Mahilena's Debunking Libertarianism/Conservatism ...

For Republican's "Courage" is Harming Children, Seniors and the Poor

The Republican Definition of Courage is Harming Children, Seniors and the Poor

A courageous person displays mental or moral strength to withstand peril, fear, or difficulty in a precarious situation and it is normally attributed to one who opposes a more powerful adversary despite danger to themselves. Heroes exhibit courage in the face of danger and if their actions preserve lives they are rewarded with accolades and recognition as exceptional members of society. The opposite of courage is cowardice and, for most people, it is a label to avoid at all costs. This past week Republicans lauded Paul Ryan’s budget as courageous and they rewarded his effort with a nearly unanimous vote in the House that was split along party lines. Ten Republicans defected and no Democrats voted for the plan that portrays Republicans as rank cowards who targeted seniors, children, and the poor with Draconian cuts while rewarding the wealthy and their corporations with entitlements paid for with Medicare, food stamps, and demolition of safety nets.

Republicans consider themselves courageous for targeting the least fortunate among us, but they are closer to weaklings who depend on the rich and powerful to fight their battles from behind the scenes, and the media, lobbyists, and conservative pundits are complicit in inflicting pain and suffering on those least able to defend themselves. In fact, a brief perusal of Ryan’s budget further portrays Republicans as cowards who lack courage to withstand peril of opposing their corporate masters and it is not limited to Republicans in the House; nearly all Republicans are cowards and bullies.

There has been chapter and verse written on the vile nature of eliminating Medicare and replacing it with a privatization scam that leaves seniors who paid into the system their entire working lives with lower quality healthcare coverage and higher costs to enrich the insurance industry. Republicans have attempted to dismantle the program since its inception to shift the savings to the wealthy and the insurance industry, and they took one step closer by passing Ryan’s Heritage Foundation budget on Thursday. However, it is the assault on children that reveals the cowardice of Republicans.
http://www.politicususa.com/republican-courage/

Mythological demon known as the "national debt" (scheme of the wealthy)

Mythological demon known as the "national debt" (scheme of the wealthy)

American poverty is a fabricated shortage of money for those at the bottom of society purposely perpetrated by politicians and their soothsaying economists to keep wealth obscenely concentrated in a very small percentage of the population at the top. It is an economic buffer zone designed by the elites to drag wages lower for those lucky enough to find a job (the ever decreasing middle class) while grotesquely increasing profit percentages for the corporate executive class. 

Poverty is dismissed by the elites as a cultural problem. Lazy minorities and white trash wouldn’t know how to use more money even if you gave it to them; they can’t be trusted and should basically be ignored (you know…the welfare queens); they’re only in poverty and without a job because they choose to be that way. This cultural fable is eagerly bought by those in middle class because they are overworked and underpaid for what they do and are easily manipulated by corporate media to resent the rags that are tossed to the poor through social entitlement programs. If it weren’t for all these rags (trifles really) there would be more money for them—the middle class—to make a decent wage. Of course this is not what would happen if the social programs were actually eliminated; the money not spent on the poor would go right into the profit zone of the elites, not into the wages of the workers. But it’s a nice fantasy and it keeps the elites in control.

All of this is carried out in the ruse that America is running out of money. There just isn’t enough money to do all the things spoiled Americans want to do. At the very same time that Americans are being told that there isn’t enough money, America has more resources and capability to produce goods and services than it’s ever had in its history—and a very significant portion of those resources and capabilities are lying purposely idle because there isn’t enough money to use them. The truth is America has not run out of money. It can never run out of money because it is the creator or its own currency and that currency is free-floating—not tied to anything else, such as gold or a foreign currency. If there isn’t enough money, it’s because the government has purposely chosen not to issue it, not because it doesn’t have any to issue. Why, then, doesn’t the government issue the money? Because the government pretends it has to borrow the money from the private sector before it can spend beyond its tax reserves, and it believes it has already borrowed too much, putting the government and future generation’s prosperity into certain insolvency. After all, America’s grandchildren must pay it back. Right? This need for the government to borrow before deficit spending is pure nonsense when one considers that the issuer of a free floating currency cannot borrow its own money before it issues it—that is impossible. Every dollar ever borrowed by the government had to be deficit spent (issued) by the government first. Otherwise it wouldn’t be there to borrow!

So what does all this mean? The elites have created a political monetary system that tends to keep money out of the purchasing hands of the poor and middle class, and concentrate it into the savings of the rich, leaving vast productive resources and capability untouched and creating a huge mythological demon known as the national debt—bonds issued by the treasury which are primarily nothing more than the savings of American and foreign elites. These bonds were exchanged for reserve dollars (dollars the government had already issued) which were simply transferred into a Treasury bond account. None of the reserves were used for anything; they were just converted into an interest paying bond account and can be moved back into reserves at any time. So in reality the government never borrowed anything. It just created an interest bearing, risk free savings account for the rich as a ruse to issue more of its sovereign money and called it borrowing! Supplement the coffers of the rich and call it borrowing at the same time. How quaint! 

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/29/1079005/-Poverty-in-America

 

Libertarians and their obsession with the "printing of money" used deceptively

Libertarians and their obsession with the "printing of money" used deceptively as a fear mongering political weapon to discredit the operations the Federal Reserve in order to maintain an attack on government...however none of it is as they deceptively describe. Here are some facts about the Printing Money process:

Printing Money is a daily operation for a central bank..to meet demand for it thru Open Market operations. Banking 101. This process is a natural banking process that bears no impact on the value of such money, (although there are other operations that do) it is neither something to be concerned about unless someone desires to do political fear mongering as some libertarians in this forum attempt to do...it does not automatically or naturally devalues currencies or create inflation...

The government treasury must pay off government debt either with money it already holds or by financing it by issuing new bonds which are sold to either the public directly or the central bank in order to raise the funds required to satisfy the debt. In this latter case where bonds are placed with the central bank, the central bank will create the needed money by conducting an open market purchase, i.e. by increasing the monetary base through the money creation process. This process of financing government spending is called monetizing the debt.

Monetizing debt is thus a two-step process where the government issues debt to finance its spending and the central bank purchases the debt, leaving the system with an increased supply of base money When government deficits are financed through this method of debt monetization the outcome is an increase in the monetary base, the money supply.

If a budget deficit persists for a substantial period of time, the monetary base will also increase, shifting the aggregate-demand curve to the right leading to a rise in the price level. When governments intentionally do this, they devalue existing stockpiles of fixed income cash flows of anyone who is holding assets based in that currency. This does not reduce the value of floating or hard assets, and has an uncertain (and potentially beneficial) impact on some equities. It benefits debtors at the expense of creditors and will result in an increase in the nominal price of real estate. This wealth transfer is clearly not a Pareto improvement but can act as a stimulus to economic growth and employment in an economy overburdened by private debt[citation needed]. It is in essence a "tax" and a simultaneous redistribution to debtors as the overall value of creditors' fixed income assets drop (and as the debt burden to debtors correspondingly decreases).

If the beneficiaries of this transfer are more likely to spend their gains (due to lower income and asset levels) this can stimulate demand and increase liquidity. It also decreases the value of the currency - potentially stimulating exports and decreasing imports - improving the balance of trade.

Foreign owners of local currency and debt also lose money, Fixed income creditors experience decreased wealth due to a loss in spending power. This is known as "inflation tax" (or "inflationary debt relief"). Conversely, tight monetary policy which favors creditors over debtors even at the expense of reduced economic growth can also be considered a wealth transfer to holders of fixed assets from people with debt or with mostly human capital to trade (a "deflation tax").

A deficit can be the source of sustained inflation only if it is persistent rather than temporary, and if the government finances it by creating money (through monetizing the debt), rather than leaving bonds in the hands of the public An open market operation (also known as OMO) is when a central bank buys or sells government bonds on the open market. A central bank uses them as the primary means of implementing monetary policy. The usual aim of open market operations is to control the short term interest rate and the supply of base money in an economy, and thus indirectly control the total money supply. This involves meeting the demand of base money at the target interest rate by buying and selling government securities, or other financial instruments. Monetary targets such as inflation, interest rates or exchange rates are used to guide this implementation Since most money is now in the form of electronic records rather than cash, open market operations are conducted simply by electronically increasing or decreasing ('crediting' or 'debiting') the amount of base money that a bank has in its reserve account at the central bank.

Thus, the process does not literally require new currency. (However, this will increase the central bank's requirement to print currency when the member bank demands banknotes, in exchange for a decrease in its electronic balance.) When there is an increased demand for base money, the central bank must act if it wishes to maintain the short-term interest rate. It does this by increasing the supply of base money. The central bank goes to the open market to buy a financial asset such as government bonds, foreign currency, gold, or seemingly nonvolatile (until the 2008 financial fallout) MBS's (Mortgage Backed Securities). To pay for these assets, bank reserves in the form of new base money (for example newly printed cash) are transferred to the seller's bank and the seller's account is credited. Thus, the total amount of base money in the economy is increased. Conversely, if the central bank sells these assets in the open market, the amount of base money held by the buyer's bank is decreased, effectively destroying base money. A commercial bank that maintains a reserve account with the Federal Reserve can obtain notes from the Federal Reserve Bank in its district whenever it wishes.

The bank must pay for the notes in full, dollar for dollar, by debiting (drawing down) its reserve account. Smaller banks without a reserve account at the Federal Reserve can maintain their reserve accounts at larger "correspondent banks" which themselves maintain reserve accounts with the Federal Reserve. Federal Reserve Notes are printed by the Bureau of Engraving and Printing (BEP), a bureau of the Department of the Treasury. When Federal Reserve Banks require additional notes for circulation, they must post collateral in the form direct federal obligations, private bank obligations, or assets purchased through open market operations

Read more on > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monetization and related articles

Conservative Judge Scalia's advice to our Emergency Room health care providers

And you thought the presidential debate crowd that cheered the death of a poor and needy person who couldn't afford health care was cruel, check out the ultimate inhumanity pouring from Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. The Daily Show came up with the audio:

http://democurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2012/03/scalias-advice-to-our-health-care.html

When Scalia was presented with the reality that our society felt obligated to help even those who needed medical help, but didn't have insurance, in other words that Health Care providers will attend the sick whether they have money or not 

Scalia responded:
Scalia: "Well don't obligate yourself." ( I guess this is Libertarian Freedom!! i.e., sick form of Liberty!!)

This does witness the great cruel mind conservatives operate on in developing their values, agendas and policies...MORE REASON TO VOTE THEM OUT OF OFFICE in 2012
Federally, State and Locally

Greenspan, AynRand and Their God (Free Markets) That Failed

 Alan Shrugged: Greenspan, AynRand Their God (Free Markets) That Failed
His admission regarding the cause of the 2008 recession and cause of the Mortgage breakdown

(Published on Saturday, October 25, 2008 )

In a historic moment, former Fed chair Alan Greenspan acknowledged he had been wrong for years to assume that government regulation was bad for markets. Whoops—there goes decades of Ayn Rand down the drain.

In a congressional hearing room on Thursday, former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan, one of the most influential civil servants of the past century, saw his stock plummet—and his entire career lose its moorings. More important, the ideological battle over economic theory and the role of government in markets—a fight that has played out in the current presidential campaign—took a historic turn.

With members of the House oversight and government reform committee blasting Greenspan for his past decisions that helped pave the way for the current financial crisis, he acknowledged that his libertarian view of markets and the financial world had not worked out so well. "You know," he told the legislators, "that's precisely the reason I was shocked, because I have been going for 40 years or more with very considerable evidence that it was working exceptionally well." While Greenspan did defend his various decisions, he admitted that his faith in the ability of free and loosely-regulated markets to produce the best outcomes had been shaken: "I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interests of organizations, specifically banks and others, were such as that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms."

In other words, whoops—there goes decades of Ayn Rand down the drain.

Democrats on the committee made Greenspan eat ideological crow. And after the hearing, Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein of California released letters Greenspan had written to legislators in 2002 and 2003 that now cast the former chief banker as out of touch with financial reality.

Back then, Feinstein was pushing for regulating financial instruments known as derivatives—particularly those called swaps. In 2000, Republican Senator Phil Gramm, then the chairman of the Senate banking committee, had used a sly legislative maneuver to pass a bill keeping swaps free from federal regulation. (Lobbyists for financial firms had helped to write the bill.) The swaps market subsequently exploded, as financial firms bought and sold swaps as insurance to cover their trading in subprime securities and other freewheeling financial products. In a nutshell: the rise of unregulated swaps enabled the growth of the shaky subprime securities at the heart of the current financial crisis. Greenspan was an ardent supporter of keeping swaps virtually unregulated.
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2008/10/25-6

The KOCH BROTHERS EXPOSED... The worst of the 1% who want to make American their playground Plantation

The KOCH BROTHERS EXPOSED...
The worst of the 1% who want to make American their playground Plantation
http://www.kochbrothersexposed.com/

Compilation of the Best #HasAnnRomneyEver tweets @annDromney

RT @esd2000: #HasAnnRomneyEver Lost her job because of #BainCapital buyouts like the moms from Indiana?
RT @esd2000: #HasAnnRomneyEver Fallen victim to the job eliminator which is her husband's #BainCapital like many REAL working moms have?
RT @asoldiersvoice: RT @eldamon: #HasAnnRomneyEver wondered what is like to want? and cannot get?
RT @DanielChristen7: #HasAnnRomneyEver been in a grocery..of course not *headslap* she sends the help.
RT @Arianna8927: #HasAnnRomneyEver had to worry if her children will have access to doctors if they get sick?
RT @esd2000: #HasAnnRomneyEver Had to buy generic brand groceries to feed her boys?
RT @word_34: #HasAnnRomneyEver sewn her own magic underwear because she couldn't afford store bought?
RT @sandyknauer: #HasAnnRomneyEver considered herself a failure because her kids depend on entitlements?
RT @TheXclass: #hasannromneyever faced a COBRA bill of $2000 per month and tried to reconcile that w/ the $300 weekly unemployment check
RT @proudliberalmom: #hasannromneyever sat with the parents of a dying child saying there are things we can do but you don't have insurance
RT @TheSecondDarrin: #HasAnnRomneyEver had to put one of her Cadillacs in neutral on every hill in order to save money on gas
RT @JskaGon: #HasAnnRomneyEver paid for groceries with food stamps?
RT @Marc_Joubert: #HasAnnRomneyEver had to ask a friend to loan her money for gas to get her children to school.
RT @Liberalmomma: RT @Marc_Joubert: #HasAnnRomneyEver had to fear losing her job due to sick child needing to be rushed to the hospital?
RT @NatefromUSA: #HasAnnRomneyEver had to decide to buy the aspirin or the milk at the store, because she only had enough cash for one?
RT @expedience2: RT @JessLivMo: #HasAnnRomneyEver decided between paying her bills or paying her child's tuition?
RT @tonyhemp: #hasAnnRomneyEver wondered how she would cope watching her child die because the insurance company wouldn't help?
RT @Chef_Domenic: #HasAnnRomneyEver pulled for gas while driving kids to school with her tank was empty only to have her bank card decline?
RT @Marc_Joubert: #HasAnnRomneyEver had to choose between eating lunch or buying gas?
RT @eldamon: #HasAnnRomneyEver strained her voice yelling at the help?
RT @TheOracle13: RT @liberalease #hasannromneyever had to fight for her rights @ the office when she was discriminated against?
RT @SaberGato: #HasAnnRomneyEver bought more food for her horses in 1 month than her maids buy all year for their entire families
RT @MariaLiaCalvo: #HasAnnRomneyEver been told your debit card did not go through when she tried to pay for groceries?
RT @MariaLiaCalvo: #HasAnnRomneyEver stood in line at the unemployment office and applied for benefits?
RT @stefsstuff: RT @asoldiersvoice: #HasAnnRomneyEver had 2 take 3 different buses 2 take her sick children 2 the hospital
RT @proudliberalmom: #hasannromneyever told her children not to sit on the stoop after dark in order NOT to be shot by a stray bullet?
RT @stefsstuff: RT @esd2000: #HasAnnRomneyEver Had to sell a Cadillac to buy groceries?
RT @thirst4music: #HasAnnRomneyEver had to prepare her own tax return?
RT @thirst4music: #HasAnnRomneyEver had to have "The Talk" with her kids? I don't mean the one about Cayman bank accounts.
RT @adchick22: Most of us work TWO jobs-raising kids AND our day job. #HasAnnRomneyEver #notreality
RT @thirst4music: #HasAnnRomneyEver had her utilities shut off for any reason other than the sale of another mansion?
RT @proudliberalmom: #hasannromneyever had to borrow from their kids piggy banks to pay for food?
RT @thirst4music: #HasAnnRomneyEver had to warn her children to step over the used syringe on the sidewalk in front of her home?
RT @Pct3200: #HasAnnRomneyEver missed a teacher conference because her children would go hungry next week if she took the time off
RT @Heknowsmynam: #HasAnnRomneyEver Gone to Planned Parenthood for free medical care?
RT @asoldiersvoice: #HasAnnRomneyEver had 2 hold n heal the hurt of her crying children belittled n teased 4 wearing -hand-me-down clothes w holes
RT @marieturk41: RT @shilzy: #HasAnnRomneyEver had to ride on the roof of the car?
RT @bambi380: #HasAnnRomneyEver had to consider selling one of her prized horses to pay her utility bill? #UAWOW
RT @Pct3200: @lawrence @theLastWord @AnnDRomney #HasAnnRomneyEver had to sleep in her Cadillac because her family was homeless?
RT @NerdyNegress: #HasAnnRomneyEver wondered if any of HERsons shouldhave joined the military 2dotheir part 4 our country"shared sacrifice"?
RT @Xomfort: #HasAnnRomneyEver ridden public transportation....daily?
RT @esd2000: #HasAnnRomneyEver Asked her husband whether a working mom would make it on the pay from those jobs he "Created." #BainCapital
RT @Mondiablue: #HasAnnRomneyEver realized women with AA degrees CAN'T compete w salaries of whitemale HighSchool graduates BY DESIGN?
RT @Fed_up_Fed: #HasAnnRomneyEver hid the fact that she went without dinner so her kids could get ALMOST enough to enough to eat?
RT @TheBadHusband: #HasAnnRomneyEver considered selling her gold / diamond wedding ring to pay the bills this month
RT @drchaya: #QuestionsForAnne #HasAnnRomneyEver declined medical treatment because could not afford it?
RT @RubyDragonella: RT @esd2000: #HasAnnRomneyEver Looked into a working mom's eyes whose job #BainCapital just eliminated?
RT @Blogsiren: #HasAnnRomneyEver Gone to #PlannedParenthood for free medical care? NO! Cause #mitt doesn't support uninsured or poor #women
RT @Mondiablue: #HasAnnRomneyEver been denied a bank account, only to rely on ripoff check cashing outlets?
RT @thirst4music: #HasAnnRomneyEver had to wonder how she would pay for her MS treatment?
RT @eldamon: #HasAnnRomneyEver had worry about paying for her healthcare or choosing between meds and food, or choosing anything at all?
RT @SUSPACK: @hilaryr #HasAnnRomneyEver had 2 take change from purse 2 a coinstar 2 buy milk? @AnnDRomneyauthority on woman's economic needs?
RT @evrybdeezgt1: RT @liberalease: #HasAnnRomneyEver had to lie to her boss about being sick so she can go home and attend a school play?
RT @Our4thEstate: RT @esd2000: #HasAnnRomneyEver Had to draw unemployment benifits because #BainCapital eliminated HER job?
RT @rossssc: #HasAnnRomneyEver showered. washed clothes, washed dishes with cold water cause the hotwater tank broke couldnt afford to replace it?
RT @esd2000: #HasAnnRomneyEver Asked her husband how many of the jobs he eliminated that day were Working Moms? #BainCapital.
RT @esd2000: #HasAnnRomneyEver Had to take a job waiting tables because #BainCapital eliminated HER job?
RT @cozella: RT @bluedutchess726: #HasAnnRomneyEver lost sleep over her financial situation? #Idon'tthinkso
RT @esd2000: #HasAnnRomneyEver Had a sleeze like #TheHermanCain put his hands up HER skirt when she was looking for a job?
RT @Pen_Bird: #HasAnnRomneyEver had to chose >thousands of dollars in medical bills?, or taking a very sick kid on a long ride to another hospital?
RT @Lib_Granny #HasAnnRomneyEver ever abandoned a car that died and walked home?
RT @bluedutchess726: #HasAnnRomneyEverhad 2 go without buying her clothes because her kids needed clothes and shoes more than herself?
RT @cozella: RT @DirkZ1: @AnnDRomney #HasAnnRomneyEver had to serve her family leftovers?
RT @AnnTBush: #HasAnnRomneyEver wondered where she'd get her next pap smear when they shut down the Planned Parenthood in her city?
RT @SaberGato: #HasAnnRomneyEver had to fight for her son's killer to be arrested for months bc TeaPartyChristians think he deserved to die anyway
RT @MDMJD: #HasAnnRomneyEver spent 55-60hrs/wk at horrible job bc ur spouse is disabled & u can't afford 2 go w/o $2400/moHealthInsurance?
RT @skrspooky: #HasAnnRomneyEver worked 3 outside jobs while doing her mom job as a single mother? I had no choice, I had kids to feed
RT @esd2000: #HasAnnRomneyEver Had to put up with sex discrimination in the workplace because she NEEDED her job to feed her kids?
RT @shilzy: #HasAnnRomneyEver had to choose between lunch or dinner?
RT @esd2000: #HasAnnRomneyEver Had to draw unemployment benifits because #BainCapital eliminated HER job?
RT @KathyAngel2: #HasAnnRomneyEver--worried the landlord would increase the rent? or Caddy's would break down? Where the gas $ is coming from?
RT @sixinheels: RT @drchaya: #QuestionsForAnne #HasAnnRomneyEver declined medical treatment because could not afford it?
RT @Lezlie61: #HasAnnRomneyEver have to tell her kids I'm sorry no Christmas gifts this year because we don't have enough money?
RT @Jambreman: #HasAnnRomneyEver Bought 10 pills for her child cuz she can't afford 30 day supply? #Ihave #OutOfTouch #Obama2012
RT @UDbmas: #HasAnnRomneyEver considered what it's like to have choices & quality of life restricted by lack of quality of life restricted by lack of money?
RT @shilzy: #HasAnnRomneyEver Told one of her boys they can't play their favorite sport this year because money was tight??
RT @shilzy: #HasAnnRomneyEver asked Mitt WTF he was thinking putting the dog on the roof of the car???
RT @KathyAngel2: #HasAnnRomneyEver had to watch her children cry out to put down sick dog bcuz you couldn't afford couldn't afford a vet
RT @esd2000: #HasAnnRomneyEverHad to sell a Cadillac to buy groceries? blood? Pawn jewelry to get 10$ in gas? Pawn jewelry to get 10$ in gas?
RT @MommaKnows_Best: #HasAnnRomneyEver cooked meals/packed lunch for an entire week on Sun afternoon before a business trip?
RT @ursulas: RT @Lezlie61: #HasAnnRomneyEver had to lose a day's pay because her sitter didn't show up?
RT @northernwillow: #HasAnnRomneyEver given her own dental appointment to her son because she only had enough money to pay for one visit?
RT @_greens_: #HasAnnRomneyEver had to work 8+ hours a day to keep a roof over her child's head & be mom at the same time? MILLIONS have.
RT @esd2000: #HasAnnRomneyEver HAD to shop at Salvation Army?
RT @LitaTweets: #HasAnnRomneyEver crawled out of bed with bronchitis to work because all her used sick days when the baby had a high fever?
RT @shilzy: #HasAnnRomneyEver: Beatboxed because she couldn't afford a ghetto blaster?
RT @Mondiablue: #HasAnnRomneyEver been denied a bank account, only to rely on ripoff check cashing outlets?
RT @thatwasmejpm: #HasAnnRomneyEver worried about which bill to pay--the rent or the utility bill?
RT @esd2000: #HasAnnRomneyEver Had to put a few groceries back cause she was a little short at register?
RT @dreggas #HasAnnRomneyEver lives on the streets and clawed her way up to get where she is?
RT @LLHM: #HasAnnRomneyEver realized we don't want to take wht she has, just that we want a level playing field for all US citizens?
RT @Fed_up_Fed: #HasAnnRomneyEver go without seeing her husband because he picked up a second job to make up income income she CHOSE to give up?

 

CHARACTERISTICS OF CONSERVATIVE LIBERTY > FASCISM

THE 14 DEFINING CHARACTERISTICS OF CONSERVATIVE CORPORATISM i.e.,   FASCISM
DIRTY FREEDOM, FREEDOM ONLY TO THE ATLAS, THE FITTEST SOCIAL DARWINISM IS THE BASIS OF FASCISM AND CONSERVATIVE LIBERTY

Originally published in the Spring 2003 edition of Free Inquiry Magazine
Laurence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and several Latin American regimes. He found 14 defining characteristics common to each:

1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public
displays.
2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of
prisoners, etc.
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial, ethnic or religious minorities; liberals;
communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.
4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.
5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.
6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.
7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.
8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government
leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.
9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power
elite.
10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested.
Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect
their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.
14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically
use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.
http://dagblog.com/reader-blogs/fascism-anyone-14-defining-characteristics-fascism-laurence-w-britt

 

Why Socialism? Albert Einstein

Albert Einstein is the world-famous physicist. This article was originally published in the first issue of Monthly Review (May 1949). It was subsequently published in May 1998 to commemorate the first issue of MR‘s fiftieth year.

 

—The Editors

Is it advisable for one who is not an expert on economic and social issues to express views on the subject of socialism? I believe for a number of reasons that it is.

Let us first consider the question from the point of view of scientific knowledge. It might appear that there are no essential methodological differences between astronomy and economics: scientists in both fields attempt to discover laws of general acceptability for a circumscribed group of phenomena in order to make the interconnection of these phenomena as clearly understandable as possible. But in reality such methodological differences do exist. The discovery of general laws in the field of economics is made difficult by the circumstance that observed economic phenomena are often affected by many factors which are very hard to evaluate separately. In addition, the experience which has accumulated since the beginning of the so-called civilized period of human history has—as is well known—been largely influenced and limited by causes which are by no means exclusively economic in nature. For example, most of the major states of history owed their existence to conquest. The conquering peoples established themselves, legally and economically, as the privileged class of the conquered country. They seized for themselves a monopoly of the land ownership and appointed a priesthood from among their own ranks. The priests, in control of education, made the class division of society into a permanent institution and created a system of values by which the people were thenceforth, to a large extent unconsciously, guided in their social behavior.

But historic tradition is, so to speak, of yesterday; nowhere have we really overcome what Thorstein Veblen called “the predatory phase” of human development. The observable economic facts belong to that phase and even such laws as we can derive from them are not applicable to other phases. Since the real purpose of socialism is precisely to overcome and advance beyond the predatory phase of human development, economic science in its present state can throw little light on the socialist society of the future.

Second, socialism is directed towards a social-ethical end. Science, however, cannot create ends and, even less, instill them in human beings; science, at most, can supply the means by which to attain certain ends. But the ends themselves are conceived by personalities with lofty ethical ideals and—if these ends are not stillborn, but vital and vigorous—are adopted and carried forward by those many human beings who, half unconsciously, determine the slow evolution of society.

For these reasons, we should be on our guard not to overestimate science and scientific methods when it is a question of human problems; and we should not assume that experts are the only ones who have a right to express themselves on questions affecting the organization of society.

Innumerable voices have been asserting for some time now that human society is passing through a crisis, that its stability has been gravely shattered. It is characteristic of such a situation that individuals feel indifferent or even hostile toward the group, small or large, to which they belong. In order to illustrate my meaning, let me record here a personal experience. I recently discussed with an intelligent and well-disposed man the threat of another war, which in my opinion would seriously endanger the existence of mankind, and I remarked that only a supra-national organization would offer protection from that danger. Thereupon my visitor, very calmly and coolly, said to me: “Why are you so deeply opposed to the disappearance of the human race?”

I am sure that as little as a century ago no one would have so lightly made a statement of this kind. It is the statement of a man who has striven in vain to attain an equilibrium within himself and has more or less lost hope of succeeding. It is the expression of a painful solitude and isolation from which so many people are suffering in these days. What is the cause? Is there a way out?

It is easy to raise such questions, but difficult to answer them with any degree of assurance. I must try, however, as best I can, although I am very conscious of the fact that our feelings and strivings are often contradictory and obscure and that they cannot be expressed in easy and simple formulas.

Man is, at one and the same time, a solitary being and a social being. As a solitary being, he attempts to protect his own existence and that of those who are closest to him, to satisfy his personal desires, and to develop his innate abilities. As a social being, he seeks to gain the recognition and affection of his fellow human beings, to share in their pleasures, to comfort them in their sorrows, and to improve their conditions of life. Only the existence of these varied, frequently conflicting, strivings accounts for the special character of a man, and their specific combination determines the extent to which an individual can achieve an inner equilibrium and can contribute to the well-being of society. It is quite possible that the relative strength of these two drives is, in the main, fixed by inheritance. But the personality that finally emerges is largely formed by the environment in which a man happens to find himself during his development, by the structure of the society in which he grows up, by the tradition of that society, and by its appraisal of particular types of behavior. The abstract concept “society” means to the individual human being the sum total of his direct and indirect relations to his contemporaries and to all the people of earlier generations. The individual is able to think, feel, strive, and work by himself; but he depends so much upon society—in his physical, intellectual, and emotional existence—that it is impossible to think of him, or to understand him, outside the framework of society. It is “society” which provides man with food, clothing, a home, the tools of work, language, the forms of thought, and most of the content of thought; his life is made possible through the labor and the accomplishments of the many millions past and present who are all hidden behind the small word “society.”

It is evident, therefore, that the dependence of the individual upon society is a fact of nature which cannot be abolished—just as in the case of ants and bees. However, while the whole life process of ants and bees is fixed down to the smallest detail by rigid, hereditary instincts, the social pattern and interrelationships of human beings are very variable and susceptible to change. Memory, the capacity to make new combinations, the gift of oral communication have made possible developments among human being which are not dictated by biological necessities. Such developments manifest themselves in traditions, institutions, and organizations; in literature; in scientific and engineering accomplishments; in works of art. This explains how it happens that, in a certain sense, man can influence his life through his own conduct, and that in this process conscious thinking and wanting can play a part.

Man acquires at birth, through heredity, a biological constitution which we must consider fixed and unalterable, including the natural urges which are characteristic of the human species. In addition, during his lifetime, he acquires a cultural constitution which he adopts from society through communication and through many other types of influences. It is this cultural constitution which, with the passage of time, is subject to change and which determines to a very large extent the relationship between the individual and society. Modern anthropology has taught us, through comparative investigation of so-called primitive cultures, that the social behavior of human beings may differ greatly, depending upon prevailing cultural patterns and the types of organization which predominate in society. It is on this that those who are striving to improve the lot of man may ground their hopes: human beings are not condemned, because of their biological constitution, to annihilate each other or to be at the mercy of a cruel, self-inflicted fate.

If we ask ourselves how the structure of society and the cultural attitude of man should be changed in order to make human life as satisfying as possible, we should constantly be conscious of the fact that there are certain conditions which we are unable to modify. As mentioned before, the biological nature of man is, for all practical purposes, not subject to change. Furthermore, technological and demographic developments of the last few centuries have created conditions which are here to stay. In relatively densely settled populations with the goods which are indispensable to their continued existence, an extreme division of labor and a highly-centralized productive apparatus are absolutely necessary. The time—which, looking back, seems so idyllic—is gone forever when individuals or relatively small groups could be completely self-sufficient. It is only a slight exaggeration to say that mankind constitutes even now a planetary community of production and consumption.

I have now reached the point where I may indicate briefly what to me constitutes the essence of the crisis of our time. It concerns the relationship of the individual to society. The individual has become more conscious than ever of his dependence upon society. But he does not experience this dependence as a positive asset, as an organic tie, as a protective force, but rather as a threat to his natural rights, or even to his economic existence. Moreover, his position in society is such that the egotistical drives of his make-up are constantly being accentuated, while his social drives, which are by nature weaker, progressively deteriorate. All human beings, whatever their position in society, are suffering from this process of deterioration. Unknowingly prisoners of their own egotism, they feel insecure, lonely, and deprived of the naive, simple, and unsophisticated enjoyment of life. Man can find meaning in life, short and perilous as it is, only through devoting himself to society.

The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of the evil. We see before us a huge community of producers the members of which are unceasingly striving to deprive each other of the fruits of their collective labor—not by force, but on the whole in faithful compliance with legally established rules. In this respect, it is important to realize that the means of production—that is to say, the entire productive capacity that is needed for producing consumer goods as well as additional capital goods—may legally be, and for the most part are, the private property of individuals.

For the sake of simplicity, in the discussion that follows I shall call “workers” all those who do not share in the ownership of the means of production—although this does not quite correspond to the customary use of the term. The owner of the means of production is in a position to purchase the labor power of the worker. By using the means of production, the worker produces new goods which become the property of the capitalist. The essential point about this process is the relation between what the worker produces and what he is paid, both measured in terms of real value. Insofar as the labor contract is “free,” what the worker receives is determined not by the real value of the goods he produces, but by his minimum needs and by the capitalists’ requirements for labor power in relation to the number of workers competing for jobs. It is important to understand that even in theory the payment of the worker is not determined by the value of his product.

Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of smaller ones. The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society. This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature. The consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population. Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights.

The situation prevailing in an economy based on the private ownership of capital is thus characterized by two main principles: first, means of production (capital) are privately owned and the owners dispose of them as they see fit; second, the labor contract is free. Of course, there is no such thing as a pure capitalist society in this sense. In particular, it should be noted that the workers, through long and bitter political struggles, have succeeded in securing a somewhat improved form of the “free labor contract” for certain categories of workers. But taken as a whole, the present day economy does not differ much from “pure” capitalism.

Production is carried on for profit, not for use. There is no provision that all those able and willing to work will always be in a position to find employment; an “army of unemployed” almost always exists. The worker is constantly in fear of losing his job. Since unemployed and poorly paid workers do not provide a profitable market, the production of consumers’ goods is restricted, and great hardship is the consequence. Technological progress frequently results in more unemployment rather than in an easing of the burden of work for all. The profit motive, in conjunction with competition among capitalists, is responsible for an instability in the accumulation and utilization of capital which leads to increasingly severe depressions. Unlimited competition leads to a huge waste of labor, and to that crippling of the social consciousness of individuals which I mentioned before.

This crippling of individuals I consider the worst evil of capitalism. Our whole educational system suffers from this evil. An exaggerated competitive attitude is inculcated into the student, who is trained to worship acquisitive success as a preparation for his future career.

I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals. In such an economy, the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilized in a planned fashion. A planned economy, which adjusts production to the needs of the community, would distribute the work to be done among all those able to work and would guarantee a livelihood to every man, woman, and child. The education of the individual, in addition to promoting his own innate abilities, would attempt to develop in him a sense of responsibility for his fellow men in place of the glorification of power and success in our present society.

Nevertheless, it is necessary to remember that a planned economy is not yet socialism. A planned economy as such may be accompanied by the complete enslavement of the individual. The achievement of socialism requires the solution of some extremely difficult socio-political problems: how is it possible, in view of the far-reaching centralization of political and economic power, to prevent bureaucracy from becoming all-powerful and overweening? How can the rights of the individual be protected and therewith a democratic counterweight to the power of bureaucracy be assured?

Clarity about the aims and problems of socialism is of greatest significance in our age of transition. Since, under present circumstances, free and unhindered discussion of these problems has come under a powerful taboo, I consider the foundation of this magazine to be an important public service.

http://monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism

 

21st Century GOP/Libertarianism: Fascism 32 characteristics

1.Becomes possible when masses of people feel deeply economically insecure.
2.Ideologically Fascism & Socialism r opposites. One rooted in defense of property the other in redistribution.
3.Fascism primarily takes root among the upper & middle class due to the fear of the loss of property.
3a.Remember that the British aristocracy & American industrialists were sympathetic 2 Fascism's cause.
4.Invokes Social Darwinism "survival of the fittest” 2 impose a hierarchal system of elitism along ethnic lines.
5.Fascism exploits nationalism by playing upon feelings of superiority over others
6.Fascism often recalls a non-existent national past of greatness, which it promises to restore.
7.Fascism exalts militarism as the greatest way to prove its superiority over others.
7a.favor military values such as courage, unquestioning obedience 2 authority, discipline, & physical strength.
8.Imperialist Tendencies. Often Invade 4 flimsy or trumped up reasons to seize wealth & resources
9.Use fear tactics, intimidation & threat of, or use of, violence 2 advance political agenda
10.Expansion of law enforcement powers, unchecked surveillance of citizenry.
11.Mass imprisonment of perceived insurgents & political opponents.
12.Disdain For Human Rights. Torture is tolerated.
13.Corporate Power & financial elites are protected.
14.Supports Authoritarian rule by a privileged class over lower classes.
15.Elites appoint each other 2 govt positions, protect each other from accountability
16.Rampant cronyism and Privatization of Public Resources.
17.Subversion of the Rule of Law. how the law is applied depends on whether one is an insider or an outsider
18.Scapegoating & Demonizing of ethnic/religious minorities & gays.
19.Eliminationist View Of Those Perceived As "Defective" / Less Than Perfect.
20.Smashing Unions 2 achieve totalitarian corporate control. Fear Organizational power of unions.
21.Government becomes the enforcer of rigid traditional/family values.
22.Enforce conformity to traditional gender roles. Sexism, Fetishizing Manliness.
23.Xenophobia, obsession w/ national security. Security used to curtail individual rights.
24.Rigid, uncompromising in their ideology.
25.Melding of Government with Religion. Using religious terms to claim social legitimacy
26.Disdain for Intellectuals, Arts and Science. Fascists value loyalty and conformity over intellectual pursuits
27.Rampant use of censorship / propagandistic media, character assassination
28.Minority opposition is countered via targeted disenfranchisement
29.Corrupt judiciary manipulates Elections
30.Hostility to The concept of "Equality" and Democracy?
31.Systematic demolition of education system in favor of ideological indoctrination?
32.Fascism is deeply suspicious of democracy & what it perceives as the "tyranny of the majority"