Paul: Country is moving toward fascism

The Hill ^ | December 23, 2007 | Klaus Marre |

[AmericanMade1776]

White House hopeful Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) said Sunday that the U.S. is moving toward fascism, stating that corporations are increasingly “running the show” and citizens are being deprived of their liberties.

Paul clarified that he did not refer to the type of fascism that Adolf Hitler practiced in Germany. “We’re not moving toward Hitler-type fascism, but we’re moving toward a softer fascism,” Paul said on NBC’s Meet the Press. “Loss of civil liberties, corporations running the show, big government in bed with big business.”

The lawmaker said the U.S. is moving toward “corporatism.” He also lashed out at a system in which those are criticized as unpatriotic who do not support the war in Iraq or the Patriot Act.

[Jabba the Nutt]

The signal-to-noise ratio on this thread is quite low, but you are one of the few voices of reason.

Yeah, I noticed. The MSM is soundbites: “America GOING Fascist”. There’s no explanation of what is meant by that. In my book, Big Government IS fascism. So, any movement toward Big Government is moving toward fascism. I don’t think there is much disagreement around Free Republic that Big Government is getting bigger and more intrusive. Look at this “Energy Bill”, orders car companies how they are going to build their cars and what kind of cars they’re going to build. It outlaws incandescent light bulbs (I understand). If this isn’t movement toward fascism, what is?

Full disclosure, I voted for Ron Paul in ‘88. This time, I’m voting for Hunter or Thompson.

[Jabba the Nutt]

I can guarantee to you that Ron Paul has read Hayek’s “The Road to Serfdom”.

[Pietro]

The hyperbole of this statement is dangerous in that it blinds us to the real and genuine dangers we face, which are creeping socialism.

[Jabba the Nutt]

"Conservatives have long noted that the form of government favored by big-government liberals is similar to fascism in practice. It is the government in charge, though, and the idealogues. The big corporations go along, and become cheerleaders for the whole mess, which gives a superficial appearance that they are in control."

First, thanks for your post, lots of good info.

I'll just disagree to the extent that big corporations do more than cheerlead. Let's take the recent NBC Networks "Green Week". NBC gave global warming and other eco-nonsense millions and millions of dollars of free publicity. Was it cheerleading? Was it ideology? Was it an attempt to propagandize the American People? Was it a corporate scam for more money and profits?

The answer is YES, all of the above. NBC is owned by GE. GE is making a huge push to get governments, including the US government, to impose environmental regulations that can only be met through the purchase of GE products. GE is promoting fascism in order to increase its own profits. Of course, this can only be successful in the short term and will lead to demands for higher taxes on corporations, including GE, but that's the successor's problems.

I was in the drug industry and heard high level executives brag about how they were pushing the Prescription Drug Act, which would force taxpayers to buy Rx drugs and give them to other people. Many corporations are in the business of living off taxpayers. They don't produce for the market, they produce according to governmental dictates.

That my friend is fascism. It is easier to influence (control) a few government employees than it is to produce for millions of consumers, making their individual decisions. Corporations don't 'control' this system, but they sure as hell have tremendous influence. And they are more than reluctantly cheerleading, they are leading the way into this future.

[Jabba the Nutt]

I've spent time with Ron Paul back in '88. I don't believe he has a racist bone in his body. He is personally a thoroughly decent, caring and concerned human being. He's pro-life, he's brought thousands of lives into this world as an OBG. He does have a tendency toward conspiracy theory. I asked him at the time about the attack on the USS Stark and Ron Paul had his theory about it, which I don't remember.

But if you look at the Declaration of Independence, you could argue that it makes a conspiracy theory:

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

The Declaration goes on to make a case that George III was the head conspirator. They had evidence and they made their case. Conspiracies do exist after all, but you have to have evidence and make your case. Conspiracy theories of the type that the 'jews run the media' or 'free masons control the government' are nonsensical and pernicious.

[ksen]

What is extremely sad is that if Ron Paul had the “right” stance on Iraq he would be the one FR is championing.

But since he’s not “right” on Iraq, and I guess American hegemony in general, any method must be used to neutralize him and his supporters.

Someone mentioned above that elections are no longer about Demvs Repub. They are about globalists/collectivists vs nationalists/individualists.

Let’s see:

1) Giuliani - globalist/collectivist
2) Romney - globalist collectivist
3) Huckabee - globalist/collectivist
4) Clinton - globalist/collectivist
5) Obama - globalist/collectivist
6) Edwards - globalist/collectivist

7) Paul - nationalist/individualist
8) Thompson - nationalist/individualist
9) Hunter - nationalist/individualist

I put Thompson under the nationalist/individualist label becuase I think he leans more in that direction than the other. But clearly the only candidates in the race who would truly be in America’s best interests are Hunter and Paul with Thompson coming in at third.

[WoofDog123]

I have spoken to a number of people who find Paul’s views attractive, which surprised me given how little coverage he gets of his actual opinions.

The media’s effort to demonize him says to me there is some desire/bias to make sure that one little voice openly criticizing almost every aspect of the system has their name become synonymous with crazy, nutty, whatever.

Re NBC/GE, you always have to follow the money, especially with this conglomo in particular given that they produce or sell almost everything you could want. Occasionally they do put their foot in their mouth (the GM side fuel tanks pickup issue) in a way the parent company doesn’t seem to benefit from....

[WoofDog123]

“It outlaws incandescent light bulbs (I understand).”

I looked this up, and apparently it does, by a certain year. No idea when they will actually vanish from shelves though.

[Night Hides Not]

“We’re not moving toward Hitler-type fascism, but we’re moving toward a softer fascism,” Paul said on NBC’s Meet the Press. “Loss of civil liberties, corporations running the show, big government in bed with big business.”

Somehow, I don't think Jeff Skilling and Andy Fastow would agree with that statement.

Paul and Huck continue to be fed enough rope from which to hang themselves.

For the record, I am a Fredhead. It is my opinion that the fight for the nomination will go to the convention.

[zeugma]

It's a controversial statement, but it is also a true statement.

Took 34 posts to state the obvious.

" Capitalism is where the government's role in the economy is as a judge to interpret and enforce contracts made between free people. Communism is where the government owns the means of production, think the post office or public schools. Fascism is the original third way, where government doesn't own the means of production, but where the government regulates the means of production."

Since the above does not fit on a bumper sticker, it is not allowed to be a part of the political discussion.

 

[traviskicks]

I would rank them as you did, if trancredo was still in I’d have put him ahead of Thompson.

[TexasMatty]

Belly Laugh!

[traviskicks]

ping

[Bokababe]

"Conspiracies do exist after all, but you have to have evidence and make your case."

I have a dear friend who worked at a fairly high level in the last Administration. She says, "People who don't believe in conspiracy theories have never worked in government!"

[Revelation 911]

bump

[Revelation 911]

bump

[Jabba the Nutt]

Back in my big L libertarian days, libertarians borrowed analysis from out and out Marxist and left-wing authors. Two that I remember were Gabriel Kolko and William Appleman Williams. One of these two, or it could've been a third author, showed how bureaucracies tended to be captured by their regulated industries. That historians example went back into the 1880's or 1890's, when Railroads (Big Corporations) controlled the Railroad Commissions, which were set up to benefit farmers and consumers, but ended up benefiting the Railroads.

So, the idea the libertarians won't take ideas from Lefties is wrong. The standard has to be, whether the concept is correct, not where it came from. I do know Kolko or Williams repudiated the use that libertarians made of their work. They didn't like the Free Market types using their analysis for their own purposes.

[Jabba the Nutt]

Have you ever seen the movie Enemy of the State? Gene Hackman plays a former, NSA tech, who now uses his skills 'off the grid'. At one point, Hackman say he knows about conspiracy theories, he was a former conspirator. Heh.

[Bokababe]

"Have you ever seen the movie Enemy of the State?"

Yes, good flick.

And I agree with you that any conspiracy needs to be proven to be taken seriously.

But anyone who has worked in government to get anything done, needs to understand that when you're the one doing it, you don't call it "a conspiracy", you call it "a coalition" or "a consensus" or something else seemingly innocuous. Only others are guilty of conspiracies, never you!

[reagan_fanatic]

Or maybe this one...