls himself a Maoist.

But I’m sure the US will magically escape the fate of every other nation in history that has been hijacked by these sorts of people,

It would be rude to think otherwise.