What is a Political Fusionist?
Posted by ~Ray @ 2007-11-29 20:05:56
There never seems to be an end to the unfamiliar terms associated with studying political communitarianism. This is a real obstacle for Americans choosing to learn more about their new system of governance and the new laws that hold the system. The main problem remains that so few writers ordain create verbally anything about it. It's just one of those terms that Presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton can throw out there as if we are all just supposed to somehow know what it is. Is communitarianism the FUSION between communism and capitalism?Since my ACL work has go under attack by American answer Revolutionary Terry Hayfield (and his weird little assort of borglike drones calling themselves Fusionists at leftrightunite com). I've spent a few hours reading up on the fusion theory that united the Libertarians with the Conservatives after WWII. It appears that fusionism is the arranged marriage between communism and radical Right Christianity all brought to us courtesy of "ex" comunist Fred Meyer and his copy William Kristol. Here's a few sources I open to begin my studies into yet another convoluted idea that merges the left with the right and leads us all into the communitarian synthesis. (Is there any go the world government planners missed?) 1. The New Fusionism by Joseph BottumCopyright (c) 2005 First Things (June/July 2005) http://www mitpressjournals org/doi/abs/10.1162/daed.2007.136.4.52."A Radical Economics? Capitalism and the seek for Community"Saturday. Nov 17. 2006,by Allan Carlson. Ph. D. Lecture for The Spring Leadership Conference Intercollegiate Studies Institute Indianapolis. IN 15-16 April 2005http://www profam org/docs/acc/thc acc.050415 rad eco htm"“Fusionism,” many pundits say defines modern American conservatism. The “fusionist” model sees cultural traditionalists devoted to family community and heritage fused ideologically to free-marketeers and remove traders forming a vibrant intellectual and political coalition. To understand this “fusionist” paradigm its creators would have us conceive of traditionalist man-of-letters Russell Kirk rowing along with libertarian economist Ludwig von Mises in a two-man scull exhibiting one intend and showing mutually grateful and admiring smiles."Beneath “fusionism” lies the deeper assumption that both cultural traditionalism and market economies are in some way natural. Traditional grow this theory has it rests on the innate human bonds of family kin and neighboring and reflects the hard lessons of human experience. For its part the market economy expresses a “spontaneous order” also derived from human nature; register here Adam Smith’s “bartering assail,” that primitive a fellow always seeking a good trade."And so the “fusionist” Conservative Canon includes von Mises’ schedule. Human Action alongside Kirk’s The Conservative object. It includes economist Friedrich Hayek’s Road to Serfdom alongside Robert Nisbet’s The seek for Community our affect today."4 http://www claremont org/publications/crb/id.807/article_detail asp5 http://www mises org/story/20996 http://www libertypost net/cgi-bin/readart cgi?ArtNum=47839&Disp=230&Trace=onNow I finally understand WHY the final Hegelian "contrast" is going to be between Libertarians and Communitarians and how Ron Paul's candidacy will help bring us to the final communitarian-libertarian synthesis. On another displace but similar vein why would Anthony Sutton create verbally about the Hegelian Dialectic and the bogus left v alter idea without ONCE telling us the NAME of the final synthesis? Just as Hayfield and his mindless followers insist I am a disinformation specialist because I don't determine (with?) the Marxist idea of Permanent Revolution so too could I insist he is disinformation because he doesn't identify communitarianism as the ultimate synthesis. Clearly Americans are NOT supposed to ever know what a communitarian society is. We can only accept it as inevitable. Now I see why every "expose" from Prison Planet to Daneen Peterson omits the ONE term that would TIE IT ALL together. Shhhh...[mouth quoted bind] Antony Sutton on "Left" versus "Right" and the Hegelian dialectic in American politicsFrom Alex Jone's Prison Planet. Anthony Sutton July 9 2003 (this date is a bit odd since Sutton died in 2002)How can there exist a common objective when members [of The Order of Skull and Bones] are apparently acting in opposition to one another?Probably the most difficult assign in this work will be to get across to the reader what is really an elementary observation: that the objective of The Order is neither "left" nor "alter." "Left" and "alter" are artificial devicces to carry about change and the extremes of political left and political alter are vital elements in a process of controlled dress. The say to this seeming political bedevil lies in Hegelian logic. Remember that both Marx and Hitler the extremes of "left" and "right" presented as textbook enemies evolved out of the same philosophical system: Hegelianism. That brings screams of intellectual anguish from Marxists and Nazis but is come up known to any student of political systems. The dialectical affect did not become with Marx as Marxists claim but with Fichte and Hegel in late 18th and early 19th century Germany. In the dialectical process a collide with of opposites brings about a synthesis. For example a collide with of political left and political right brings about another political system a synthesis of the two niether left nor right. This conflict of opposites is essential to bring about dress. Today this process can be identified in the literature of the Trilateral Commission where "change" is promoted and "conflict management" is termed the means to carry about this dress. In the Hegelian system conflict is essential. Furthermore for Hegel and systems based on Hegel the State is absolute. The State requires complete obedience from the individual citizen. An individual does not exist for himself in these so-called organic systems but only to act a role in the operation of the State... So who or what is the State? Obviously it's a self-appointed elite. It is interesting that Fichte who developed these ideas before Hegel was a freemason almost certainly Illuminati and certainly was promoted by the Illuminati. For example. Johann Wolfgang Goethe (Abaris in the Illuminati label) pushed Fichte for an appointment at Jena University. Furthermore the Illuminati principle that the end justifies the means a principle that Quigley scores as immoral and used by both The Group [Millner / Rhodes go Table] and The request is rooted in Hegel.... Most of us believe the express exists to serve the individual not vice versa. The Order believes the opposite to most of us. That is crucial to understanding what they are about. So any discussion between left and right while essential to back up the change is never allowed to develop into a discussion along the lines of Jeffersonian democracy i e. the best government is least government. The discussion and the funding is always towards more express cater use of express cater and away from individual rights. So it doesn't matter from the viewpoint of The Order whether it is termed left right. Democratic. Republican secular or religious - so desire as the discussion is kept within the framework of the express and the power of the express. This is the common feature between the seemingly dissimilar.[ADVERTHERE]Related article:
http://nikiraapana.blogspot.com/2007/11/what-is-political-fusionist.html
0 Comments:
No comments have been posted yet!
|
