Archive

Posts Tagged ‘fascism’

Quotes About Socialism (marxism, liberalism, progressivism, communism, democrats and FASCISTS)

August 1, 2012 10 comments

Yes, they are all the same today.  Enemies of Freedom, Liberty, Human Rights, Civil Rights and ENEMIES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.  They’ve all joined up to create a pulsating mass of MAGGOTS sucking the life out of this once great Nation.

“Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy.”
Winston Churchill, 1948

“Any society that gives up liberty to gain security deserves neither and loses both.”
Benjamin Franklin, 1775

“War made the state, and the state made war.”
Charles Tilly, 1975. Reflections on the History of European State-Making.

“We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are determined to destroy this system under all conditions.”
Adolf Hitler, Leader of the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, Speech on May 1 1927

“The common features of all collectivist systems may be described as the deliberate organization of the labours of society for a definite social goal. In many ways this puts the basic issue very clearly. And it directs us at once to the point where the conflict arises between individual freedom and collectivism. The various kinds of communism, fascism, etc., differ between themselves in the nature of the goal towards which they want to direct all efforts of society. But they all differ from individualism in wanting to organize the whole of society and all its resources for this unitary end, and in refusing to recognize autonomous spheres in which the ends of individuals are supreme.
Friedrich August von Hayek, The Road To Serfdom

“We have gone through a period when too many children and people have been given to understand “I have a problem, it is the Government’s job to cope with it!” or “I have a problem, I will go and get a grant to cope with it!”, “I am homeless, the Government must house me!” and so they are casting their problems on society, and who is society? There is no such thing! There are individual men and women and there are families; no government can do anything except through people, and people look to themselves first.”
Margaret Thatcher, Interview as Prime Minister of the UK

“The usual terminology of political language is stupid. What is ‘left’ and what is ‘right’? Why should Hitler be ‘right’ and Stalin, his temporary friend, be ‘left’? Who is ‘reactionary’ and who is ‘progressive’? Reaction against an unwise policy is not to be condemned. And progress towards chaos is not to be commended. Nothing should find acceptance just because it is new, radical, and fashionable. ‘Orthodoxy’ is not an evil if the doctrine on which the ‘orthodox’ stand is sound. Who is anti-labor, those who want to lower labor to the Russian level, or those who want for labor the capitalistic standard of the United States? Who is ‘nationalist,’ those who want to bring their nation under the heel of the Nazis, or those who want to preserve its independence?”
Ludwig Heinrich Edler von Mises, Interventionism: An Economic Analysis

“In Germany and Italy the Nazis and Fascists did indeed not have much to invent. […] It was not the Fascists but the socialists who began to collect children from the tenderest age into political organizations to make sure that they grew up as good proletarians. […] The means which the old socialist parties had successfully employed to secure the support of one occupation group – the raising of their relative economic position – cannot be used to secure the support of all. There are bound to arise rival socialist movements that appeal to the support of those whose relative position is worsened. There is a great deal of truth in the often heard statement that Fascism and National Socialism are a sort of middle-class socialism – only that in Italy and Germany the supporters of these new movements were economically hardly a middle class any longer. It was to a large extent a revolt of a new under-privileged class against labour aristocracy which the industrial labour movement had created. […] The conflict between the Fascist or National-Socialist and the older socialist parties must indeed be very largely regarded as the kind of conflict which is bound to arise between rival socialist factions. There was no difference between them about the question of it being the will of the state which should assign to each person his proper place in society. But there were, as there always will be, most profound differences about what are the proper places of the different classes and groups. […] Fascism and National-Socialism, on the other hand, grew out of the experience of increasingly regulated society awaking to the fact that democratic and international socialism was aiming at incompatible ideals. Their tactics were developed in a world already dominated by socialist policy and the problems it creates. They had no illusions about the possibility of a democratic solution of problems which require more agreement among people than can be reasonably expected. They had no illusions about the capacity of reason to decide all the questions of the relative importance of wants of different men or groups which planning inevitably raises, or about the formula of equality providing an answer. They knew that the strongest group which rallied enough supporters in favour of a new hierarchical order of society, and which frankly promised privileges to the classes to which it appealed, was likely to obtain the support of all those who were disappointed because they had been promised equality but found that they had merely furthered the interest of a particular class. Above all they were successful because they offered a theory, or Weltanschauung, which seemed to justify the privileges they promised to their supporters.”
Friedrich August von Hayek, The Road To Serfdom

“Socialism itself can hope to exist only for brief periods here and there, and then only through the exercise of the extremest terrorism. It is preparing itself for rule through fear and is driving the word “justice” into the heads of the half-educated masses like a nail, so as to rob them of their reason and to create in them a good conscience for the evil game they are to play. Socialism can serve to teach – in a truly brutal and impressive fashion – what danger there lies in all accumulations of state power.”
Friedrich Nietzsche, Human, All Too Human

“Among helpful and charitable people one almost always finds that clumsy deceitfulness which first adjusts and adapts him who is to be helped: as if, for example, he “deserved” help, desired precisely their help, and would prove profoundly grateful, faithful and submissive to them in return for all the help he had received – with these imaginings they dispose of those in need as if they were possessions, and are charitable and helpful at all only from a desire for possessions. They are jealous if one frustrates or anticipates them when they want to help. A man who says: “I like this, I take it for my own and mean to protect it and defend it against everyone”, a man who can do something, carry out a decision, remain true to an idea, punish and put down insolence, a man who has his anger and his sword and to whom the weak, suffering, oppressed, and the animals too are glad to submit and belong by nature, in short a man who is by nature a master – when such a man has pity, well! That pity has value! But of what account is the pity of those who suffer, or worse, of those who preach pity.”
Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil

“The burning conviction that we have a holy duty toward others is often a way of attaching our drowning selves to a passing raft. What looks like giving a hand is often a holding on for dear life. Take away our holy duties and you leave our lives puny and meaningless. There is no doubt that in exchanging a self-centered for a selfless life we gain enormously in self-esteem. The vanity of the selfless, even those who practice utmost humility, is boundless.”
Eric Hoffer, The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements

“Yet after [decades] of experience with socialism, it is safe to say that most intellectuals outside the areas – Eastern Europe and the Third World – where socialism has been tried remain content to brush aside what lessons might lie in economics, are unwilling to wonder whether there might not be a reason why socialism, as often as it is attempted, never seems to work out as its intellectual leaders intended.”
Friedrich August von Hayek, The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism

Resolution Condemning Socialism As Un-American


[TWG Note: This would be nice, but I highly doubt it will become a congressional record.  Considering the politicians and the communist party have done away with the house committee on un-American activities.  After all……. socialism is communism light.  It’s just another form of fascism.]

 

A House Resolution Condemning Socialism as Anti-American

Below is a proposed House Resolution condemning Socialism as anti-American. Please take action and tweet, email, FB Share, etc. this with your Representative (or a staunch anti-socialist Representative such as Allen West, et al).  
 
There is a movement underway, started by an article in the New York Times, to whitewash and sanitize Socialism as a harmless boogeyman. This cannot stand.
 
We must find sponsors for this Resolution or one like it. Let those who dare oppose it for all to see and hear stand and be counted. If you see the reason in this, please help get this out. If you think it can’t be done, read no further and put your head back in the sand.
 
H.RES.__
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
[DATE]
HOUSE RESOLUTION
 
Condemning Socialism as anti-American.
 
Whereas The Declaration of Independence (the “Declaration”) embodies the essence of “Americanism”;
 
Whereas the tenets of Socialism, in the works of Karl Marx, et al, are the antithesis of the ideals set forth in the Declaration;
 
Whereas The Declaration recognizes the sanctity of the individual and individual rights, stating: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”;
 
Whereas Socialism mandates the sacrifice of the individual’s life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness to the State, to the collective;
 
Whereas under the Socialist ideal, the State Collective is the despotic arbiter of the needs of each individual, seized and redistributed from each individual according to the State determined ability of the individuals in its collective;
 
Whereas the Declaration states that “to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”;
 
Whereas Socialism runs anathema to the Declaration, holding that men’s rights are dictated at and by the whim of the Government collective;
 
Whereas the Declaration precludes Socialism, which would create a “Form of Government [which would become] destructive of [the] ends” set forth in the Declaration, triggering the “Right of the People to alter or to abolish” such a Socialist regime;
 
Whereas in the history of Socialist governments is “a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny”;
 
Whereas Socialists programs, such as “Agenda 21” and the” Law of the Sea Treaty,” would require our sovereign Nation to combine “with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving [] Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation”;
 
Whereas the Socialist initiatives would take “away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and alter[] fundamentally the Form[] of our Government”;
 
Whereas Socialism is anathema to the American ideal of Federalism, that the States “are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States”:  Now, therefore, be it
 
Resolved by the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That Socialism in any form is condemned as being anti-American, running counter to the American ideals set forth in Our Declaration of Independence.
 

Spread the word! Help find sponsors!

 
 
 

First Principles……… Let’s Get Real.

June 26, 2012 1 comment

[TWG Note: This is an excellent article about dealing with the leftists.  I stopped “debating” those glassy eyed SOB’s a long time ago because it’s just a big, huge waste of time.  It’s like trying to talk with a jacked-up heroin addict about the perils of doing heroin.]

June 26, 2012 – 12:00 am – by Michael Walsh

With less than six months before the critical 2012 election, it’s vital that those on the right not fall into the trap of accepting the premises of leftist argumentation. To do that — to cede even a single inch of turf, or to acknowledge that they are arguing or advocating in good faith — is already to have lost. Therefore, repeat after me:

Principles, not programs. Principles, not programs. Principles, not programs.

We often hear it said that the coming election is as raw a clash of political philosophies as can be imagined — the most important election since 1860. And in a sense, that’s true. The national divide over the issue of slavery and its expansion into the rapidly settling territories was a constitutional crisis of the first order. It took the Civil War to sort out an issue that the Framers had partially punted, at a dreadful cost of lives and treasure. To say that the postwar Union was nothing like antebellum America is an understatement…….(Con’t)

 

CONTINUE READING: http://pjmedia.com/michaelwalsh/2012/06/26/first-principles/?singlepage=true

 

Guide To The MASSIVE George Soros Network (DiscoverTheNetworks.org)

May 22, 2012 2 comments

GUIDE TO THE GEORGE SOROS NETWORK

Source: Discover The Networks

 
George Soros is one of the most powerful men on earth. A New York hedge fund manager, he has amassed a personal fortune estimated at about $13 billion (as of 2009). His company, Soros Fund Management, controls at least another $25 billion in investor assets. Since 1979, Soros’s foundation network — whose flagship is the Open Society Institute (OSI) — has dispensed more than $5 billion to a multitude of organizations whose objectives are consistent with those of Soros. With assets of $1.93 billion as of 2008, OSI alone donates scores of millions of dollars annually to these various groups. Following is a sampling of the major agendas advanced by groups that Soros and OSI support financially. Listed under each category heading are a few OSI donees fitting that description.
Organizations that accuse America of violating the civil rights and liberties of many of its residents: 

  • The Arab American Institute impugnsmany of the “sweeping” and “unreasonable” post-9/11 counterterrorism measures that have unfairly “targeted Arab Americans.”
  • The Bill of Rights Defense Committee has persuaded the political leadership in more than 400 American cities and counties to pledge noncompliance with the anti-terrorism measure known as the Patriot Act, on grounds that the legislation tramples on people’s civil liberties.

Organizations that depict America as a nation whose enduring racism must be counterbalanced by racial and ethnic preferences in favor of nonwhites:

Organizations that specifically portray the American criminal-justice system as racist and inequitable:

  • The Sentencing Project asserts that prison-sentencing patterns discriminate against nonwhites, and seeks“to reduce the reliance on incarceration.”
  • Critical Resistance contendsthat crime stems from “inequality and powerlessness,” which can be rectified through wholesale redistribution of wealth.
  • The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights charges that criminal laws “are enforced in a manner that is massively and pervasively biased.”

Organizations that call for massive social change, and for the recruitment and training of activist leaders to help foment that change:

  • The Center for Community Change is “dedicatedto finding the [progressive] stars of tomorrow and preparing them to lead.”
  • The Gamaliel Foundation teachessocial-change “techniques and methodologies.”
  • The Ruckus Society promotes“nonviolent direct action against unjust institutions and policies.”
  • The American Institute for Social Justiceaims to “transform poor communities” by agitating for increased government spending on social-welfare programs.
  • The Institute for America’s Futureregularly convenes and educatesprogressive leaders, organizations, candidates, opinion makers, and activists.”
  • People for the American Way, founded by television producer Norman Lear to oppose the allegedly growing influence of the “religious right,” seeks“to cultivate new generations of leaders and activists” who will promote “progressive values.”
  • Democracy For America operates an academythat has taught more than 10,000 recruits nationwide how to “focus, network, and train grassroots activists in the skills and strategies to take back our country.”
  • The Midwest Academy trains radical activists in the tactics of direct action, confrontation, and intimidation. Author Stanley Kurtz has described this academy as a “crypto-socialist organization” that was “arguably the most influential force in community organizing from the seventies through the nineties.”

Organizations that disparage capitalism while promoting a dramatic expansion of social-welfare programs funded by ever-escalating taxes:

  • The Center for Economic and Policy Research assertsthat “the welfare state has softened the impact” of “the worst excesses and irrationalities of a market system” and its “injustices.”
  • The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities advocates greater tax expenditures on such assistance programsas Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, food stamps, and low-income housing initiatives.
  • The Economic Policy Institutebelieves that “government must play an active role in protecting the economically vulnerable, ensuring equal opportunity, and improving the well-being of all Americans.”
  • The Ella Baker Center for Human Rights was founded by the revolutionary communist Van Jones. This anti-poverty organization claims that “decades of disinvestment in our cities,” coupled with America’s allegedly imperishable racism, have “led to despair and homelessness.”
  • The Emma Lazarus Fund: In 1996 George Soros said he was “appalled” by the recently signed welfare-reform law that empowered states to limit legal immigrants’ access to public assistance. In response to this “mean-spirited attack on immigrants,” he launched an Open Society Institute project known as the Emma Lazarus Fund and endowed it with $50 million.

Organizations that support socialized medicine in the United States:

  • Health Care for America Now (HCAN) is a vast network of organizations supporting, ideally, a “single-payer” model where the federal government would be in charge of financing and administering the entire U.S. healthcare system. During the political debate over “Obamacare” in 2009 and 2010, HCAN’s strategy was to try to achieve such a system incrementally, first by implementing a “public option”—i.e., a government insurance agency to “compete” with private insurers, so that Americans would be “no longer at the mercy of the private insurance industry.” Because such an agency would not need to show a profit in order to remain in business, and because it could tax and regulate its private competitors in whatever fashion it pleased, this “public option” would inevitably force private insurers out of the industry. In August 2009, Soros pledged to give HCAN $5 million to promote its campaign for reform.

Organizations that strive to move American politics to the left by promoting the election of progressive political candidates:

  • Project Vote is the voter-mobilization arm of the notoriously corrupt ACORN, whose voter-registration drives and get-out-the-vote initiatives have been marred by massive levels of fraud and corruption.
  • Catalist seeks“to help progressive organizations realize … electoral success by building and operating a robust national voter database.”
  • The Brennan Center for Justice aims to “fully restore voting rights following criminal conviction”―significant because research shows that ex-felons are far likelier to vote for Democraticpolitical candidates than for Republicans.
  • The Progressive States Network seeksto “pass progressive legislation in all fifty states by providing coordinated research and strategic advocacy tools to forward-thinking state legislators.”
  • The Progressive Change Campaign Committee, to which George Soros personally donated $8,000 in 2010, works “to elect bold progressive candidates to federal office … more often.”

Organizations that promote leftist ideals and worldviews in the media and the arts:

  • The American Prospect, Inc. is the owner and publisher of The American Prospect magazine, which triesto “counteract the growing influence of conservative media.”
  • Free Press is a “media reform” organization co-founded by Robert McChesney, who callsfor “a revolutionary program to overthrow the capitalist system” and to “rebuil[d] the entire society on socialist principles.”
  • The Independent Media Institute aims to “change the world” via projects like AlterNet, an online news magazine calling itself “a key playerin the echo chamber of progressive ideas and vision.”
  • The Nation Institute operates synergistically with the far-left Nation magazine, which works“to extend the reach of progressive ideas” into the American mainstream.
  • The Pacifica Foundation owns and operates Pacifica Radio, awash from its birth with the socialist-Marxist rhetoric of class warfare and anti-capitalism.
  • Media Matters For America: For a number of years, the Open Society Institute gave indirect funding―filtering its grants first through other Soros-backed operations―to this “progressive research and information center” which “monitor[s]” and “correct[s] conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.” In October 2010, Soros announcedthat he would soon donate $1 million directly to Media Matters.
  • Sundance Institute: In 1996, Soros launched his Soros Documentary Fund to produce “social justice” films that would “spur awareness, action and social change.” In 2001, this Fund became part of actor-director Robert Redford’s Sundance Institute. Between 1996 and 2008, OSI earmarked at least $5.2 million for the production of several hundred documentaries, many of which were highly critical of capitalism, American society, or Western culture generally. In 2009, Soros pledged another $5 million to the Sundance Institute.

Organizations that seek to inject the American judicial system with leftist values:

  • The Alliance for Justice consistently depicts Republican judicial nominees as “radical right-wing[ers]” and “extremists” whose views range far outside the boundaries of mainstream public opinion.
  • The American Constitution Society for Law and Policy seeks to indoctrinate young law students to view the Constitution as an evolving or “living” document, and to reject “conservative buzzwords such as ‘originalism‘ and ‘strict construction.’”
  • Justice at Stake promotes legislation that would replace judicial elections with a “merit-selection” system where a small committee of legal elites, unaccountable to the public, would pick those most “qualified” to serve as judges. OSI has spent at least $45.4 million on efforts to change the way judges are chosen in many American states.

Organizations that advance leftist agendas by infiltrating churches and religious congregations:

  • Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good advocatesa brand of “social justice” that would counteract the “greed, materialism, and excessive individualism” that are allegedly inherent in capitalism.
  •  Sojourners characterizes wealth redistribution as the fulfillment of a biblical mandate. Jim Wallis, the founder of this evangelical Christian ministry, has expressed his hope that “more Christians will come to view the world through Marxist eyes.”
  • People Improving Communities through Organizing uses “people of faith” as foot soldiers in its crusade for the “transformation” of “people, institutions, and … our larger culture.”
  • Catholics for Choice―formerly known as Catholics for a Free Choice―is a nominally Catholic organization that “believes in a world where everyone has equal access to … safe and legal abortion services.”

Think tanks that promote leftist policies:

  • The Institute for Policy Studieshas long supported Communist and anti-American causes around the world. It seeks to provide a corrective to the “unrestrained greed” of “markets and individualism.”
  • The New America Foundationtries to influence public opinion on such topics as healthcare, environmentalism, energy policy, and global governance.
  • The Urban Institute favors socialized medicine, expansion of the federal welfare bureaucracy, and tax hikes for higher income-earners.

Organizations that promote open borders, mass immigration, a watering down of current immigration laws, increased rights and benefits for illegal aliens, and ultimately amnesty:

  • The American Immigration Council―formerly known as the the American Immigration Law Foundation―supports “birthright citizenship” for children born to illegal immigrants in the U.S.
  • Casa de Maryland periodically sponsors “know your rights” training sessions to teach illegals how to evade punishment in the event that they are apprehended in an immigration raid.
  • The Immigrant Legal Resource Center belongsto the sanctuary movement that tries to shield illegal aliens from the law.
  • The Migration Policy Instituteadvocates a more permissive U.S. refugee admissions and resettlement policy, as well as more social-welfare benefits for illegals residing in the U.S.
  • LatinoJustice PRLDF is a legal advocacy group that “protectsopportunities for all Latinos … especially the most vulnerable―new immigrants and the poor.”
  • The Immigration Policy Centerstates that “[r]equiring the 10-11 million unauthorized immigrants residing in the U.S. to register with the government and meet eligibility criteria in order to gain legal status is a key element of comprehensive immigration reform.”
  • The National Immigration Forumopposes the enhancement of the U.S. Border Patrol and the construction of a border fence to prevent illegal immigration.
  • The National Immigration Law Center works to help low-income immigrants gain access to government-funded welfare programs on the same basis as legal American citizens.

Organizations that oppose virtually all post-9/11 national-security measures enacted by the U.S. government:

  • The Center for Constitutional Rights, founded by four longtime supporters of communist causes, has condemnedthe “immigration sweeps, ghost detentions, extraordinary rendition, and every other illegal program the government has devised” in response to “the so-called War on Terror.”
  • The National Security Archive Fundcollects and publishes declassified documents (obtained through the Freedom of Information Act) to a degree that compromises American national security and the safety of intelligence agents.
  • The American Civil Liberties Union has depicted the U.S. government’s post-9/11 national-security measures as excessively harsh and invasivegenerally, and also as discriminatory against Muslims in particular. Moreover, the organization has filed numerous lawsuits seeking to limit the government’s ability to locate, monitor, and apprehend terrorist operatives.
  • Human Rights Watch has derided the U.S. war on terror as a foolhardy endeavor rooted in blindness to the realization that terrorism stems, in large measure, from America’s failure “to promote fundamental rights around the world.”

Organizations that defend suspected anti-American terrorists and their abetters:

  • The Constitution Project has supported such notorious figures as Salim Ahmed Hamdan (Osama bin Laden‘s bodyguard and chauffeur) and Jose Padilla (an American Islamic convert and terrorist plotter). Moreover, the Project contends that it is illegal for the U.S. government to detain terror suspects if the evidence against them was obtained through “torture.”
  • The Lynne Stewart Defense Committee was established to support Lynne Stewart, who is a criminal-defense attorney and an America-hating Maoist. Stewart was convicted of illegally helping her incarcerated client, the “blind sheik” Omar Abdel Rahman, pass messages to an Egypt-based Islamic terrorist organization. In September 2002, the Open Society Institute gave $20,000 to this committee; OSI vice president Gara LaMarche characterized Ms. Stewart as a “human rights defender.”

Organizations that depict virtually all American military actions as unwarranted and immoral:

  • Amnesty International: In 2005, this group’s then-executive director William Schulz alleged that the United States had become “a leading purveyor and practitioner” of torture. Irene Khan, who chargedthat the Guantanamo Bay detention center, where the U.S. was housing several hundred captured terror suspects, “has become the gulag of our time.” Schulz’s remarks were echoed by Amnesty’s then-secretary general
  • Global Exchange was founded by Medea Benjamin, a pro-Castro radical who helped establish a project known as Iraq Occupation Watch for the purpose of encouraging widespread desertion by “conscientious objectors” in the U.S. military. In December 2004, Benjamin announced that Global Exchange would be sending aid to the families of terrorist insurgents who were fighting American troops in Iraq.

Organizations that advocate America’s unilateral disarmament and/or a steep reduction in its military spending:

  • The American Friends Service Committee, which views America as the world’s chief source of international strife, has long had a friendly relationship with the Communist Party USA. Lamenting that “the United States spends 59% of the discretionary federal budget on military-related expenses,” the Committee seeks to “realig[n] national spending priorities and to increase the portion of the budget that is spent on housing, quality education for all, medical care, and fair wages.” In 2000, George Soros himself was a signatory to a letter titled “Appeal for Responsible Security” that appeared in The New York Times. The letter called upon the U.S. government “to commit itself unequivocally to negotiate the worldwide reduction and elimination of nuclear weapons,” and to participate in “the global de-alerting of nuclear weapons and deep reduction of nuclear stockpiles.”

Organizations that promote radical environmentalism:

Groups in this category typically oppose mining and logging initiatives, commercial fishing enterprises, development and construction in wilderness areas, the use of coal, the use of pesticides, and oil and gas exploration in “environmentally sensitive” locations. Moreover, they claim that human industrial activity leads to excessive carbon-dioxide emissions which, in turn, cause a potentially cataclysmic phenomenon called “global warming.” Examples of such Soros donees include Earthjustice, Green For All, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Alliance for Climate Protection, Friends of the Earth, and the Earth Island Institute.

Another major recipient of Soros money is the Tides Foundation, which receives cash from all manner of donors―individuals, groups, and other foundations―and then funnels it to designated left-wing recipients. Having given more than $400 million to “progressive nonprofit organizations” since 2000, Tides is a heavy backer of environmental organizations, though its philanthropy extends also into many other areas.

Organizations that oppose the death penalty in all circumstances:

In 2000, George Soros co-signed a letter to President Bill Clinton asking for a moratorium on the death penalty, on grounds that it tended to be implemented disproportionately against black and Hispanic offenders.

Consistent with the billionaire’s opposition to capital punishment, his Open Society Institute has given millions of dollars to anti-death penalty organizations such as New Yorkers Against the Death Penalty, Witness to Innocence, Equal Justice USA, the Death Penalty Information Center, People of Faith against the Death Penalty, and the Fair Trial Initiative.

Organizations that promote modern-day feminism’s core tenetthat America is fundamentally a sexist society where discrimination and violence against women have reached epidemic proportions:

  • The Feminist Majority Foundation“focus[es] on advancing the legal, social and political equality of women with men, countering the backlash to women’s advancement, and recruiting and training young feminists…”
  • The Ms. Foundation for Women lamentsthat although “women are more than half the [U.S.] population … they don’t have equal opportunity, voice or power.”
  • The National Partnership for Women and Families asserts that “women today are still paid only $0.77 to a man’s dollar”an assertion that is grossly misleading and substantively untrue.

Organizations that promote not only women’s right to taxpayer-funded abortion on demand, but also political candidates who take that same position:


Organizations that favor global government which would bring American foreign policy under the control of the United Nations or other international bodies:

According to George Soros, “[W]e need some global system of political decision-making. In short, we need a global society to support our global economy.” Consistent with this perspective, the Open Society Institute in 2008 gave $150,000 to the United Nations Foundation, which “works to broaden support for the UN through advocacy and public outreach.” Moreover, OSI is considered a “major” funder of the Coalition for an International Criminal Court, which aims to subordinate American criminal-justice procedures in certain cases to an international prosecutor who could initiate capricious or politically motivated prosecutions of U.S. officials and military officers.

Organizations that support drug legalization:

Dismissing the notion of “a drug-free America” as nothing more than “a utopian dream,” George Soros says that “the war on drugs” is “insane” and, “like the Vietnam War,” simply “cannot be won.” “I’ll tell you what I would do if it were up to me,” says Soros. “I would establish a strictly controlled distribution network through which I would make most drugs, excluding the most dangerous ones like crack, legally available.” In 1998 Soros was a signatory to a public letter addressed to United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan, declaring that “the global war on drugs is now causing more harm than drug abuse itself.” The letter blamed the war on drugs for impeding such public-health efforts as stemming the spread of HIV, hepatitis, and other infectious diseases, as well as human-rights violations and the perpetration of environmental assaults. Other notable signers included Peter Lewis, Tammy Baldwin, Rev. William Sloan Coffin, Jr., Walter Cronkite, Morton H. Halperin, Kweisi Mfume, and Cornel West.

Soros and his Open Society Institute have given many millions of dollars to groups supporting drug-legalization and needle-exchange programs. In 1996, former Carter administration official Joseph Califano called Soros “the Daddy Warbucks of drug legalization.” According to a Capital Research Center publication, “It’s no exaggeration to say that without Soros there would be no serious lobby against the drug war.” 

A leading recipient of Soros funding is the Drug Policy Alliance (DPA), which seeks to loosen narcotics laws, promotes “treatment-not-incarceration” policies for non-violent drug offenders, and advocates syringe-access programs “to help prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS.” Soros himself formerly sat on the DPA board of directors. As recently as 2010, Soros contributed $1 million to support a California ballot measure known as Proposition 19, which would have legalized personal marijuana use in the state; the measure, however, was rejected by voters on election day.

Peter Schweizer, author of Do As I Say (Not As I Do), speculates on the possible reasons underlying Soros’s support for drug legalization:

“One very possible answer is that he hopes to profit from them [drugs] once they become legal. He has been particularly active in South America, buying up large tracts of land and forging alliances with those in a position to mass-produce narcotics should they become legalized in the United States. He has also helped fund the Andean Council of Coca Leaf producers. Needless to say, this organization would stand to benefit enormously from the legalization of cocaine. He has also taken a 9 percent stake in Banco de Colombia, located in the Colombian drug capital of Cali. The Drug Enforcement Administration has speculated that the bank is being used to launder money and that Soros’s fellow shareholders may be members of a major drug cartel.”

Organizations that support euthanasia for the terminally ill:

Soros has long promoted the cause of physician-assisted suicide in an effort to change public attitudes about death. Toward that end, in 1994 he began giving money to the (now defunct) Project on Death in America (PDA), whose purpose was to provide “end-of-life” assistance for ailing people and to enact public policy that will “transform the culture and experience of dying and bereavement.” In 2000, the Open Society Institute pledged $15 million to PDA over a three-year period.

Notably, PDA’s mission was congruent with the goals of those who support government-run health care, which invariably features bureaucracies tasked with allocating scarce resources and thus determining who will, and who will not, be eligible for particular medications and treatments. Such bureaucracies generally make their calculations based upon cost-benefit analyses of a variety of possible treatments. Ultimately these decisions tend to disfavor the very old and the very sick, because whatever benefits they might gain from expensive interventions are likely to be of short duration, and thus are not judged to be worth the costs. Soros himself has suggested that “[a]ggressive, life-prolonging interventions, which may at times go against the patient’s wishes, are much more expensive than proper care for the dying.” Additional pro-euthanasia groups funded by Soros and OSI are the following:

  • The Death with Dignity National Center seeks to allow “terminally ill individuals meeting stringent safeguards to hasten their own deaths” by way of lethal drug prescriptions.
  • The Compassion in Dying Federation of America advocates “aid-in-dying for terminally ill, mentally competent adults.”

Organizations that have pressured mortgage lenders to make loans to undercapitalized borrowers, a practice that helped spark the subprime mortgage crisis and housing-market collapse of 2008:

  • The Greenlining Institute―by threatening to publicly accuse banks of racially discriminatory lending practices―has successfully negotiated loan commitments of more than $2.4 trillion from America’s financial institutions.
  • The Center for Responsible Lending, according to Americans for Prosperity vice president Phil Kerpen, has “shak[en] down and harass[ed] banks into making bad loans to unqualified borrowers.”

The Open Society Institute is not the only vehicle by which George Soros works to reshape America’s political landscape. Indeed, Soros was the prime mover in the creation of the so-called “Shadow Democratic Party,” or “Shadow Party,” in 2003. This term refers to a nationwide network of labor unions, non-profit activist groups, and think tanks whose agendas are ideologically to the left, and which are engaged in campaigning for the Democrats. This network’s activities include fundraising, get-out-the-vote drives, political advertising, opposition research, and media manipulation.

The Shadow Party was conceived and organized principally by George Soros, Hillary Clinton and Harold McEwan Ickes — all identified with the Democratic Party left. Other key players included:

To develop the Shadow Party as a cohesive entity, Harold Ickes undertook the task of building a 21st-century version of the Left’s traditional alliance of the “oppressed” and “disenfranchised.” By the time Ickes was done, he had created or helped to create six new groups, and had co-opted a seventh called MoveOn.org. Together, these seven groups constituted the administrative core of the newly formed Shadow Party:

These organizations, along with the many leftist groups with which they collaborate, have played a major role in helping Soros advance his political and social agendas.

According to Richard Poe, co-author (with David Horowitz) of the 2006 book The Shadow Party:

“The Shadow Party is the real power driving the Democrat machine. It is a network of radicals dedicated to transforming our constitutional republic into a socialist hive. The leader of these radicals is … George Soros. He has essentially privatized the Democratic Party, bringing it under his personal control. The Shadow Party is the instrument through which he exerts that control…. It works by siphoning off hundreds of millions of dollars in campaign contributions that would have gone to the Democratic Party in normal times, and putting those contributions at the personal disposal of Mr. Soros. He then uses that money to buy influence and loyalty where he sees fit. In 2003, Soros set up a network of privately-owned groups which acts as a shadow or mirror image of the Party. It performs all the functions we would normally expect the real Democratic Party to perform, such as shaping the Party platform, fielding candidates, running campaigns, and so forth.  However, it performs these functions under the private supervision of Mr. Soros and his associates. The Shadow Party derives its power from its ability to raise huge sums of money.  By controlling the Democrat purse strings, the Shadow Party can make or break any Democrat candidate by deciding whether or not to fund him. During the 2004 election cycle, the Shadow Party raised more than $300 million for Democrat candidates, prompting one of its operatives, MoveOn PAC director Eli Pariser, to declare, ‘Now it’s our party.  We bought it, we own it…'”

What Marx Gave The Nazis… And What Our Schools Are Churning Out


[TWG Note: This article explains what’s happened to the brains of the glassy eyed idiots who support and enable their own demise, along with the demise of their own country and fellow citizens.  This is what they’re learning in universities all across this once great Nation, and it’s why America will, very soon, be gone forever.  Those who support the current regime have ensured their own future looks quite bleak.  Serfdom… slavery, misery and death.  I’m beginning to not care anymore.  They’re the ones who will have to live in the world they’re creating. Not me.  Be sure to thank a “teacher” and a “professor” today.]

 

“Polylogism is not a philosophy or an epistemological theory. It is an attitude of narrow-minded fanatics, who cannot imagine that anybody could be more reasonable or more clever than they themselves. Nor is polylogism scientific. It is rather the replacement of reasoning and science by superstitions. It is the characteristic mentality of an age of chaos.”

 

What the Nazis Borrowed from Marx

Mises Daily: Monday, May 21, 2012 by

 
The Nazis did not invent polylogism. They only developed their own brand.

Until the middle of the 19th century no one ventured to dispute the fact that the logical structure of mind is unchangeable and common to all human beings. All human interrelations are based on this assumption of a uniform logical structure. We can speak to each other only because we can appeal to something common to all of us, namely, the logical structure of reason. Some men can think deeper and more refined thoughts than others. There are men who unfortunately cannot grasp a process of inference in long chains of deductive reasoning. But as far as a man is able to think and to follow a process of discursive thought, he always clings to the same ultimate principles of reasoning that are applied by all other men. There are people who cannot count further than three; but their counting, as far as it goes, does not differ from that of Gauss or Laplace. No historian or traveler has ever brought us any knowledge of people for whom a and non-a were identical, or who could not grasp the difference between affirmation and negation. Daily, it is true, people violate logical principles in reasoning. But whoever examines their inferences competently can uncover their errors.

Because everyone takes these facts to be unquestionable, men enter into discussions; they speak to each other; they write letters and books; they try to prove or to disprove. Social and intellectual cooperation between men would be impossible if this were not so. Our minds cannot even consistently imagine a world peopled by men of different logical structures or a logical structure different from our own.

Yet, in the course of the 19th century this undeniable fact has been contested. Marx and the Marxians, foremost among them the “proletarian philosopher” Dietzgen, taught that thought is determined by the thinker’s class position. What thinking produces is not truth but “ideologies.” This word means, in the context of Marxian philosophy, a disguise of the selfish interest of the social class to which the thinking individual is attached. It is therefore useless to discuss anything with people of another social class. Ideologies do not need to be refuted by discursive reasoning; they must be unmasked by denouncing the class position, the social background, of their authors. Thus Marxians do not discuss the merits of physical theories; they merely uncover the “bourgeois” origin of the physicists.

The Marxians have resorted to polylogism because they could not refute by logical methods the theories developed by “bourgeois” economics, or the inferences drawn from these theories demonstrating the impracticability of socialism. As they could not rationally demonstrate the soundness of their own ideas or the unsoundness of their adversaries’ ideas, they have denounced the accepted logical methods. The success of this Marxian stratagem was unprecedented. It has rendered proof against any reasonable criticism all the absurdities of Marxian would-be economics and would-be sociology. Only by the logical tricks of polylogism could etatism gain a hold on the modern mind.

 
Polylogism is so inherently nonsensical that it cannot be carried consistently to its ultimate logical consequences. No Marxian was bold enough to draw all the conclusions that his own epistemological viewpoint would require. The principle of polylogism would lead to the inference that Marxian teachings also are not objectively true but are only “ideological” statements. But the Marxians deny it. They claim for their own doctrines the character of absolute truth. Thus Dietzgen teaches that “the ideas of proletarian logic are not party ideas but the outcome of logic pure and simple.” The proletarian logic is not “ideology” but absolute logic. Present-day Marxians, who label their teachings the sociology of knowledge, give proof of the same inconsistency. One of their champions, Professor Mannheim, tries to demonstrate that there exists a group of men, the “unattached intellectuals,” who are equipped with the gift of grasping truth without falling prey to ideological errors. Of course, Professor Mannheim is convinced that he is the foremost of these “unattached intellectuals.” You simply cannot refute him. If you disagree with him, you only prove thereby that you yourself are not one of this elite of “unattached intellectuals” and that your utterances are ideological nonsense.

The German nationalists had to face precisely the same problem as the Marxians. They also could neither demonstrate the correctness of their own statements nor disprove the theories of economics and praxeology. Thus they took shelter under the roof of polylogism, prepared for them by the Marxians. Of course, they concocted their own brand of polylogism. The logical structure of mind, they say, is different with different nations and races. Every race or nation has its own logic and therefore its own economics, mathematics, physics, and so on. But, no less inconsistently than Professor Mannheim, Professor Tirala, his counterpart as champion of Aryan epistemology, declares that the only true, correct, and perennial logic and science are those of the Aryans. In the eyes of the Marxians Ricardo, Freud, Bergson, and Einstein are wrong because they are bourgeois; in the eyes of the Nazis they are wrong because they are Jews. One of the foremost goals of the Nazis is to free the Aryan soul from the pollution of the Western philosophies of Descartes, Hume, and John Stuart Mill. They are in search of arteigen German science, that is, of a science adequate to the racial character of the Germans.

We may reasonably assume as hypothesis that man’s mental abilities are the outcome of his bodily features. Of course, we cannot demonstrate the correctness of this hypothesis, but neither is it possible to demonstrate the correctness of the opposite view as expressed in the theological hypothesis. We are forced to recognize that we do not know how out of physiological processes thoughts result. We have some vague notions of the detrimental effects produced by traumatic or other damage inflicted on certain bodily organs; we know that such damage may restrict or completely destroy the mental abilities and functions of men. But that is all. It would be no less than insolent humbug to assert that the natural sciences provide us with any information concerning the alleged diversity of the logical structure of mind. Polylogism cannot be derived from physiology or anatomy or any other of the natural sciences.

Neither Marxian nor Nazi polylogism ever went further than to declare that the logical structure of mind is different with various classes or races. They never ventured to demonstrate precisely in what the logic of the proletarians differs from the logic of the bourgeois, or in what the logic of the Aryans differs from the logic of the Jews or the British. It is not enough to reject wholesale the Ricardian theory of comparative cost or the Einstein theory of relativity by unmasking the alleged racial background of their authors. What is wanted is first to develop a system of Aryan logic different from non-Aryan logic. Then it would be necessary to examine point by point these two contested theories and to show where in their reasoning inferences are made which — although correct from the viewpoint of non-Aryan logic — are invalid from the viewpoint of Aryan logic. And, finally, it should be explained what kind of conclusions the replacement of the non-Aryan inferences by the correct Aryan inferences must lead to. But all this never has been and never can be ventured by anybody. The garrulous champion of racism and Aryan polylogism, Professor Tirala, does not say a word about the difference between Aryan and non-Aryan logic. Polylogism, whether Marxian or Aryan, or whatever, has never entered into details.

Polylogism has a peculiar method of dealing with dissenting views. If its supporters fail to unmask the background of an opponent, they simply brand him a traitor. Both Marxians and Nazis know only two categories of adversaries. The aliens — whether members of a nonproletarian class or of a non-Aryan race — are wrong because they are aliens; the opponents of proletarian or Aryan origin are wrong because they are traitors. Thus they lightly dispose of the unpleasant fact that there is dissension among the members of what they call their own class or race.

The Nazis contrast German economics with Jewish and Anglo-Saxon economics. But what they call German economics differs not at all from some trends in foreign economics. It developed out of the teachings of the Genevese Sismondi and of the French and British socialists. Some of the older representatives of this alleged German economics merely imported foreign thought into Germany. Frederick List brought the ideas of Alexander Hamilton to Germany, Hildebrand and Brentano brought the ideas of early British socialism. Arteigen German economics is almost identical with contemporary trends in other countries, e.g., with American Institutionalism.

 
On the other hand, what the Nazis call Western economics and therefore artfremd is to a great extent an achievement of men to whom even the Nazis cannot deny the term German. Nazi economists wasted much time in searching the genealogical tree of Carl Menger for Jewish ancestors; they did not succeed. It is nonsensical to explain the conflict between economic theory, on the one hand, and Institutionalism and historical empiricism, on the other hand, as a racial or national conflict.

Polylogism is not a philosophy or an epistemological theory. It is an attitude of narrow-minded fanatics, who cannot imagine that anybody could be more reasonable or more clever than they themselves. Nor is polylogism scientific. It is rather the replacement of reasoning and science by superstitions. It is the characteristic mentality of an age of chaos.

 

Ludwig von Mises was the acknowledged leader of the Austrian School of economic thought, a prodigious originator in economic theory, and a prolific author. Mises’s writings and lectures encompassed economic theory, history, epistemology, government, and political philosophy. His contributions to economic theory include important clarifications on the quantity theory of money, the theory of the trade cycle, the integration of monetary theory with economic theory in general, and a demonstration that socialism must fail because it cannot solve the problem of economic calculation. Mises was the first scholar to recognize that economics is part of a larger science in human action, a science that Mises called “praxeology.” See Ludwig von Mises’s article archives.

Copyright © 2012 by the Ludwig von Mises Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is hereby granted, provided full credit is given.


Source: http://mises.org/daily/1457/What-the-Nazis-Borrowed-from-Marx

 

%d bloggers like this: