The Internet is composed primarily of components, protocols and code, that were created by people who never expected compensation and released their work free for the public to use. Without those contributions, there would be no Internet. To allow big corporations, already with significant leverage based alone on size and resources, to disadvantage smaller companies and individuals is a kind of theft of the work of those who created the Internet for the benefit of the whole public, not just the bigs and not just the smalls, but all of us, equally.
Collins critical of FCC's net neutrality decision
Submitted by Howard B. Owens on May 15, 2014 - 4:17pm
"The internet has revolutionized the way we live and obtain information largely because it has been readily accessible and free from unnecessary government regulation. Today's ruling by the FCC paves the way for Internet 'fast lanes' which will create one Internet for the haves and one Internet for the have-nots. I am hopeful there will be enough public and Congressional backlash to block this proposal to help ensure that the Internet remains easily accessible and a tool to build economic opportunity."
Taxation is next.
Internet fast lanes have been used by elite stock brokerages for years.
If you're a "have" you get the trade at a lower stock price.
Are you a "have" or "have not'?
"To allow big corporations, already with significant leverage based alone on size and resources, to disadvantage smaller companies and individuals is a kind of theft of the work of those who created the Internet for the benefit of the whole public, not just the bigs and not just the smalls, but all of us, equally."
"Big" corporations and their handmaiden "Big" government view the "little people" as an annoyance. The "Big"'s propaganda machine, "Big" media, will report exactly what their lords and masters have dictated for them. Cutting off the flow of contrary opinions and independent thought is "Job One".
The pooh, poohing of the IRS targeting, the smear campaigns against anti-fascist movements as racist, the glorification of the Poop On All Things Near Wall Street (or Rape Any Chicks You Find, It's All Cool, Man.) movement are all manipulations of the news and narrative by our "betters". Let them "manage" the traffic and all you will be able to bring up on search engines is the INSOC Official Line on what is happening in the country and the world. Will they outsource the tech management to North Korea? Or Venezuela?
I'll miss reading the European papers honestly reporting US scandals that the the US press just won't report. I'll miss being an American Citizen and the existence of the US Constitution even more, though.
We are at a point where the fascist sensibilities of our progressive friends has reached a level which will lead them to over-reach. It is like a bluff in poker: Fold, you lose. Call, you win.
"The pooh, poohing of the IRS targeting, the smear campaigns against anti-fascist movements as racist, the glorification of the Poop On All Things Near Wall Street (or Rape Any Chicks You Find, It's All Cool, Man.) movement are all manipulations of the news and narrative by our "betters". Let them "manage" the traffic and all you will be able to bring up on search engines is the INSOC Official Line on what is happening in the country and the world. Will they outsource the tech management to North Korea? Or Venezuela?"
Umm, you want to catch your breath here for a moment, and tell me exactly what it is you're trying to communicate here, Kyle? Honest to God, I don't know what you're trying to say.
"It is like a bluff in poker: Fold, you lose. Call, you win."
Well, I'm not so sure that's what a bluff is about. A bluff is when you've got nothing, yet finesse or bully your position to prevail.
I certainly hope not. The power to tax is the power to control. This would be the first step in the downfall of the Internet as we know it.
Well, Scott, I probably could have broken that up into more paragraphs, but I think you know what I was saying and you are uncomfortable with how many alarm bells it was setting off in your brain.
Statists feel that they are special people who should run everyone's lives for the benefit of the poor commoners. The idea that those who espouse such magnanimous and humanitarian nostrums upon the masses are doomed to either be in charge of, or destroyed by, the regimes of total control that they prescribe is absolutely lost on them.
You can see the train wreck coming, just like the people in Russia and Germany did before the consolidation of power in both instances led those nations into living hells. How many stories have you heard about US Citizens who fled the coming nightmares in their countries? If you think about it, you will recall many great Americans who did Humanity and America proud.
History is there to teach us what comes of hubris but we ignore it because "It can't happen here, we're civilized people!" Why do you think the rise and fall of NAZI Germany holds such a strong hold upon the imagination of the world? Because a "civilized", "modern", "scientifically advanced" nation succumbed to insanity.
The National Socialist German Worker's Party didn't sell itself as incarnate evil to get The Chancellor and his party elected to power in a free election. It appealed to the emotions of a desperate people with cries of justice and retribution to gain power over the people.
If you refuse to see the parallels in the current efforts of the elite to control information, opinion and ideas it is only because you choose to bury your head in the sand. You don't have to be a paranoiac to believe that there are those in power who see you as nothing more than an egg ready for the making of omelets.
Kyle, all we have to do is turn on our tv"s and what you just posted is all too clear.
"but I think you know what I was saying and you are uncomfortable with how many alarm bells it was setting off in your brain."
Well, no. The alarm bells were set off because I had no idea of what you were trying to say. That's why I asked.
"If you refuse to see the parallels in the current efforts of the elite to control information, opinion and ideas it is only because you choose to bury your head in the sand."
So you're saying we're living in a police state? I would point out that if you can publicly make that claim without fear of retribution, it pretty well disproves your premise. Of course, vigilance is vital in a free society. But people tend to believe whatever it is they want to believe, independent of fact, much to the chagrin of the Unified League of Elites out there.
"You don't have to be a paranoiac to believe that there are those in power who see you as nothing more than an egg ready for the making of omelets."
You don't have to be paranoid, but it helps. Thanks though for the clarifications, Kyle.
"Kyle, all we have to do is turn on our tv"s and what you just posted is all too clear."
Let me guess, just a shot in the dark here.
It is sad that the cartoon network is one of few without a political agenda.
Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-four was published in 1949. Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451 was published in 1953. Lucas' film THX1138 came to theaters in 1971. Despite dystopian predictions of the sinister role media would play in our 'now,' we're not only still watching, we're paying to watch.
Thanks, C.M., for the excellent article. Especially: " But what's spooking us all is the inevitable message of these new media: what will be the psychic fallout of these technologies on our inner lives?"
Seriously, and how.
Remember in 'Annie Hall', when McLuhan stepped out of the ticket line to take on Woody Allen's bloviating tormentor? That was a hoot to remember.
C.M., this was on the comments page of the article you posted. I found it true and rather poignant. Certainly reflective of the way I grew up, though I'm even older. . .
"I am approaching 50 years old. I have an 18 year old and 11 year old niece, and a 13 year old nephew. As a kid growing up I had independence and freedom to discover the world(community) I lived in. Me and my friends, we made things from junk like kites, slingshots, and fishing poles. We built and raced go-carts, we made tree houses for the social clubs we formed. We played sports in the streets and in the local parks. We hiked every canyon in the local mountains and slid down waterfalls. We would go on all day excursions on our bikes and skateboards. We built models of spaceships, fighter planes, battleships and hot rod cars. We started making money by cutting our neighbors lawns. All this was done without parental supervision. We were accountable as we would lose this freedom if we transgressed the rules. As we became older we taught ourselves to drive by sneaking our parents cars out at night when we were just 14 year olds. We started to bang on instruments and form bands. We joined clubs in high school. We started having parties and dabbling with booze, drugs, and the opposite sex. We became part of music scenes like punk, ska, and reggae. My nieces and nephews haven't had this experience. They stay at home and play video games which they excel at or they are being driven to soccer tournaments or tennis matches by their parents. Their leisure time is spent on the internet. My 18 year old niece's favorite activity is posting photos of herself daily on Facebook. Justin Beiber is the closest they have to a scene. They don't know how to make anything with their two hands. This is not their fault, it's the world they have been given. We have become so protective that we have taken away our children's freedom and the only place they can find it is in the cyberworld. They do not create anything, they just consume. The tools they have at their disposal are tools for consumption. They have no tools to create. This is what concerns me more than anything"
Scott, We are not living in a police state, yet. But it is the natural course of government to grow itself and resist any restrictions on its prerogatives or its size.
The history of the 20th Century teaches us one thing above all else: We are always at risk of losing our human rights and freedom to people who are more than willing to lie and manipulate their way into power over us.
Often, these people will do so with the best of intentions.
"But it is the natural course of government to grow itself and resist any restrictions on its prerogatives or its size."
I now understand what you're saying, Kyle, and you make a good historical case.
"The history of the 20th Century teaches us one thing above all else: We are always at risk of losing our human rights and freedom to people who are more than willing to lie and manipulate their way into power over us."
As it ever was, my friend.
Alright, but I think you're forgetting the other lesson of the 20th century here; that those guilty of denying human rights tend to end up very badly. I think what is the key to our times -- what is both a strength and weakness of our times -- is that there is an incredible and unprecedented Balkanization of our society and culture -- that while it may be true fewer entities 'control' the media, the paradoxical fact is that more and more voices are being heard through it. Today, everyone is a publisher and a news agency -- even you and me. And Rupert Murdoch be damned. Probably good news, what?
"that while it may be true fewer entities 'control' the media, the paradoxical fact is that more and more voices are being heard through it"...
I recommend meditation upon this: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/15/us-usa-internet-neutrality-idU...
And this, which raises a relevant point about talk radio: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jack-coleman/2014/05/16/limbaugh-right-thom...
It seems that this particular circumstance is now in the cross-hairs of those who have only the best of intentions.
I have my profound concerns about both the corrupticrat and corruptican parties, but I see the democrat/media complex as the 50 meter target, here. There may be 100 wolves at the door but you have to deal with the one actually doing the knocking first.
"Alright, but I think you're forgetting the other lesson of the 20th century here; that those guilty of denying human rights tend to end up very badly."
The problem here is that each new wave of progressives repeatedly chant to themselves that they are so much more enlightened than the last bunch that they won't fall into the trap of the past. They have forgotten nothing and learned even less.
Socialism only killed a hundred million in the last century, they can do so much better this time!
"The problem here is that each new wave of progressives repeatedly chant to themselves that they are so much more enlightened than the last bunch that they won't fall into the trap of the past. They have forgotten nothing and learned even less."
I can only hope that you can get a good night's sleep tonight, and see things better in the morning.
"Socialism only killed a hundred million in the last century, they can do so much better this time!"
You'll need to try to define your terms, of course. I suppose you'll try to argue that Hitler and Stalin were progressives -- so good luck with that, Boyo! And you'll try once again to make sense of your delusions; I suppose you can do no other.
"I suppose you'll try to argue that Hitler and Stalin were progressives -- so good luck with that, Boyo!"
Hitler and Stalin gained power as Socialists. The Progressive movement shares/shared both the Marxist Philosophy and the hubristic view of the masses and all-consuming drive to manage the masses as a farmer would cattle. All for their own good, dontcha know!
During the rise of the National Socialist German Workers Party American Progressive were quite taken with what the NAZIs were doing in Germany. They saw the shiny baubles of scientific management of a modern nation and their hearts soared in hope of an example of Humanistic Progress. Then came The Genocide and The War.
During the entire 20th Century American Progressives have had a soft spot for Worker's Paradises, regardless of the costs to the peoples actually living there. It confounds the Progressive that absolute government power fails to change the nature of man.
"Hitler and Stalin gained power as Socialists."
National Socialism was to socialism what the John Birch Society was to communism. Hitler made no secret of his fascism, -- Mein Kampf is stonily eloquent on his detestation and loathing of all things collective. He was of the far right, an ultra-nationalist, and he and his lackeys wore the uniforms to prove it. His battle cry was for Germany to take back what the allies (i.e. the Jews) had stolen from the volkes. It's simply untrue that American progressives were enamored of him, his ideas, or his political methods. It is true that the 'scientific' idiocy of eugenics was in the air at the time, internationally, including here in the United States. One of its champions was Charles Lindbergh. But I don't think anyone ever held Lindbergh up as any sort of progressive. Eugenics was an ideal and platform of the NSDAP, and while it gained a place in the statutes of a few southern states here, it never gained the ascendancy here that it did in the Third Reich. And today it's seen and an embarrassment, a stain left by those with a shallow understanding of both science and humanity, and with certainly no credibility today. The Soviet Union condemned the practice of eugenics.
Joseph Stalin gained power the way any other common mobster does -- he grabbed it out of someone's dead hands, and then he murdered anyone he thought might oppose him -- in Uncle Joe's case, many thousands of them.
"The Progressive movement shares/shared both the Marxist Philosophy and the hubristic view of the masses and all-consuming drive to manage the masses as a farmer would cattle."
What is the 'Marxist Philosophy', Kyle, and how do progressives, as you say, share it? Where do you get this odd idea of manipulation? I think you might be one of those guys who think anyone to the left of Barry Goldwater is a commie. Nicht wahr?
"During the entire 20th Century American Progressives have had a soft spot for Worker's Paradises,"
There is some truth in this.
"regardless of the costs to the peoples actually living there."
There is much less truth in this. They were our ally in the Second War. But progressives who bothered to go to the Soviet Union, and who managed to get away from their minders, were appalled at what they found. For many, the fact they required minders was enough to tell the tale. The disillusion was pretty complete. Of course, some fools held on to the illusion, to be sure. Some fools always will.
"It confounds the Progressive that absolute government power fails to change the nature of man."
Kyle, that is simply nonsense.
Suggesting that Progressives were Marxist must rely heavily on the latter 20th Century blurring of traditional labels. Rhetoric is an amazing thing in the hands of revisionists and those unfamiliar with political science. With names like Thomas Edison, Theodore Roosevelt, Henry Ford, John D. Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie identified with the Progressive Movement- just how Marxist could the movement have been? Granted folks like Emma Goldman and Upton Sinclair were also associated with the movement. Both likely abandoned the Progressives during the lead-up to WW I via the union movement and groups like the IWW. The industrialists' brutal crack down on unions staged against the backdrop of a socialist worker's state arising in Europe was extremely motivational.
Kyle's suggestion that it was progressives who supported the rise of Hitler and Fascism is ludicrous. One of the first things that Hitler did when he assumed power was to quash labor unions, and then he socked it to the Commies and to left wing intellectuals. Early on, it was almost solely the progressives, here in in the U.S. and around the world, who were were pushing the need to fight Hitler and the Fascists; it was, in fact, progressives who, early on, rallied to fight Franco in Spain.
As Scott suggested, at the beginning of Fascism's rise, many right wingers here in the U.S. (Hearst, Lindberg, etc.) were not only isolationists, but they were also impressed and enamored with Hitler and the fascists, as they had fostered an uber-nationalistic and very pro-business, anti-union climate. If you've ever read *Mein Kampf *-- or any portion of *Mein Kampf* -- it's very clear that Hitler was a far right ideologue. And, indeed, Fascism is a far right ideology. To suggest otherwise is, quite simply, to engage in a very dangerous revision of history.
fas·cism [fash-iz-uhm] Show IPA
( sometimes initial capital letter ) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.
( sometimes initial capital letter ) the philosophy, principles, or methods of fascism.
( initial capital letter ) a political movement that employs the principles and methods of fascism, especially the one established by Mussolini in Italy 1922–43.
The nature of Fascism is Statism, just like Socialism. The only difference between Fascism and Socialism is the "regimentation" of all industry and government ownership of the "means of production". You know, crony capitalism vs. worker's paradise. But it still boils down to absolute governmental control of the people in order for it to work.
Scott failed to mention another eugenics advocate, one Margaret Sanger. I believe she is quite widely considered a progressive hero of the age.
Emma, I didn't suggest that the progressives were champions of the rise of Nazism. I pointed out that many progressives saw the NAZI experiment in a positive light, right up until it revealed itself for what it was. The reality is that what was happening in Germany was seen at the time as some great move forward in the progressive circles of the time. The history of progressivism has been whitewashed in the time since (For example: Margaret Sanger, cough). If you look at contemporaneous accounts, it becomes a little bit uncomfortable. The same goes for all the American communists who supported Uncle Joe and his happy farm.
I have been present at enough places where real things happened to realize that the media is incompetent at actually reporting the facts of an event: Every report reflects the understanding and the prejudices of the reporter. The history of what has happened is even more susceptible to manipulation for political or ideological purposes. Intentional or otherwise.
Uncle Joe also purged with gay abandon all those he saw as a threat to his power. After all, he had to have absolute and unquestioned power to lead humanity into a utopian future. Just like Dolfy needed.
Denying that Hitler's party had anything to do with Marxist theory and socialist policy is disingenuous, but completely understandable when we have been taught that it is unthinkable that the politics and the policies pursued by Hitler's party could be what they were. It was after he began consolidating his power that he went after his rivals, the communists and trade unionists. Family fights are always the most vicious.
Kyle writes: "Emma, I didn't suggest that the progressives were champions of the rise of Nazism. I pointed out that many progressives saw the NAZI experiment in a positive light, right up until it revealed itself for what it was. The reality is that what was happening in Germany was seen at the time as some great move forward in the progressive circles of the time."
This is utter and complete malarkey. Again, just look at REAL history (not the Glenn Beck school of baloney); indeed, this is relatively *recent* history, not ancient stuff. If anyone was enamored with Hitler and Fascism, it was conservatives! Particularly pro-industrialist, anti-Communist right wingers right here in the good old U.S.A. Hitler quashed the labor unions. He loathed the Communists. I can (and have) named many famous conservatives who were smitten with Hitler's Germany. Progressives, for the most part, were the ones who were pushing for us to enter the fight against Fascism. It's a fact. Do you not realize that the Communists and the Fascists were bitter enemies, who fought on opposite sides? Your wishes can't change that truth.
Have you ever read *Mein Kampf,* Kyle? Why don't you take a look at it (Hitler's OWN words), and then tell me where Hitler demonstrates the least bit of sympathy towards Marxism. Here's a tip: you won't find any such instance. I can name hundreds... indeed, thousands of progressives who actively fought and rallied against the rise of fascism. How many can you name who actually supported it? Who exactly do you think it was who was fighting against right-wing Fascist Franco, in Spain? Progressives, from several nations, including the U.S.!
Communism is a far left ideology -- but Fascism is a far right ideology. Clearly, you are so entrenched in your own right wing dogma that you cannot see the truth (or, perhaps, you simply refuse to do so). Either way, it's rather frightening.
As for Sanger, (a favorite red herring of the right), she is primarily a figure from an earlier era. Her highly problematic push for eugenics appeared in her book that was published long before the rise of Hitler and Fascism (it was published in 1920). She is hailed for her promotion of birth control and women's reproductive rights, NOT for her stand on eugenics; oddly (and sadly), her promotion of eugenics was -- at the time -- considered mild, next to more conservative proponents of such "programs."
By the time that Hitler was rising to power, Sanger, herself (then a fairly old woman), came out and publicly denounced Hitler, Fascism and Hitler's program of eugenics via extermination. That's not to excuse her earlier belief in a "milder" program of eugenics (one that did *not* involve euthanasia or extermination) -- but it's completely disingenuous to suggest that she was a supporter of Hitler or of Fascism! She wasn't. Quite the opposite.
"I pointed out that many progressives saw the NAZI experiment in a positive light, rightup until it revealed itself for what it was."
And in this you are totally, completely, and (in a rather dark way) hilariously wrong. I'm sorry, but can't take you or your arguments seriously, Kyle, and further discussion is really rather pointless. You fail at history, and thus you are sadly, and dangerously, anchor-less at understanding the world you live in today.
Ok people ENOUGH.... Cant you see you are all arguing a nuance that really you all agree with? The lesson to walk away from this discussion is that "The People" no matter how educated can have the wool politcally pulled over their eyes.
I had fun looking up references on these details everyone has mentioned in this thread this weekend. Learned alot more than I knew about this subject. But you all are picking on petty details, and everyone is right. Kyle is right that progressives championed facism and the nazi party....at first. Then Emma's conclusions come into play as the FACTS of Hitler's Nazi party became clearer.
Scott made the point earlier and yesterday morning that Kyle's point was true until the curtain was pulled away from Hitler and Himmlers brand of fascism.
The greater point I see here now is whatever is coming down the pipe for us and our Govt. We are repeating the same cycle once again. It's obvious a change is coming with all the chipping away of ideals, rights and things that we as Americans have taken for granted. But once again we are falling for the POLITICS of it discussing and defending the opposite poles of whats happening. Slamming any other new or old ideas for change and pushing them towards the left and right.
Meanwhile the change marches right on over us. Are we doomed to suffer the same fate as the German people did? Accepting what we see as the good of our leaders only to be shamed by what we supported later? Everyday we see little peeks behind the curtain yet we dismiss them as small little things of no consequence.
You all are very intelligent as are most people in our country. We need to set aside the differences and unify under common goals and work for change to those problems instead of getting embroiled in the smaller nuances that some of us will never agree on.
As for the true question of this poll.....
The internet should not allow these "fast lanes" to come into being. The implication of this is it will allow even further control of the economic engine of this country to those who have proven themselves not trustworthy enough to have such control. It will even negate some of the regulations put in place to keep these business juggernauts from being able to manipulate this country's finances to their advantage.
Kyle Couchman, I'm sorry, but it's not merely a matter of unimportant *nuance* that I'm arguing. It's a matter of historical accuracy -- important historical accuracy, that does, in fact, have some bearing on today's political landscape. That is not merely incidental. It's crucial.
And no, once again, Kyle S. is NOT correct in his assertion that the progressives "championed facism and the nazi party....at first." I'm sorry, but no. You can blame progressives for a number of historical failures (I say that as a progressive myself), but you can NOT blame progressives for Fascism. Fascism is (and was) a far right ideology. Progressives and leftists were, in fact, very early out of the gate to criticize Fascism... and to actively fight against its rise. Many leftists and progressives lost their lives doing this, even *before* the real rise of Hitler. Again, look at the Spanish Civil War! It was a rallying cry for leftists and progressives, all over the globe, to go to Spain to fight with the Spanish "Republicans" (not, in any way, affiliated with our own U.S. Republican party, of course) against Franco and his Fascist regime.
Hitler was an admirer and follower of Anton Drexler, a far-right anti-Semite, who was virulently anti-Marxist. Look him up. Drexler is no progressive, that's for sure. Indeed, the German fascists blamed Marxists for Germany's loss in WWI (and, hence, for all of the misery in Germany that followed that loss).
I repeat, you can, perhaps, blame progressives for a number of historical mistakes (although, in my opinion, they got it right more often than they got it wrong) -- but you can NOT blame progressives for fascism. Indeed, progressives (many of whom were Jewish!), deserve credit for being among the first to bravely criticize and to actively fight against fascism and Nazism.
However... as for your second point regarding the original poll question, Kyle C., I completely agree. Whatever our political stripes may be, maintaining "net neutrality" is crucial for ALL of us.
"Kyle [S] is right that progressives championed facism and the nazi party."
Kyle C, could you give us the names of some of these progressives who you claim championed fascism and the Nazis? Do you understand that the terms fascism and progressive are opposites, and contradictory?
"Scott made the point earlier and yesterday morning that Kyle's point was true until the curtain was pulled away from Hitler and Himmlers brand of fascism."
I certainly did not. What I said there was some truth to the fact that some progressives held a foolish sentimental idealism towards the "workers paradise", i.e. the Soviet Union.
Scott, here is the requested progressives.......
Just as progressives were generally enthusiastic about socialist movements in the Soviet Union and Europe, they were also overwhelmingly supportive of the fascist movements in Italy and Germany during the 1920s and 1930s. “In many respects,” writes journalist Jonah Goldberg, “the founding fathers of modern liberalism, the men and women who laid the intellectual groundwork of the New Deal and the welfare state, thought that fascism sounded like ... a worthwhile 'experiment'”:
H. G. Wells, one of the most influential progressives of the 20th century, said in 1932 that progressives must become “liberal fascists” and “enlightened Nazis.” Regarding totalitarianism, he stated: “I have never been able to escape altogether from its relentless logic.” Calling for a “‘Phoenix Rebirth’ of Liberalism” under the umbrella of “Liberal Fascism,” Wells said: “I am asking for a Liberal Fascisti, for enlightened Nazis.”
The poet Wallace Stevens pronounced himself “pro-Mussolini personally.”
The eminent historian Charles Beard wrote of Mussolini’s efforts: “Beyond question, an amazing experiment is being made [in Italy], an experiment in reconciling individualism and socialism.
Muckraking journalists almost universally admired Mussolini. Lincoln Steffens, for one, said that Italian fascism made Western democracy, by comparison, look like a system run by “petty persons with petty purposes.” Mussolini, Steffens proclaimed reverently, had been “formed” by God “out of the rib of Italy.”
McClure’s Magazine founder Samuel McClure, an important figure in the muckraking movement, described Italian fascism as “a great step forward and the first new ideal in government since the founding of the American Republic.”
After having vistited Italy and interviewed Mussolini in 1926, the American humorist Will Rogers, who was informally dubbed “Ambassador-at-Large of the United States” by the National Press Club, said of the fascist dictator: “I’m pretty high on that bird.” “Dictator form of government is the greatest form of government,” Rogers wrote, “that is, if you have the right dictator.”
Reporter Ida Tarbell was deeply impressed by Mussolini's attitudes regarding labor, affectionately dubbing him “a despot with a dimple.”
NAACP co-founder W. E. B. DuBois saw National Socialism as a worthy model for economic organization. The establishment of the Nazi dictatorship in Germany, he wrote, had been “absolutely necessary to get the state in order.” In 1937 DuBois stated: “there is today, in some respects, more democracy in Germany than there has been in years past.”
FDR adviser Rexford Guy Tugwell said of Italian fascism: “It's the cleanest, neatest, most efficiently operating piece of social machinery I've ever seen. It makes me envious.”
New Republic editor George Soule, who avidly supported FDR, noted approvingly that the Roosevelt administration was “trying out the economics of fascism.”
Playwright George Bernard Shaw hailed Stalin, Hitler, and Mussolini as the world’s great “progressive” leaders because they “did things,” unlike the leaders of those “putrefying corpses” called parliamentary democracies.
You and Emma can say it isnt fact, but reading the history does prove that it is Scott...
The facts sting a little but they are there despite your denial of them.
You are using Jonah Goldberg as a primary source and expect us to take this seriously, Kyle? Goldberg is not a "journalist," nor is he an historian; he is a right-wing pundit, and his book has been roundly discredited by serious scholars and by most real historians. Goldberg has an agenda. His book is a work of revisionist gobbledy-gook. I've read much of it, and it's essentially a work of propaganda. No real scholar (without a political agenda) would take it seriously. Goldberg basically *redefines* fascism to fit his own politically biased narrative; to do this, he takes quotes and tiny tidbits out of context and artfully rearranges them to fit his project. His goal is to slam liberals, and that's precisely what he does. Decent historians don't push such agendas.
Indeed, every single source that you site is a right wing source... and they are all drawing from the same distortions that Goldberg draws upon (the same distortions and contortions that right wingers continue to push); indeed, I'm guessing that most are drawing, directly or indirectly, from Goldberg himself. Do you not realize this, or do you seriously believe that all sources of information that you pull up on the internet should be credited with equal weight and merit? If you want to play that game, I can site hundreds of liberal (and not so liberal) sources enumerating how factually incorrect and devoid of scholastic merit Goldberg's book is. What makes you think that right wingers are the only sources of factual historical information? You're definitely smarter than that, Kyle... and so are we.
Here's a bit of counter-balance for you:
If you really want to learn about this stuff, why don't you read one of many excellent historical accounts that have been written by reputable non-political sources?
You have not presented facts, but politically biased historical distortions. Try studying some historical sources that aren't so so steeped in political bias -- sources that aren't pushing a right wing agenda that's based more in current political gamesmanship than in real history.
Seriously, Kyle, I honestly don't mean to sound snarky (so I hope that I don't come off that way, and I'm truly sorry if I do) -- but this debate has now entered the realm of the ridiculous, and I'm just too busy right now to go on and on and on with this. If you are interested in reading real historians' accounts of this era (not political hackery), send me a private message, and I will -- when I have a bit more time -- compile a short list that you can look at.
For now, I'm afraid that I have a real job and a real life to attend to. Best to all of you.
Emma facts are facts. Your opinion on their sources is just that an opinion. As your counter sources are just the facts with a different spin to the left. Left or right it doesnt matter the "famous people" quoted said what they said and did what they did.
Those are facts.
As for the so called apology for being snarky.... Don't you think the comment following it about real life and a real job makes it moot as it appear to show you think you are unique in having them and no one else does? Gives an insight on how you view the rest or the writers on this forum doesnt it?
Yes, Kyle. Facts are facts, and spin is spin. Throughout this thread, I have offered you many historical facts, which you have glossed over or completely ignored. Goldberg is presenting distorted facts, out of context quotes and just plain BULL. There is a big difference! Try reading some actual historical accounts of that era that haven't been pulled solely and directly (word for word) from right wing blogs. Seriously, Kyle, you simply cut and pasted a list of out-of-context quotes from a right wing site that has pulled out chunks of Goldberg's widely discredited book. In other words, you've got nothing here.
And I didn't post the note about my job and my life to "knock" anyone else. I posted that to explain why I'm not inclined to go through your cut-and-paste post of already discredited information, point-by-point with a fine toothed comb. I'm harried right now, and I simply don't have time for this endless game. I posted several sources that address your Goldberg arguments exhaustively and at length. I'm guessing that you didn't read them. That's your choice, but then don't try to pretend that you have really addressed these questions in any sort of serious manner.
Also, I know for a FACT that many of those quotes are taken drastically out of context. Will Rogers, for instance, was a humorist and a satirist (the John Stewart of his era). He wasn't making a serious suggestion; he was making a JOKE. Anyone who knows anything about him... or about his politics knows that he was never enamored with fascism.
The Ida Tarbell quote is actually part of a scathing indictment of Mussolini and of his followers (and of the seductive rhetoric he was using to garner support). Do you seriously believe that when she calls him a "despot with a dimple" that she's speaking *affectionately*?
And why have you listed Wallace Stevens as a liberal? Is it simply because he was a noted poet? He was actually, in fact, a politically conservative Republican. Look it up. I love many of Wallace Stevens' poems, but he was *not* a liberal. A bit of trivia, as a side note: Stevens was actually an insurance adjuster, as well as a poet.
Really, it's academically dishonest to pull snippets of these quotes out of context, as is done here, and to site them as evidence of fascism. Seriously. Before you start trying to assert that you have found the "truth," why don't you do a little research of your own beyond mere cut and paste from a single right wing source?
On a more technical note, why do I keep accidentally posting duplicate posts, and how do I delete them?
I was surprised (amused) at your mention of Wallace Stevens, Kyle. That's because I doubt you have any idea of who he was. Especially as your dubious source counts him as a progressive. And odd about H.G. Wells too, in that the SS had him marked for immediate arrest upon the invasion of England, had it happened. (It seems they missed the part where he was a supporter!) It goes on and on, but Emma covered your nonsense pretty well, I think. The real Truth about Hitler? He could be kind to children. Context is everything, Kyle. Well, credible sources are another. If you want to let the likes of Jonah Goldberg do your thinking for you, you're going to have trouble navigating reality. (Although I suppose he's slightly less psychotic than his one-time buddy, Ann Coulter. Or Glenn Beck.) But they're of a piece; their wannabe-celebrity careers are made of distortion and mindless rabble-rousing. You best hope Ida Tarbell's ghost isn't doing anything more than rolling in her grave! As for me, I am not apologizing for snark, perceived or otherwise. Emma's much nicer than I am.
@ Emma "Stevens was actually an insurance adjuster, as well as a poet."
He was a lawyer and insurance executive, and would eventually become vice president of the Hartford. And poet too, of course, on the side. Funny how they missed Ezra Pound -- what a ton of confusion for them there.
"Your opinion on their sources is just that an opinion. As your counter sources are just the facts with a different spin to the left. Left or right it doesnt matter the "famous people" quoted said what they said and did what they did."
Not big on objective reality then, Kyle? How do you manage? It's truly frighting how little critical thinking there is abroad in the land.