AI-Jane Political, And Economic Forums

Full Version: CIA protected ex-Nazis
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3
;low brow
That post was actually supposed to be in a different thread, the Second Amendment one.

However, I don't think corporations are evil. I think they want power - I think the government wants power too. I was pointing out that the corporations need the government to protect their property - as John Locke pointed out, the sole purpose of any government should be the protection of property. The companies realize this, thus would not sell guns to people if they thought the people had a serious chance of overthrowing the government.
Anon, You still don't get it. We're not talking about evil, we're discussing a truism that you learned incorrectly while growing up, and accept without realizing its non-validity.

Business is not that Dickensian construct of workhouses and orphanages built to exploit the huddled masses. Business, especially those born under Free enterprise, protect and nurture the people and protect them from excesses of a big centralized government. The idea of evil business exploiting its workers was a calculated lie from the Sadler Report given to the British Parliament in the early Nineteenth century. Sadler was a disgruntled member of Parliament who issued his fictitious report in order to harm legislation he didn't like. He admitted lying, but his report was picked up by the Hammonds, a husband and wife team of historians, whose disinformation fit well with John Dewey's endorsement of Karl Marx, so was inserted in all the history text books he selected for the U.S. educational system. Since then, the Hammonds' disinformation was picked up by other textbooks used in High Schools and Middle Schools. It was all thoroughly debunked, but kids learned it and thought it was gospel. All the historians admitted their disinformation, but the lies were taught without correction, because of the self-admitted Marxist ideology of Dewey.

Same thing happened with the heroic entrepreneurs who rescued America from the governmental monopolies that were corrupted, filled with graft and inefficiencies. The history books referred to them as "Robber Barons" instead of the heroes they were, who stepped in, after the voters had had enough and kicked the scoundrels out. Many individual states wrote new State Constitutions that prevented their state government from getting involved in business. The entrepreneurs that the Left so loves to denigrate, stepped in and rescued failing railroads, canals, gas, water, and food industries, and made them honest, dependable, and inexpensive. Most Leftists are so fired up with indignation over these lies, and the lies about the church blocking scientific progress, that they refuse to hear when confronted with undeniable facts.
You keep ignoring my point, which is that companies need the government to protect their property, so they'd side with the government against the people if there was a revolution.
That's the point.

This is actually a conversation going on in the "Second Amendment" Thread so if any mod feels like transferring the posts about companies from this thread to the other, go ahead.
Anon can you not read and understand simple words written clearly? We are not ignoring your point, that companies need the government to protect their property, so they'd side with the government against the people if there was a revolution.

It was answered. Companies do not need the government to protect their property, nor do they fear the people if there was a revolution. If there was such a revolution, it would be government that damages the companies. It would be the people that protect the companies from the government.

Please read and understand what was posted before. It is as if you think the Sadler Report was written in gold by the Hand of God.
In the first paragraph All you did was talk about how corporations don't exploit workers, which didn't have to do with my point.

As for the second its debatable but I'd have to refresh U.S. History II to have a debate. Though the robber barons weren't exactly encouraging the citizens to take matters into their own hands - they were handling everything themselves.
Anonymous24 Wrote:As for the second its debatable but I'd have to refresh U.S. History II to have a debate. Though the robber barons weren't exactly encouraging the citizens to take matters into their own hands - they were handling everything themselves.

The term "Robber Baron" is a classic example of how a socialist was able to plaster a negative connotation on successful businessmen. It's a pile of BullSh!t. The term "Robber Baron" is a myth.
Thank you John that was a very good link. Folsom audited our State textbooks and wrote much about the disinformation passed on in them that so many Leftists absorbed as unarguable. It is hard to get them to admit they are wrong when in the back of their minds they remember school teachers telling them things that were supposedly factual, but were terribly incorrect and misleading.

As for you, Anon I find it hard to understand how your mind works. How can arguing that corporations do not generally exploit their workers not be a response to your point? Your point was that companies need the government to protect their property, so they'd side with the government against the people if there was a revolution. That could only be true if the people were in discord with their employers, and if government somehow had a fascist beneficial relationship with business that just does not exist.

Look, when Castro took over in Cuba, you tell us how it was the gevernment who protected the thousands of small businessmen and middleclass entrepreneurs! Those businessmen had their businesses seized without compensation and taken over by Castro and given to loyalist sycophants. It was and always is the government that destroys honest business - not protects them.

Did you read John's link from Folsom, about how Collins was unsuccessful at running a government-subsidized Steamship line? Vanderbilt opposed this government collusion and gave the people an operating steamship line that actually worked, was efficient, and still made money for his shareholders. You called Vanderbilt a "Robber Baron" as if such a pejorative insult is just common sense and needs no justification or verification. Your statement was not only incorrect, it was insufferably incorrect, in that even after you said it, and it was thoroughly repudiated, you refused to notice it or acknowledge it.
Quote:and if government somehow had a fascist beneficial relationship with business that just does not exist.

It does.
Anon,

What drugs are you taking and where can I get them. I have some parts of reality that I would like to wish away and whatever you are taking looks like it might do the trick. S2

Seriously now, and all kidding aside, would you care to back up your claim that government has a fascist beneficial relationship with business in the United States? As it stands now you have a statement without supporting facts or arguments which flies in the face of everything that I think I know. State the premises on which your statement stands. Provide facts and arguments to support it. Try to convince us with logic that you are correct, because right now I, and I suspect most of the other members of this forum, are laughing at your naivete.
Anonymous24 Wrote:
Quote:and if government somehow had a fascist beneficial relationship with business that just does not exist.

It does.

The relationship is not a positive one for business, as business is subserviant to the State. Anon, you knowledge of Fascism is wrong and in need of further understanding.

Please take the time and read the entire article by this retired diplomat, about Fascism. However, if it is too much trouble, then at least read this conclusion.


Quote:Fascism

This philosophical counterpoint to socialism in which people were permitted to retain property and personal wealth while the state regulated how private property and wealth would be used to achieve the common good was given a name by Benito Mussolini when he founded the Fascist Party in Italy. He promised to give the Italians the same things that Roosevelt promised to give Americans. Mussolini called the political process for doing that Fascism.

In like manner, Adolf Hitler promised the Germans equality and prosperity through regulation and control of private wealth and industry. Hitler called his movement National Socialism (which was shortened to the acronym Nazi) because he was promising the same utopian benefits as the socialists promised, but without the pain of the immediate confiscation of all property and wealth. Like the democratic progessives, the fascist tyrants argued that the fascist way to prosperity and equality was the only hope for defeating the Communists.

Fascism was and is a political philosophy in which a strong central government permits, but regulates and taxes, private wealth and property in order to achieve the utopian socialist ideal.

Hitler played on frustrated national pride and used hate and envy of the German Jewish population in selling his fascist dream. To be a fascist one must not necessarily hate the same things the Germans hated at the time Hitler rose to power. But hatred is an inevitable by-product of fascism.

A primary fallacy of fascism and socialism is the belief that intelligent, selfless people can be found within any society—people who are so wise and knowledgeable that they can determine what constitutes the common good and what individual sacrifices are necessary to achieve that good. The fallacy dictates that such wise citizens are morally entitled to do whatever is necessary to ensure that all other members of the society make the necessary sacrifices. Other members of the society have a moral obligation to make the personal sacrifices, even if in making them, they suffer a significant decrease in the level of their own comfort and personal happiness. By definition, anyone who resists making such a personal sacrifice is deemed an immoral, evil, selfish beast who deserves whatever punishment the state decides to inflict.

Because fascist controls of business and private property can never produce the promised result of equality, freedom, and economic prosperity any more than socialist promises can, fascist politicians must always be looking for someone to blame for their failures while continuing to promise even greater future economic and social miracles. Both socialists and fascists must demonize those who object to the state taking over control of their property, businesses, and lives in order to justify the violence that the political leaders will inflict on them. Fascism and socialism grow only in the soil of envy and hate.

Like socialism, fascism has fatal flaws that can lead to excesses like those of Nazi Germany just as socialism led to the gross excesses of violence in the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, and on down to the killing fields of Cambodia. But the excesses of racism, the violent suppression of minority views, ruling class elitism, and aggression against other states are symptoms of fascism, not descriptions of the political-economic system.

Hitler picked the German Jews as hate targets. Modern fascist politicians demonize Wall Street bankers, entrepreneurs, well-paid CEOs, pharmaceutical and insurance companies, illegal immigrants, creative financial managers, gun owners, fundamentalist religious leaders, and dead white guys who wrote criticism pointing out the fallacies of fascism and socialism.

World War II started out as a confrontation between the two competing utopian systems for building a brave new world. Hitler expected that the democratic fascist countries of England and the United States would either support his efforts, or remain neutral. How we ended up on the side of the most extreme socialist country in the world rather than the most extreme fascist country requires a complicated historical examination beyond the scope of this essay.

Nevertheless, once Germany was defeated, the ongoing world-wide struggle immediately reverted back to a conflict between fascism and socialism and continued on for another 45 years. The primary issue of the Cold War was never freedom or slavery; it was whether total state control would be achieved through Communist revolution or through progressive subversion of the democratic process.

Now that socialism has collapsed under its own weight, we will next learn how long it will take democratic fascism to collapse because of the same fatal flaws in economic and political theory that are common to all socialist systems.

Much of modern American liberalism is fascism and always has been. We ought to start calling it that. By calling it what it really is, we can draw attention to what is happening in our country and explain why we keep losing freedom while violence and hate grow and spread through our society.
Few in this thread are backing up their arguments with supporting facts, other than 'facts' that are actually opinion.
Anonymous24 Wrote:Few in this thread are backing up their arguments with supporting facts, other than 'facts' that are actually opinion.

Are you saying that I am not giving you some truth here Anon? Are you including me in your statement?
No, but it still doesn't disprove that there is a quasi-fascist relationship between business and government in America.
Quote:No, but it still doesn't disprove that there is a quasi-fascist relationship between business and government in America.

Your claim that there is a quasi-fascist relationship between business and government in America is the dubious claim and as such is the claim that requires substantiation. Do you intend to require proof of what everybody knows before accepting claims of the obvious? If I claim that the sky is normally blue during the day and often has clouds would you require support for such a claim? If on the other hand I claimed that the sky was normally green during the day and that there was no such thing as clouds then I would expect you to require support for such a claim before considering it. Your claim about a quasi-fascist relationship between business and government in America is the equivalent of me claiming that the sky is green and there is no such thing as clouds. It requires support before anyone else will take the time to examine your claim seriously.
Anonymous24 Wrote:No, but it still doesn't disprove that there is a quasi-fascist relationship between business and government in America.

The point is this Anon. If there is a quasi-fascist relationship between business and government, and I will agree with you here, it is a one way street in which the power is eminating ONLY from the State.

Did you get that? It is eminating ONLY from the State, not the business end. This is your Problem. You think it is the other way around and you are woefully wrong!

this is why you are so confused, along with the rest of the Jackasses who throw the Fascist ephitet around so carelessly. what they fail to recognize is that They are the fascists, because they not only condone, but encourage, the State to continue to control the business community.

What part about that can't you understand? Are you that intellectually delinquent, or do you simply refuse to acknowledge something you HOPE not to be true?

I'm changing my signature right now, to reflect this. When you see my posts in the future, it will be staring you in the face ALL of the time.
One of the facts about Fascism that must be understood, is that like Communism, it just doesn't work. The big lie out of Mussolini's Italy was that "He got the trains to run on time." What happened is that the newspapers were also controlled by the Fascists, so Italians didn't figure out that the trains were worse than ever until they got together to discuss it.

Central governments over the history of the world have never improved over Free enterprise.

What Anon is probably confused about is an incorrect assumption that government is somehow in cahoots with some companies, like Halliburton, and then executives pay bribes to politicians for favorable treatment. It sometimes worked that way back in the early 1800's until the people rose up and "kicked the rascals out." Doing such a thing today just gets you a quick trip to the slammer.
Pages: 1 2 3