I was bitten on the ass by a German Sheppard once.
He didn't like the taste of my show leather either.
Forscher
Forscher
JoinedPosts by Forscher
-
-
-
-
30
Frank Zappa on the coming 'Fascist Theocracy'. (1986)
by hillary_step inapart from the comic value of this interview in which frank zappa presents his views on censorship, i found it interesting that he was mocked for suggesting that the us was set on a course that was leading to a 'fascist theocracy'.
this was recorded in 1986 so the quality is a little ragged, but the spirit shows through!.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hljzexjvj8.
-
-
Forscher
First off 5go,
Lets note that the definition of fascism you quote is lifted right out of wikipedia, hardly a scholarly source. Whereas I went to scholars to make my point that Fascism has no accepted definition and is nothing more than a pejorative used to paint conservatives with an intolerant brush.
If fascism is left of capitaism and do they get along with each other so well. Also why does the USA (an alledged capitalist country) always support fascist authoritarian regimes over democratic ones.
Aside from your blanket stereotyping of any authoritarian regime which is not communist as "facist," that is a fair question with an obvious answer. The USA made the mistake of supporting authoritarian regimes, including Sadaam Hussein's at one time, out of a misguided belief that they stood the best chance of containing communist dictatorships. As for Capitalism and Fascism getting along together, well that was mainly due to the capitalists choosing what they considered the lesser of two evils from their own self-interests. I won't say its right, they should have had more faith in democracy. As it was, their choice turned out to be a Faustian Bargain which did them more harm in the end than good.
Forscher
-
30
Frank Zappa on the coming 'Fascist Theocracy'. (1986)
by hillary_step inapart from the comic value of this interview in which frank zappa presents his views on censorship, i found it interesting that he was mocked for suggesting that the us was set on a course that was leading to a 'fascist theocracy'.
this was recorded in 1986 so the quality is a little ragged, but the spirit shows through!.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hljzexjvj8.
-
-
Forscher
Where to start?
The tenets of Fascism lurched to the right very early on in its history in Italy. I should know, my father was a Communist Politician in Italy during the later years of Fascism and onward into the 1960's.
Some authority Hill. Your father, a communist as you here admit, would've considered anything which didn't fit the tenets of Marx and Lenin to the political right. He was hardly in the position to make a judgment on the matter.
Dr. Robert Pearce, at the University College of St Martin, Lancaster, makes the following observation regards the problem of defining Fascism:
There is no generally accepted definition of fascism, partly because the term has been employed more often by its enemies than supporters. It became a term of abuse used to lump together groups of right-wingers who often felt that they had little in common.
Note, he doesn't make the claim that Fascism is right-wing, on the contrary he points out that Fascism can't be adequately defined because it has been used as a pejorative blanketly applied to right-wingers without regard to reality. He also makes the following observation regarding Mussolini's Fascism:
Some believe that the word fascism derives from the Italian Fasces, which were bundles of rods, often attached to an axe, carried in front of the magistrates in Ancient Rome as a symbol of authority. Others insist that it comes from Fascio, a group or club. Fasci of workers in the Sicilian sulphur mines had organised strikes in the 1890s; in 1915 Fasci were formed to campaign for Italy's entry into the war; and after the war Fasci, including Mussolini's Fasci di Combattimento or Combat Group, were set up to oppose the communists. But whatever the derivation of the term, Mussolini's Fascism had no clear-cut meaning. It was not an ideology, he said, but an anti-ideology, a (Zen-like) synthesis of every idea and its opposite: it was aristocratic and democratic, conservative and progressive, reactionary and revolutionary. 'Our doctrine is action,' said Mussolini. On another occasion, he insisted that the essence of Fascism was a 'trenchocracy' - rule not by discredited democrats but by those, like himself, who in the trenches had shed blood for their homeland.
Did you notice that he pointed out that Mussolini himself made the distinction between Fascism and the right-wing Italian politicians of the day, the Democrats? I did notice that you did not make any effort to rebut the fact that the Italian Democrats were the right-wing party of Italy at the time. Instead you simply persist in that academic error of viewing what is right or left wing from the communist perspective, the same error Mussolini, himself raised to believe in the Anarchist version of communist thought, fell for.
Please look at Mussolini's own observations as to the founding principles of Fascism:
The foundation of Fascism is the conception of the State, its character, its duty, and its aim. Fascism conceives of the State as an absolute, in comparison with which all individuals or groups are relative, only to be conceived of in their relation to the State. The conception of the Liberal State is not that of a directing force, guiding the play and development, both material and spiritual, of a collective body, but merely a force limited to the function of recording results: on the other hand, the Fascist State is itself conscious and has itself a will and a personality -- thus it may be called the "ethic" State....
At the time, the right wing in Italy was made up of those who viewed the state in the same light as the American founding fathers, as the servant of the people, whose purpose was to guard individual freedoms. To the far right were the Monarchists those who looked to the rule of kings. Musselini, though, viewed the state as the supreme force and individual freedom, the supreme rights valued by the moderate right, as anachronistic. That is a distinctly extreme left-wing view. That Mussolini was once a communist is confirmed by no less a figure than Leon Trotsky. Please keep in mind as you read the following quote from a letter of his that communists at the time referred to themselves and their fellows as "socialists."
The fascist movement in Italy was a spontaneous movement of large masses, with new leaders from the rank and file. It is a plebian movement in origin, directed and financed by big capitalist powers. It issued forth from the petty bourgeoisie, the slum proletariat, and even to a certain extent from the proletarian masses; Mussolini, a former socialist, is a 'self-made: man arising from this movement.
Thus any analysis of what Musselini wrote on the matter has to keep in mind his own background and beliefs.
Sheldon Richman, of enconlib.org observes the following:
The best example of a fascist economy is the regime of Italian dictator Benito Mussolini. Holding that liberalism (by which he meant freedom and free markets) had "reached the end of its historical function," Mussolini wrote: "To Fascism the world is not this material world, as it appears on the surface, where Man is an individual separated from all others and left to himself.... Fascism affirms the State as the true reality of the individual." This collectivism is captured in the word fascism, which comes from the Latin fasces, meaning a bundle of rods with an axe in it. In economics, fascism was seen as a third way between laissez-faire capitalism and communism. Fascist thought acknowledged the roles of private property and the profit motive as legitimate incentives for productivity—provided that they did not conflict with the interests of the state.
Since Mussolini himself considered Fascism the third rail between communism and Capitalism (the real right-wing in his view), Fascism is clearly a left-wing movement any way you cut it, except from the perspective of the communist.
Well, if you note the ";)" you will see that it was a tongue in cheek remark, and actually it is not an ad hominem, it is a judgement that I make having read your many posts on this Board, and having spent a couple of days with Zappa at his home a few years ago. From what I can tell, he was brighter than you seem to be.
Your fallacies are showing Hill ;)
Forscher -
30
Frank Zappa on the coming 'Fascist Theocracy'. (1986)
by hillary_step inapart from the comic value of this interview in which frank zappa presents his views on censorship, i found it interesting that he was mocked for suggesting that the us was set on a course that was leading to a 'fascist theocracy'.
this was recorded in 1986 so the quality is a little ragged, but the spirit shows through!.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hljzexjvj8.
-
-
Forscher
Do you actually check the thoughts that drift from your mind against reality? One thing is for sure, Zappa was a lot brighter then you seem to be. ;)
Once again, you start off with ad homenism, how predictable of you Hill.
Not only is "facist theocracy" NOT an oxymoron, it has actually been an accepted political term since the 1930's. Just to remind you, it was Mussolini who embraced the term "facism" from the Roman "fasces" - yes you have it, in the 1930's! You may need to allude to Mussolini's "Doctrine of Facism" to explore what he meant by this term. What he viewed as a benefit to society, we might view as horrifying. Facism, is after all, on the right wing of the right wing - a dangerous state of affairs which has touched the US on more than one occasion the past 100 years or so.
Once again you demonstrate the sort of ignorance of politics and history you accuse me of. Fascism, even in Italy was a historically left-wing political movement, barely to the right of Communism, the political movement it arose in response to. The only reason Fascism became so powerful was that a desperate rich class faced with a popular communist uprising put all their powerful resources in the one left-wing group which promised not to take their property rights away from them. If you bother to check your history you'll find out that Mussolini was a long time Communist (he was raised as an Anarchist, the Communists of the day) who'd fallen out of favor with his fellow anarchists and started his own left-wing group, the Fascists. The only difference between his, and the Communist dictatorships of the day were that he did not impose state ownership of private corporations or farms (he opted for heavy government regulation instead) and he did not abolish religion (he liked them in their role as "the opiate of the people," they made powerful allies).
At the time Mussolini founded his Fascist Party, Italy was a Constitutional monarchy and the Democrats (Italian) were the political right-wing. Fascism, like Nazism, only gained the label of right-wing through the efforts of Communist scholars of the Frankfurt School who fled Germany after Hitler took control and settled in the United States just before WWII. They would successfully revise history and give Fascism the right-wing label people l;ike you still insist on using.
Some of us would point out sence the fairness doctrene was eliminated the liberal side has been censored through the conservative ownership of the media. Though recent liberal TV and Internet shows popularity are forcing the stations to change to an extent thankfully. I would bet if the trend continues we will see the the right side of the isle suddenly demand some air time for their very unpopular ideas.
5go, 5go. The liberal side is not "censored" at all. The folks who own the radio media, the only medium where liberals are under-represented, could care less which group is represented. all they care about is who brings in the money (in advertising dollars). In a market where they have to compete for an audience (unlike NPR, were Conservative opinion is censored), Liberals just can't draw an audience. As you are likely aware, several heavily backed attempts to set up liberal programing on radio have failed for the simple reason that, given a choice, people just don't want to listen to their drivel.
Forscher
-
19
Who Died Today?
by blondie inlast will and testament of charles taze russellhaving at various times during past years donated to the watch tower bible and tract society all of my personal possessions except a small personal bank account of approximately two hundred dollars, in the exchange national bank of pittsburgh, which will properly be paid over to my wife if she survives me, i have merely love and christian good wishes to leave to all of the dear members of the bible house family-and all other dear colaborers in the harvest work-yea, for all of the household of faith in every place who call upon the name of the lord jesus as their redeemer.. .
however, in view of the fact that in donating the journal zion's watch tower, the old theology quarterly and the copyrights of the millennial dawn scripture studies books and various other booklets, hymn-books, etc., to the watch tower bible and tract society, i did so with the explicit understanding that i should have full control of all the interests of these publications during my life time, and that after my decease they should be conducted according to my wishes.
an editorial committee of five.
-
-
Forscher
Did anyone notice that the second list of "five persons" in Russell's will included six, instead of five names? Some have postulated that to be evidence that Russell was going senile when he wrote the will. I personally think that Rutherford inserted his name before printing the list in order to bolster his credibility.
Forscher
-
30
Frank Zappa on the coming 'Fascist Theocracy'. (1986)
by hillary_step inapart from the comic value of this interview in which frank zappa presents his views on censorship, i found it interesting that he was mocked for suggesting that the us was set on a course that was leading to a 'fascist theocracy'.
this was recorded in 1986 so the quality is a little ragged, but the spirit shows through!.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hljzexjvj8.
-
-
Forscher
Simple enough Hill.
We are not even close to being in that "facist theocracy" (another oxymoronic label by the way) he predicted. ;-)
Forscher
-
48
Is the NWT really the most accurate translation of the Bible?
by godsgurl ini have heard jw claim that the nwt is the most accurate translation of the bible and the persons who translated the bible were inspired by the holy spirit.
but if this is so then why was the nwt revised so many times?
did the holy spirit get it wrong the first time?
-
-
Forscher
When it comes to evaluating a bible Translation i like to look at the stated purpose for making the translation in the first place.
In the case of the NWT it is not so easy to find that reason since it is not recorded in any copy of that work. to find it one has to go back and look in the watchtower, were the WTBTS traditionally speaks candidly to the rank-and-file. In the case of the NWT, one has to go way back, All the way back to the September the fifteen, 1950 edtion, page 315:
We acknowledge our debt to all the Bible versions which we have used in attaining to what truth of God’s Word we enjoy today. We do not discourage the use of any of these Bible versions, but shall ourselves go on making suitable use of them. However, during all our years of using these versions down to the latest of them, we have found them defective. In one or another vital respect they are inconsistent or unsatisfactory, infected with religious traditions or worldly philosophy and hence not in harmony with the sacred truths which Jehovah God has restored to his devoted people who call upon his name and seek to serve him with one accord. Especially has this been true in the case of the Christian Greek Scriptures, which throw light and place proper interpretation upon the ancient Hebrew Scriptures. More and more the need has been felt for a translation in modern speech,] in harmony with revealed truth, and yet furnishing us the basis for gaining further truth by faithfully presenting the sense of the original writings; a translation just as understandable to modern readers as the original writings of Christ’s disciples were understandable to the simple, plain, common, lowly readers of their day. Jesus reminded us that our heavenly Father knows the needs of his children before they ever ask him. How has he made provision for us in this need which we now keenly feel?
With an admission like that, can any translation considered superior much less trusted? I think not.
Forscher
-
30
Frank Zappa on the coming 'Fascist Theocracy'. (1986)
by hillary_step inapart from the comic value of this interview in which frank zappa presents his views on censorship, i found it interesting that he was mocked for suggesting that the us was set on a course that was leading to a 'fascist theocracy'.
this was recorded in 1986 so the quality is a little ragged, but the spirit shows through!.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hljzexjvj8.
-
-
Forscher
Frank Zappa obviously didn't have a clue.
Back in 1986 we had censorship in place under the medium of the fairness in broadcasting doctrine. But it was conservative opinion which was being suppressed instead of liberal. That ended a year later. The very Congress Zappa was worried about considering censorship was left-wing dominated, and had been for twenty years at the time. But he was out there spewing the same chicken-little fear-mongering which we hear out of the left-wing today. I am glad history has proved him wrong.
Forscher
-
26
College: Watchtower Counsel Is Poison And Wrong
by metatron ini'm not an inspired prophet - nevertheless, let me tell you what the future will be for ordinary, middle.
class people in the united states:.
inflation is going to accelerate and making a living for families is only going to get more difficult.. the real standard of living in the us may fall.
-
-
Forscher
my two-cents worth,
I happen to agree with the sentiments expressed here that the current ban on higher education for Witnesses on the part of the GB is just plain wrong. Sure, there can be said to be dangers for one who believes in a God going to college. I once met a biology professor in a conservative leaning southern college who considered it his job to convert any and all students who did not believe in atheistic thinking to that point of view. So some of the stated fears of the GB are not totally unfounded. That being noted, we all know that their main reason for the ban has nothing to do with that. They are afraid that JW's who go to college will learn how to evaluate argumentation properly and see through their sloppy reasoning and leave the fold, period. They don't really care about the quality of life of their flock, it is all about their own power and lifestyle, financed by the millions under their thumbs. To them, the old slogan from 1984 is a truth, "ignorance is strength."
The reality is different. It is getting harder to support one's family. More and more both mates must go to work to provide even a basic standard of living here in the good old U.S. of A.. Those jobs which have a hope for providing for a family are more and more requiring at least an associates degree from college. The Higher Education community has promoted that state of affairs to save their own ass. The reason being that all that expansion built to handle the baby boomers stood in danger of not having the clientele to fill the space once the baby boomers passed through the system. So, they decided to promote higher qualification requirements for those trades which previously did not require it in order to bring in as students those who'd not previously been clients among the baby boomers and serve ones from following generations who would not have gone to college otherwise.
Of course the ideal as far as the GB is concerned is for their flock to forgo marriage, live minimally, and devote themselves completely to keeping the guys at the top in style.
Forscher
-
109
Pro-life arguments
by Skimmer ina thoughtful series of twenty six pro-life arguments specifically against abortion can be found at: .
http://www.all.org/article.php?id=10229 .
through (following down the links the left side of each page) .
-
-
Forscher
I once got restricted on this site for pointing out the obvious about abortion. Well, here goes.
I've noticed that those who oppose abortion yet support capital punishment were accused of hypocrisy. But I can't help but wonder if the same charge can't be leveled at those who take the opposite stand. My question on the matter is motivated by the nature of certain abortion procedures.
Abortificants used in early term abortions were already mentioned, and I am not going to go down that road since it gets into the question of whether a zygote should be considered a unique human being or not. That is a question which can be argued over until the cows come home without getting anywhere. However, I do have issues with procedures often used to abort fetuses.
Until the Supreme Court upheld the federal partial birth abortion ban four procedures were commonly used to perform abortions from the second trimester to birth, induced labor, dilatation and evacuation (D&E), and dilatation and extraction (D&X, the partial birth abortion). Induced labor is self explanatory. Labor is induced and the fetus is delivered and allowed to die if it is non-viable, that is too early in the pregnancy to live. However, it is not that simple. Generally the fetus is killed while in the womb by either an injection of a drug or other poisonous substance directly to the fetus, or an injection of a highly saline solution into the amniotic bag, effectively burning the fetus to death chemically, then labor is induced.
D&V is performed by dilating the cervix and inserting some sort of sharp instrument into the uterus and cutting the fetus to pieces then extracting the pieces both manually and by vacuum. Now mind you, nothing is given the fetus to kill the pain which even an immature nervous system can feel during the procedures I just outlined. Sadly enough, recent research indicates that fetuses from an early stage of development on experience more pain than previously assumed by scientists. So those procedures are very much equivalent in my mind to those brutal punishments meted out to criminals in the 18th century which our founding fathers chose to forbid in the fifth amendment to the Constitution.
So objecting to capital punishment on the grounds that it is inherently too cruel for a civilized people (not entirely unreasonable as far as I am concerned), and yet supporting a woman's "right to choose" to abort her baby right up to birth by one of these methods is every bit an inconsistent stand on the part of those folks as the pro-life and pro-capital punishment crowd.
I've already gone on record in this forum as something of an incrementalist on the issue. I object to abortion being used as just another form of birth control because I do believe that human life is a gift and should be so treated. However, I've seen what happens when a woman subjected to a rape becomes pregnant up close and personal. It isn't pretty, even when the woman believes that every human life is precious and opts not to abort a baby who is not guilty of any crime other than being alive. The woman I know kept the baby, tried to raise it, but the constant reminder of how the child came to be wore too heavily on her and caused her to raise the child in a warped manner. That child is now a young adult who wishes he/she was never born and engaged in self0destructive behavior which may well bring it to an early death. So I am not going to stand in judgment of any woman in that sad situation who happens to decide to end the pregnancy. Sure, I'd prefer the baby to be born and given to folks who will love it, but I am not prepared to ofrce the woman to do that.
Medical issues are a red herring. The truth is that medical care has advanced to the point that there is really no medical problem which presents such a danger to the mother that an abortion is the only choice to save the mother (I posited placenta abrutio to an RN recently as such an example and was informed that even it can be successfully handled medically). So the concern which the Supreme Court to mandate all anti-abortion laws must allow is pretty much moot. Certainly if such a situation genuinely arises I would not demand that the mother must die to bring a knew life into the world.
Forscher