Since people miss it all the time I just want to point out that this one is written by Sophia, not me. M'kay? :)

Looks like the US is going to support (or at least not block) a UN resolution condemning Israeli settlements.

Since when has dissent been "treason?" -- Sophia

When the Marxists entered the picture.

Ah **** EV.

There aren't any Marxists involved in this debate. None, zero. Period.

Can we discuss reality? Please?

#3,

I thought you were going to say: "when it is against Obama"!

Ha! Ha!

No, opposing Obama's agenda(s) is racist, not treasonous. Im a racist tea bagger according to Chris Mathews and George Stephanopoulis.

Here is a good article from Breitbart via Big Journalism...

2010: A Race Odyssey — Disproving a Negative for Cash Prizes or, How the Civil Rights Movement Jumped the Shark

http://bigjournalism.com/abreitbart/2010/03/25/2010-a-race-odyssey-disproving-a-negative-for-cash-prizes-or-how-the-civil-rights-movement-jumped-the-shark/

How is Obama "marxist" exactly? If Obama was a marxist we'd have 5-hour workdays and all higher education would be free!

Universal healthcare may be "unconstitutional" but you must realize that the US Constitution is actually a very anti-democratic document that was written by the wealthy to protect their property from the lower classes. If anything we should be working towards eliminating the unjustness of the Constitution and instead move towards a system that is more democratic.

I don't support states and I'm only for the two-state on the 1967 border in Israel-Palestine because I feel that's the only just solution that is realistic. All Israeli crimes are US crimes by default, since the US supports Israel and everything it does. I think the recent reactions of the US towards Bibi's refusal to freeze the illegal settlements are just stunts and I wouldn't make much of it. Look at the votes in the UN each year and make your judgements on that.

Typical Western Leftist.

Mussolini-Style Fascism

March 31, 2009, 8:21 am

Megan McArdle did not like this from David Henderson:

President Obama has done something far more serious. He has already, in less than 100 days, moved the U.S. economy further towards fascism. Sean Hannity and other critics keep criticizing Obama for his socialist leanings. But the more accurate term for many of his measures, especially in the financial markets and the auto market, is fascism.

Here’s what Sheldon Richman writes about “Fascism” in The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics:

Where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society’s economic processes through direct state operation of the means of production, fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners. Where socialism nationalized property explicitly, fascism did so implicitly, by requiring owners to use their property in the “national interest”–that is, as the autocratic authority conceived it. (Nevertheless, a few industries were operated by the state.) Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities. Where socialism abolished money and prices, fascism controlled the monetary system and set all prices and wages politically. In doing all this, fascism denatured the marketplace. Entrepreneurship was abolished. State ministries, rather than consumers, determined what was produced and under what conditions.

She replied

How is this helpful? Has clarifying the distinction between fascism and socialism really added to most peoples’ understanding of what the Obama administration is doing? All this does is drag the specter of Hitler into the conversation. And the problem with Hitler was not his industrial policy–I mean, okay, fine, Hitler’s industrial policy bad, right, but I could forgive him for that, you know? The thing that really bothers me about Hitler was the genocide. And I’m about as sure as I can be that Obama has no plans to round up millions of people, put them in camps, and find various creative ways to torture them to death.

I’m confused. It appears to me that McArdle, and not Henderson, was the one who introduced rounding up people in camps into the discussion. In fact, the prototype example of fascism, in Italy, never went in the genocide direction. Genocide per se was not a defining feature of fascism, any more than it was in communism. In both cases genocide was the result of handing immense unchecked power to a small group of people. And I am not clear why, after Stalin and the Kmer Rouge, McArdle thinks that fascism is any more loaded with genocide associations than socialism.

To avoid this whole confusion, I usually use the term “Mussolini-style fascism” since we do seem blinded and incapable of looking past Hitler whenever that word fascism is mentioned. But I think the discussion of Mussolini-style fascism is as least as relevant as the frequent discussions on McArdle’s other sites of the causes of the Great Depression. While Italy adopted the model before the Depression, many nations considered emulating it as a response to the Depression. I think the evidence is fairly clear that FDR was an admirer of certain aspects of this model, and his National Industrial Recovery Act emulated many mechanisms at the core of Mussolini’s model.

I actually think the Henderson is correct – Mussolini style fascism, and the modern European corporate state, are may be better analogs to describe where this Administration is heading than socialism.

http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2 … scism.html

Fascism, Marxism, either way, I oppose this Administration and the Democratic Congress.

How is Obama "marxist" exactly? If Obama was a marxist we'd have 5-hour workdays and all higher education would be free!

Hey, give him a chance. He has only just managed to get government control of health care.
Slowly but surely he will get round to complete central planning.

I've noticed these kind of accusations a lot on the Huffington Post. They're very disturbing, especially in light of the slippery slope they start down.

Remember when Bush was the President, and we were told disagreeing with the President was the greatest sign of a vibrant democracy? But now that Obama's President, the HPers declare that anyone who disagrees with him (even Congressmen!) are "traitors". Pretty scary stuff.

First he passed a trillion dollar slush fund, then he nationalized GM, then he took over 25% of US GDP. Now on the financial services industry and energy. Get a lockdown on kids indoctrination via the education system, plus the Civilian Homeguard Corps operating, and he will have fundamentally transformed America, as he promised.

Unfortunately, it will look a lot like 1930's Germany.

Complete with modern anti Semitism, aka anti Zionism.

Wow. EV and others accusing Obama of Marxism and Fascism, respectively, are proving my point.

This is just ridiculous and it's innaccurate also. So PLEASE let's get down out of our trees and resume a civil conversation and also keep our eye on what's really important here, which is the maintenance of our open, flexible, civil democracy.

Regardless of one's views of the Constitution, since the 18th century our system has shown itself capable of civil change, change within a framework of law and nonviolence (with the exception of the Civil War and various acts of violence when people take exception to change, for example during the Civil Rights struggle.)

I think this ability to deal civilly and nonviolently is vital to a healthy democratic state. So is dissent and civil argument.

Don't you?

Anyway, the far Left and some of the Democrats and Democratic and liberal blogs were OTT when they called Bush names too. In fact calling Bush a fascist and/or Hitler was pretty popular and it was also hysterical and innaccurate.

During this time one also began seeing antisemitic conspiracy theories, some on the neonazi right, but a distressing amount also on the so-called "progressive" left.

Well, freedom of speech is freedom of speech.

Thus, you guys (EV this means you as usual) are missing my primary point which is that accusations of treason, pointing the finger at your fellow Americans and calling them un-American, is something dangerous that could tear at the fabric of our society.

Matt is the only person above who gets this.

It IS a slippery slope. Historically Jews have been especially vulnerable to this sort of attack.

And, it doesn't matter what side of the political spectrum it is coming from. In fact the first people who brought this up, about Israel and American supporters of Israel, were Walt and Mearscheimer and they are on the Right.

Similarly on Free Republic and other right wing sites one had been most likely to see endless yammering about the Liberty incident and of course the neonazi sites are full of hate for Jews period and they will use whatever lever they can find and direct it at Israel and/or Jews in general, it doesn't matter to them.

However, the Left is more likely to be "proPalestinian" ideologically; and they have now picked up the Walt/Mearscheimer meme with its echoes of Jewish conspiracy theories plus Nazi and other medieval canards as bludgeons to use against Israel.

The fact that the argument has now expanded to American Jews and/or gentile supporters of Israel was predictable and this was a primary concern when W/M published their book about "the lobby" and how Israel is against American interests.

But predictability doesn't make the parabola of their thesis, from conspiracy theory to accusations of treason, any less dangerous.

Even before the W/M book was published 9/11 troofers and conspiracy theorists have been hard at work seeking any way they can find to deflect blame from the real culprits and all too often cast it on the US government, Israel or some other conspiracy.

These theories all too often have antisemitic overtones.

Now, with the spinning of Gen. Petraeus' statements, which he clarified but which nevertheless have been spammed in the spun version to the point that they amount to a blood libel, Israel and American supporters of Israel are being decried as guilty of endangering American troops and other American interests.

This is nothing short of libelous and it's obviously incredibly dangerous. Previously this had been limited to some nuts in the "peace" movement - like Cindy Sheehan.

In fact, I was driven away from the "peace" movement because all too often it was specifically antisemitic. Instead of demonstrations for peace all too often one would see outright Naziesque accusations against Israel, against Jews.

Interestingly, in regard to Petraeus, TNR pointed out that Perry in FP who first "exposed" this spin was an aide to Yasser Arafat. So the directions from which the attacks are coming isn't always clear.

Therefore I would hope that Americans in general can step back from the largely trumped up arguments about health care and other fake divisions between us, and realize we're dealing with something truly threatening here, which is a group or groups of Americans (and/or foreign interests) accusing other Americans of being "unAmerican."

Also - what's the end game here? Is it simply to attack Israel? Is it fundamentally antisemitic?

Or is America's civil society itself under attack?

Don't forget Sophia, the very same "leftists/socialists/"progressives" ("progressive" is a REBRANDING of leftist/socialist - currently setting off fewer alarms) who support so-called "paleswine", also support Obama. Obamas associations with revd. wright, ayers convinced me that Obama is BAD for the US and its friends.

I sincerely hope that Obama is a one-term president, and he will be, as long a the Republicans field a youthful, articulate candidate. Being an incumbent has been a negative and I was heartened by the fact that several of the candidates Obama campaigned for were defeated. There is a shining light at the end of the Obama tunnel.

SCREW the "uk".

http://boycottscotland.com

AAARRRGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH.

You know, there's no law against being either a Leftist or a socialist. In fact the founders of Israel were to a large extent leftists. One could make a case that the Founding Fathers of America had some left wing tendencies, ie they were Enlightenment rather than conservative and religious in their outlook and also they were revolutionaries. Jesus had a kind of socialist outlook, he believed in sharing and this was exemplified in the stories of the bread and the fishes.

The kibbutz is essentially a commune. As in communist.

Indeed, American politicians used to run on the Socialist ticket. Socialism is not anti-democratic, though it does represent a different economic philosophy than, say, laissez faire capitalism or the outlook of Milton Friedman.

That's acceptable in the US is it not? This is the point of civil debate and a democracy where opposing points of view are tolerated and where we theoretically agree to compromise.

Unfortunately, our 2 party system doesn't allow for much nuance - for example Independents may well account for a majority of voters yet there's no viable 3rd party and small parties like Libertarians, Greens, etc, have little chance of winning even a congressional seat although there are some exceptions.

So, we're locked into stupid right/left, Republican vs Democrat battles that don't begin to reflect any nuance or complexity and that is not only a false polarization of Americans, it's oversimplifying the issues.

Regardless, the propaganda machine has portrayed socialism as unvarnished evil, as if Obama and Democrats in general are socialists which they are not. Similarly, many foolish people on the Left blindly despise the Right and refuse to consider ideas presented by people like Victor Davis Hanson for example, who is a fine historian.

The above thread of comments reflects this unfortunate baloney, rather than reason and honest debate and also, dealing with the topic I presented.

I agree though that the "new" left has tended to support Palestinian rights at the expense of Israeli rights, for example the right to be alive; but also, "progressives" have in recent years gone overboard, betrayed human rights values and picked up antisemitic memes that used to be associated primarily with anti-Jewish religious groups and/or far right parties like the Nazis.

(Please - no arguments that the Nazis were left wing because they weren't and aren't - they were dedicated anti-communists and definitely pro-capitalist.)

And, as I pointed out, many of the worst anti-Israel voices have been and are on the right.

So - does anybody have anything to say about what I've written or are we just going to fight a right/left battle which is largely phony to begin with, and ignore the real issues, one of which is that disagreements between Americans have escalated past the point of reason and second, that Jews are again being smeared with accusations of disloyalty - this time not in Germany but in America?

with the exception of the Civil War and various acts of violence when people take exception to change, for example during the Civil Rights struggle --- Sophia

In Sophia's world the New Left and its gaggle of minority groups never committed violence, in service of change and revolution.

You cant have a reasonable conversation with a Leftist. There worldview is based on fantasy and unreality, Chomskey-Zinnist one eyed hatemongering.

The Black Panthers never existed, SDS was never violent, SNCC wasnt a communist organization, the
Weathermen were really a CIA front group, Black Liberation Theology is just harmless Leftist hope and change cheerleading, and Che Gueverra was a great humanitarian.

When SEIU thugs beat up black people at Townhall meatings, its the right who is blamed for violence. A black man brings his open carry firearm to a rally, and suddenly its a racist threat against the president.

Im sorry, Sophia, I cant deal civilly with these traitors and hatemongers anymore. They have declared war on me and mine, and I will defend me an mine with every fiber of my being.

The Nazis were Leftwing, they brought Hope and Change to the German people. They were socialists that rejected Russian imperialism.

"I agree though that the "new" left has tended to support Palestinian rights at the expense of Israeli rights"

Not only that, but they have been doing the same with regards to white Euro Christians for at least 50 years. And they have picked up anti White hate tropes as legitimate civil criticism.

Im afraid the Left's increasing power has finally hit a brick wall, where their unstoppable force finally meets the Western Conservative immovable object, after the Left injected Islam into the internal politics of the West.

Just because you refuse to address reality Sophia, doesnt mean that we are not addressing "the real issues."

You just dont like what the real issues are....and wish that American Conservatives would sit down and shut up.

Well, its not going to happen. The Left with every win, only moves on to push even further Left, they will never stop doing this. And American Conservatives will only take so much. So its going to come down to firepower in the end. I dont see a way out of it. The Left is indoctrinating kids into their worldview and will continue to push Left, gaining more power, and there is a limit to what the Conservatives will tolerate of Socialism and Cultural Marxism, Moral Degradation, and so on and so forth.

Choose your sides wisely.

Sophia, you might find this interesting...

The Protocols of the Elders of Christendom?

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/03/the_protocols_of_the_elders_of_1.html