Leftists don’t know the difference between a Fascist and a Libertarian!

From a website by some people who were apparently educated in public schools:

This tea party movement that emerged only a year ago is a coalition of conservatives, anti-Semites, fascists, libertarians, racists, constitutionalists, militia men, gun freaks, homophobes, Ron Paul supporters, Alex Jones conspiracy types and American flag wavers

First, aren’t “Ron Paul supporters,” “Alex Jones conspiracy types” and “libertarians” synonymous?

“Constitutionalists” and “American flag wavers” are presented as threatening and/or a fringe group???

But most absurd is the lumping of fascists with libertarians. A fascist is the opposite of a libertarian–and the whole point of the Tea Party movement is to oppose fascism.

I’m waiting for the day liberals express surprise that there was something called the “Boston Tea Party”, the way they occasionally express surprise that pro-lifers see parallels between abortion and slavery.

Advertisements

8 responses to “Leftists don’t know the difference between a Fascist and a Libertarian!

  1. That is scary. While I don’t consider libertarians and fascists to be opposite the way you do (libertarianism to me is the gateway drug to fascism), they are different.

    What do you call a libertarian who will never be a fascist? A distributist who believes in a maximum salary law and income tax (because these two regulations are needed to prevent capitalism from evolving into oligarchial corporatism- the only way to avoid corruption in government is to make sure no one man or group of men can form a group of companies rich enough to buy government).

  2. 2nd response- re-reading their description, I don’t think THEY’RE lumping libertarians and fascists together- and I do think there is an element of fascism in the tea party movement (that subgroup that supported Bush’s bailing out of the banks and opposes *any* removal of power from Big Insurance and Big Pharma). One of the major problems with the Tea Party movement is that it is democratic-party style big tent- and has many competing subgroups (like libertarians and fascists) in it.

    • That’s my problem with the Tea Party movement, which is why liberals say it’s just a loud GOP. I was hoping for a new alignment where paleocons, “poor” libertarians as you called them on Facebook, and pro-lifers would separate themselves from the NeoCons and Capitalists of the GOP–both of which do tend towards Fascism. But they’ve let the Neocons back in, and now the Neocons are proclaiming the Tea Party “theirs” and saying the Libertarians have co-opted it.

      But it really depends upon your definition of “fascism.” To these people, “gun nut,” “militia” and “fascist” are the same, since to them Fascism = having a gun.

      You’re just talking about the age-old wisdom that democracy always leads to tyranny because either a) a demagogue misleads the people, b) the richest candidate wins, and/or c) the people cannot effectively govern themselves, and democracy devolves into anarchy. This is what happened in the French Revolution (Napoleon) and Russian Revolution (Lenin). The thing that made the US different was not the Constitution as such; it was George Washington (though I was recently speculating that many of the leaders of that generation would have been the same–Thomas Sumter, for example, had a very similar personality to Washington).

  3. I love that they asked for “Public Defenders”, now they know about the undercover FBI agent. The simpleton Tea baggers keep missing the point. These are the same whiners that were crying when the McCain/Bailin ticket lost. Now they are crying again because their yelling (because they are haters not debaters) did not stop health care from passing. They think they can scare, intimidate and force others to go along with them by comments like “This time we came unarmed”, let me tell you something they are not the only ones that are armed and not all ex-military join the fringe militia crazies who don’t pay taxes and run around with face paint in the parks playing commando, the majority are mature and understand that the world is more complicated and grey then the black and white that these simpleton make it out to be and that my friend is the point. So it’s only fitting that their leaders are Sarah Bailin, Victoria Jackson, Michele Bachmann and their turn coat Glenn Beck. So if you are bothered that there are some misconceptions of your group, well then I think you need to be more careful who you invite to give you speeches.

    • 1. The term you use is highly offensive, and I would have deleted your post for that alone.

      2. Are you totally ignorant of American history?

      3. It’s not “my group.” While I sympathize with their cause, I am not 100% agreementtheir positions or approach.

      However, I find the Left’s condemnations of them to be absurd as a) they’re just doing the same thing the Left does and b) they’re just invoking the principles upon which our country was founded. So if you don’t agree with what they’re doing, you don’t agree with America.

  4. Parallels between abortion and slavery?

    The parallels are much stronger between RIGHT-TO-LIFISM and slavery.

    Only slave-women can be forced to bear children against their wills. Not free women.

    • No, the parallels are between “it’s my body; it’s my property” feminazis and the “That person is my property” slaveholders.

      You yourself acknowledge that the unborn child is a person but doesn’t have “rights.” *That* is the parallel to slavery. Both involve dehumanization of a person. Pregnancy is not slavery. It is a choice a woman makes when she chooses to have intercourse.

      And I am not going to have the same circular arguments with you that go no where because you have no intention of listening to what I have to say.

      • OCS, I told you I am not going to rehash the same old discussion where you just “shout” and restate the same thing like a broken record and just insist I’m “wrong” even though there are no grounds under your Wittgensteinian nonsense to say I’m wrong, because “wrong” implies objective standards which, you insist, do not exist.

        I was speaking to a friend this weekend about you, and he offered a bunch of names I could suggest to refute your love for Wittgenstein, but I didn’t understand the names. I said, “he claims to have studied philosophy but doesn’t even know Aquinas.” He shrugged his shoulders and said, “If he’s never even read Aquinas, he’s not worth talking to.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s