Discussion:
Has liberalism taken a Soviet turn?
Add Reply
raykeller
2017-08-11 19:34:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
https://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3576385/posts

Has liberalism taken a Soviet turn?
Weekly Standard

American liberalism and its enforcement is looking more and more like the
Soviet Union's actions.
____________________________

Yep. The leftâ?Ts love affair with Marx is longstanding. Stalin's purges,
the gulags, the collapse of the Soviet economy, the rampant alcoholism, none
of it matters to the left - just like it doesn't matter to them that the
population of Venezuela is suffering under a socialist dictator.
Why? For the same reason that drives a great deal of human behavior -
because they want to think of themselves as smarter and better than the rest
of us. They don't drink Budweiser. They sip sherry or drink cabernet
sauvignon while eating imported cheese. They don't support capitalism.
They're more sophisticated than that. They are intellectual enough to
understand the genius of Marx. Believe me, this is pretty close to spot on
regarding their motivation. Smarmy, arrogant, delusional, and too stupid to
know they're wrong.

_____________________________

The Soviet Union never quite embraced the insanity the left in the West does
now.
The reason is simple, the communism of the West is thoroughly infected with
cultural Marxism: an ideology not to endure as a communist state but to self
destruct to make way for other communist.

Cultural suicide is in the woodwork of the modern left. They therefore
greedily embrace things which are insane: political correctness,
homosexuality, transgenderism and importing Islam notably.

The American left is just what the Frankfurt school was wanting to create
which means that the â?obest examplesâ? are the sort of useful idiots that
were to be rounded up into gulags or executed once they no longer served
their purpose.

Islamists are wise to this and will use them the same way.


They did not tolerate gays or any other misfits. They weren't stupid. Of
course their agents wanted poison the West, so they would ultimately
prevail.

_____________________________



Although our modern socialists' promise of greater freedom is genuine and
sincere, in recent years observer after observer has been impressed by the
unforeseen consequences of socialism, the extraordinary similarity in many
respects of the conditions under 'communism' and 'fascism'. As the writer
Peter Drucker expressed it in 1939,

'the complete collapse of the belief in the attainability of freedom and
equality through Marxism has forced Russia to travel the same road toward a
totalitarian society of unfreedom and inequality which Germany has been
following. Not that communism and fascism are essentially the same. Fascism
is the stage reached after communism has proved an illusion, and it has
proved as much an illusion in Russia as in pre-Hitler Germany.â?T
No less significant is the intellectual outlook of the rank and file in the
communist and fascist movements in Germany before 1933. The relative ease
with which a young communist could be converted into a Nazi or vice versa
was well known, best of all to the propagandists of the two parties. The
communists and Nazis clashed more frequently with each other than with other
parties simply because they competed for the same type of mind and reserved
for each other the hatred of the heretic. Their practice showed how closely
they are related. To both, the real enemy, the man with whom they had
nothing in common, was the liberal of the old type. While to the Nazi the
communist and to the communist the Nazi, and to both the socialist, are
potential recruits made of the right timber, they both know that there can
be no compromise between them and those who really believe in individual
freedom.
What is promised to us as the Road to Freedom is in fact the Highroad to
Servitude. For it is not difficult to see what must be the consequences when
democracy embarks upon a course of planning. The goal of the planning will
be described by some such vague term as 'the general welfare'. There will be
no real agreement as to the ends to be attained, and the effect of the
people's agreeing that there must be central planning, without agreeing on
the ends, will be rather as if a group of people were to commit themselves
to take a journey together without agreeing where they want to go: with the
result that they may all have to make a journey which most of them do not
want at all. ____________â?" F A Hayek, The Road to Serfdom (May, 1945
Readerâ?Ts Digest Condensed Version)




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Communism, Marxism, Socialism, Nazism, Liberalism, Progressives, are all the
same mindset. They simply change the title to try to hide their intentions.
Mr. B1ack
2017-08-11 22:11:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 11 Aug 2017 12:34:42 -0700, "raykeller"
Post by raykeller
https://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3576385/posts
Has liberalism taken a Soviet turn?
"Has" ??????

It's DEFINITELY taken a Soviet turn - been that
way for awhile. It's no "liberalism" anymore, it's
*leftism*, a moderately aggressive brand too.
Winston Smith
2017-08-12 00:09:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mr. B1ack
It's DEFINITELY taken a Soviet turn - been that
way for awhile. It's no "liberalism" anymore, it's
*leftism*, a moderately aggressive brand too.
Hillary did give 20% of the US uranium resources to Putin.

Proving that she is anti-soviet and Trump is in Putin's pocket.

Liberal logic is very flexible.
Mr. B1ack
2017-08-12 01:36:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 11 Aug 2017 17:09:07 -0700, Winston Smith
Post by Winston Smith
Post by Mr. B1ack
It's DEFINITELY taken a Soviet turn - been that
way for awhile. It's no "liberalism" anymore, it's
*leftism*, a moderately aggressive brand too.
Hillary did give 20% of the US uranium resources to Putin.
Proving that she is anti-soviet and Trump is in Putin's pocket.
Liberal logic is very flexible.
Extremely ....

In any case there aren't many actual "liberals" anymore
in the USA. "Liberal" implies, well, "liberty" ... minimal
restrictions on Joe and Jane citizen, extreme tolerance
of alternative viewpoints. What we have are LEFTISTS
instead now, and they've proven themselves to be
Big Brother lovers and eager to smite any ideological
heretics that cross their path. There's more of Lenin
and Stalin in them than Voltaire.
SeaSnake
2017-08-12 17:33:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Winston Smith
Post by Mr. B1ack
It's DEFINITELY taken a Soviet turn - been that
way for awhile. It's no "liberalism" anymore, it's
*leftism*, a moderately aggressive brand too.
Hillary did give 20% of the US uranium resources to Putin.
Yes, through canucklehead Peter Giustra.
Post by Winston Smith
Proving that she is anti-soviet and Trump is in Putin's pocket.
Liberal logic is very flexible.
At least you said that in jest!
Scout
2017-08-13 05:44:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Winston Smith
Post by Mr. B1ack
It's DEFINITELY taken a Soviet turn - been that
way for awhile. It's no "liberalism" anymore, it's
*leftism*, a moderately aggressive brand too.
Hillary did give 20% of the US uranium resources to Putin.
Objection.... the use of 'give' would imply she got nothing in return.

When in reality the Russians apparently paid well over $100 Million dollars
to the Clintons and their interests both directly and indirectly with the
bulk being paid shortly after the deal was approved.

One of the worst cases of "pay to play" that came from Hillary's term as
Secretary of State. Of course, no one wants to investigate that case of
collusion.....
BigPol
2017-08-13 06:35:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Scout
Post by Winston Smith
Post by Mr. B1ack
It's DEFINITELY taken a Soviet turn - been that
way for awhile. It's no "liberalism" anymore, it's
*leftism*, a moderately aggressive brand too.
Hillary did give 20% of the US uranium resources to Putin.
Objection.... the use of 'give' would imply she got nothing in return.
When in reality the Russians apparently paid well over $100 Million
dollars to the Clintons and their interests both directly and indirectly
with the bulk being paid shortly after the deal was approved.
One of the worst cases of "pay to play" that came from Hillary's term as
Secretary of State. Of course, no one wants to investigate that case of
collusion.....
It shouldn't be investigated. A CIA hit squad should be given a mission
to eliminate all involved. This is treason of the highest in an ongoing
war. If this happened in China or Russia, all perpetrators and Kinsman
would be eliminated forthwith and justifiably so.
--
All of us have to stand up and eliminate the attack on the Constitution
by the
communist infested liberal Democrat party.
Winston Smith
2017-08-13 07:11:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Scout
Post by Winston Smith
Post by Mr. B1ack
It's DEFINITELY taken a Soviet turn - been that
way for awhile. It's no "liberalism" anymore, it's
*leftism*, a moderately aggressive brand too.
Hillary did give 20% of the US uranium resources to Putin.
Objection.... the use of 'give' would imply she got nothing in return.
Accepted. The citizens "gave" it. Hillary was a well compensated
"broker". Some might call it treasonous thief.
Post by Scout
When in reality the Russians apparently paid well over $100 Million dollars
to the Clintons and their interests both directly and indirectly with the
bulk being paid shortly after the deal was approved.
One of the worst cases of "pay to play" that came from Hillary's term as
Secretary of State. Of course, no one wants to investigate that case of
collusion.....
Imagine if she was President and controlled the Justice Department.
SeaSnake
2017-08-13 15:34:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Winston Smith
Post by Scout
One of the worst cases of "pay to play" that came from Hillary's term as
Secretary of State. Of course, no one wants to investigate that case of
collusion.....
Imagine if she was President and controlled the Justice Department.
Why it'd be a...wait for it..."Lynch Mob"!

LOLOL!
Gunner Asch
2017-08-14 03:59:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mr. B1ack
On Fri, 11 Aug 2017 12:34:42 -0700, "raykeller"
Post by raykeller
https://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3576385/posts
Has liberalism taken a Soviet turn?
"Has" ??????
It's DEFINITELY taken a Soviet turn - been that
way for awhile. It's no "liberalism" anymore, it's
*leftism*, a moderately aggressive brand too.
Indeed it is. Right down to the secret police.


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Loading...