Posted on 04/03/2009 8:47:49 AM PDT by Michael Eden
More and more, we are seeing our country moved not just toward European socialism, but toward fascism (which, of course, is also European). As this longtime trend now dramatically picks up speed, we should first realize a couple of critical points: First of all, socialism, communism and fascism are kissing cousins, intimately related to one another. "U.S.S.R." was an acronym for "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics." "N.A.Z.I." was an acronym for "National Socialist German Workers' Party."
Second, both communism and fascism are products of the left. Ask yourself this: if we had a "National Socialist American Workers' Party," does it sound to you like something that would be more in line with conservatives and Republicans or with liberals and Democrats?
I personally began to understand the link between modern American liberalism and fascism by way of my own study of postmodernism. This connection began with my readings of Gene Edward Veith's books, Postmodern Times and Modern Fascism. As a result of my readings I wrote an article, "How Postmodernism Leads to Fascism" - consisting of three parts (part 2; part 3) - exploring the relationship of the ideas underlying postmodern thought and fascistic thought. I subsequently came to discover that others had had similar understandings (e.g. see George Crowder's review of Richard Wolin's book, The Seduction of Unreason: the Intellectual Romance with Fascism from Nietzsche to Postmodernism entitled, "Are post modernists fascist?"
I must here hasten to add that neither Gene Edward Veith nor the aforementioned writers directly attempted in their projects to connect fascism with liberalism or with the Democratic Party. But in my readings I could not help but repeatedly hear striking similarities between the positions I was seeing inherent in postmodernism and fascism with the ideas coming out of the mouths of prominent Democrats.
My point is that when you study the presuppositions, the worldview, underlying postmodernism, and do the same thing with fascism, you begin to see far too many similarities to simply dismiss. It is fair to say that "postmodernism" is a philosophical perspective, and that "fascism" is the resulting political expression of postmodern thought. And the Democratic Party, in buying into postmodern thought, are increasingly buying into fascism.
If I had truly had an original idea in seeing a connection between modern American liberalism and fascism, Jonah Goldberg beat me to its examination in his thought-provoking work, Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left from Mussolini tot he Politics of Meaning. While my studies had focused primarily upon philosophy and underlying worldviews, Goldberg's book is a solid study of brute history.
Goldberg doesn't merely assign pejorative labels to people and groups he doesn't like. Rather, he painstakingly explores - through original sources and through the works of influential historians - the thoughts and policies of fascists such as Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler, and then demonstrates the clear connection of their thoughts and policies with the thoughts and policies of American progressives and liberals such as Woodrow Wilson, FDR, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, and others. Even George W. Bush - with his "compassionate conservatism" and his "No child left behind," is discovered to be connected with certain fascist tendencies (see page 23).
Nor does Goldberg set out to use his terms such as "fascist" and "totalitarian" as a harsh, negative, politically-charged charged accusation. For instance, of "totalitarianism" he says:
"But what do we mean when we say something is "totalitarian"? The word itself has certainly taken on an understandably sinister connotation in the last half century. Thanks to work by Hannah Arendt, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and others, it's become a catchall for brutal, soul-killing, Orwellian regimes. But that's not how the word was originally used or intended. Mussolini himself coined the term to describe a society where everybody belonged, where everyone was taken care of, where everything was inside the state and nothing was outside; where truly no child was left behind" (p. 14).And he then leaves it up to the reader to decide whether "totalitarianism" - now properly understood in its historical context - is actually more compatible with the philosophy of conservatism or liberalism. And in the same way Goldberg does not set out to attack liberals by comparing them to Hitler, but rather to contrast the fascism of Hitler from the fascism of American liberals:
"This American fascism seems - and is - very different from its European variants because it was moderated by many special factors - geographical size, ethnic diversity, Jeffersonian individualism, a strong classical liberal tradition, and so on. As a result, American fascism is milder, more friendly, more "maternal" than its foreign counterparts - "smiley-face fascism." Nice fascism. The best term to describe it is "liberal fascism." And this liberal fascism was, and remains, fundamentally left wing" (p. 8).But he demonstrates in the body of his book that the shoe - in this case the label "fascism" - clearly fits the modern American left - and NOT the right.
One of the reasons leftists have been able to charge the right with being "fascists" is the tendency of conservatives to place a high value on a powerful military - making them "militaristic" and thus fascistic in the minds of leftists. But this charge is simply unfair for two reasons: 1) because most conservatives want a powerful military in order to maintain a deterrent against attack from totalitarian regimes, not to defeat and despoil peaceful countries; and 2) because "militarism" is a mindset that has far larger overtones than merely creating military armies.
Of this second point, Goldberg writes:
"Consider militarism, which will come up again and again in the course of this book. Militarism was indisputably central to fascism (and communism) in countless countries. But it has a much more nuanced relationship with fascism than one might suppose... But for far more people, militarism was a pragmatic expedient: the highest, best means for organizing society in productive ways. Inspired by ideas like those in William James' famous essay "The Moral Equivalent of War," militarism seemed to provide a workable and sensible model for achieving desirable ends. Mussolini, who openly admired and invoked James, used this logic for his famous "Battle of the Grains" and other sweeping social initiatives. Such ideas had an immense following in the United States, with many leading progressives championing the use of "industrial armies" to create the ideal workers' democracy. Later, Franklin Roosevelt's Civilian Conservation Corps - as militaristic a social program as one can imagine - borrowed from these ideas, as did JFK's Peace Corps.It's one thing to believe that we need a strong national defense; and quite another to seek to militarize an entire society toward goals chosen by autocrats. The former is simply prudent in a dangerous world; the second is fascist.This trope has hardly been purged from contemporary liberalism. Every day we hear about the "war on cancer," the "war on drugs," the "War on poverty," and exhortations to make this or that social challenge the "moral equivalent of war." From health care to gun control to global warming, liberals insist that we need to "get beyond politics" and "put ideological differences behind us" in order to "do the people's business." The experts and scientists know what to do, we are told; therefore the time for debate is over. This, albeit in a nicer and more benign form, is the logic of fascism - and it was on ample display in the administrations of Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, and yes, even John F. Kennedy" (pp. 5-6).
Having stated the fact that "fascism" is a species within the umbrella category of "socialism," there are yet distinguishing features that would make a particular "socialist" system "fascist." Sheldon Richman (of the Foundation for Economic Education) provides the distinction in The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics in his entry on "Fascism":
Where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society's economic processes through direct state operation of the means of production, fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners. Where socialism nationalized property explicitly, fascism did so implicitly, by requiring owners to use their property in the "national interest"--that is, as the autocratic authority conceived it. (Nevertheless, a few industries were operated by the state.) Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities. Where socialism abolished money and prices, fascism controlled the monetary system and set all prices and wages politically. In doing all this, fascism denatured the marketplace. Entrepreneurship was abolished. State ministries, rather than consumers, determined what was produced and under what conditions.Appearing on the Glenn Beck television program on April 1, 2009, Richman said:
"Under socialism there was no facade of free markets or capitalism, whatever you want to call it. Everything was just nationalized, and the economy was just a government operation. Under fascism - under Mussolini in Italy and then under Hitler in the 30s with the Nazis - they left intact what looked like private businesses; the government just dictated all the terms. But in both cases - in fascism and socalism - the market was effectively abolished. There was no marketplace. There was no bidding, there was no haggling, there was no market.Sheldon Richman acknowledges that we aren't fascist quite yet, but he also says:And that should give us an important disctinction of what is going on today in the United States. The market has not been abolished in the United States. It is very heavily burdened by government, but that is not the same as abolishing it."
"We've been on that road [moving away from our republic and toward a system of fascism] for a very long time. We've been on that road for ages, even into the 19th century. We sometimes take two steps forward, and then one back, sometimes we take one step forward, and two steps back. The GM and the AIG situations are more like fascism than socialism."Jonah Goldberg likewise argues that the left has - to various degrees - embraced fascism since at least the early 20th century. And - in the light of the last few months - it is vital that we note that we have lurched not one or two steps toward fascism, but dozens of steps in what now frankly appears to a headlong rush.
I point out in a recent article that the last president who fired the CEO of a private company was Vladimir Putin. And the Obama administration has not only fired GM CEO Rick Wagoner, but it will not rule out firing other CEOs of private companies, as well. The Obama administration has already spent more and added more debt than every president from George Washington to George Bush - combined. We are looking at unsustainable levels of federal spending under Obama, which the Congressional Budget Office says will result in "an ever-expanding national debt that would exceed 82% of the overall economy by 2019."
We are watching a frightening takeover of the economy by the federal government in an incredibly short period of time from an administration whose chief of staff and whose Secretary of State have already essentially said, "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste... it's an opportunity to do things that you think you could not do before."
Obama has appointed a global warming czar, Carol Browner, who had been one of the leaders of a socialist group whose position on global governance includes the view that the United States should abdicate its international leadership to international organizations, and that the international community should be the ultimate arbiter of climate change policy.
Obama nominated Harold Koh as the State Department's legal adviser, a man who:
"once wrote that the U.S. was part of an 'axis of disobedience' with North Korea and Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Koh also has long held that the U.S. should accept international law when deliberating cases at home.... Koh also advocates a 'transnational legal process' and has criticized the U.S. for its failure to 'obey global norms.'"And now we have Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner literally saying he is open to replacing the US dollar with a new global currency:
Geithner, at the Council on Foreign Relations, said the U.S. is "open" to a headline-grabbing proposal by the governor of the China's central bank, which was widely reported as being a call for a new global currency to replace the dollar, but which Geithner described as more modest and "evolutionary."While Geithner flip-flopped on his "open" positon less than 24 hours after expressing it, all three high level Obama officials reveal a shocking openness - if not an outright call - for a new internationalist order in which we unpeg ourselves from our Constitution and move into international law as the source of our authority."I haven’t read the governor’s proposal. He’s a very thoughtful, very careful distinguished central banker. I generally find him sensible on every issue," Geithner said, saying that however his interpretation of the proposal was to increase the use of International Monetary Fund's special drawing rights -- shares in the body held by its members -- not creating a new currency in the literal sense.
"We’re actually quite open to that suggestion – you should see it as rather evolutionary rather building on the current architecture rather than moving us to global monetary union," he said.
"The only thing concrete I saw was expanding the use of the [special drawing rights]," Geithner said. "Anything he’s thinking about deserves some consideration."
Which is more quintessentially fascist than anything this nation has ever seen, as former US ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton explained on the April 1, 2009 Glenn Beck program:
"There are a lot of people, some of whom are now in the Obama administration, who believe that the United States should move into a process of 'international norming,' where we conform our domestic laws to the international consensus - whether it's on death penalty or climate change, or gun control, a whole range of issues - for almost every domestic issue, there's a kind of international counterpart. I think this is fundamentally dangerous because I think ultimately it takes decision-making away from the people and our constitutional system and puts it into the international arena."We have little enough sway over our own elected officials. Imagine how little influence we would have over unelected global autocrats imposing their "global consciousness" upon us.
And again, this is a trend that is now dramatically increasing in velocity. Liberal Supreme Court Justices have been looking to international law as a source for legitimization of the rulings they have wanted to impose on the American people for years.
Fascism has been coming into our country for decades. It is flooding into our country right now. And it is - and has been - liberals urging it upon us.
More than 150 years ago Alexis de Tocqueville predicted that such a smiley-faced fascist state would mean the death of liberty in America:
“Above this race of men stands an immense and tutelary power, which takes upon itself alone to secure their gratifications and to watch over their fate. That power is absolute, minute, regular, provident, and mild. It would be like the authority of a parent if, like that authority, its object was to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks, on the contrary, to keep them in perpetual childhood; it is well content that the people should rejoice, provided they think of nothing but rejoicing. For their happiness such a government willingly labors, but it chooses to be the sole agent and the only arbiter of that happiness; it provides for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manages their principal concerns, directs their industry, regulates the descent of property, and subdivides their inheritances; what remains, but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living?”Right now individual citizens as well as major banks and corporations such as AIG and General Moters are trading their freedom for security. But Benjamin Franklin addressed the tradeoff that we are seeing being made more and more often:
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Tyranny for Breakfast.
Oppression for Lunch.
and
Injustice for Dinner.
This is the NEW American Dream.
I thought I’d also say this, based on my study of history.
When Hitler attacked, Stalin was forced to drop the whole “Communist” thing and urge the people to fight for the “Motherland.”
And the Russian people didn’t hate the Germans because they were Nazis, but because they were Germans.
I recall reading a quote about Russian tank crews who had been trapped in fires and had their faces burned off. The author was very clear: the Russians were filled with hate - and couldn’t wait to get back to the front so they could kill “more Germans.”
Hitler’s attack and Russia’s counterattack was NOT about “fascism vs. communism.” It was about “Germany vs. Russia.”
>>“Who will American fascism be intolerant of?”
>
>Those that have been said to “cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”
I think you may be right.
NAZI is not an acronym.
- - - - - - -
NAZI: Acronym for the “National Socialist German Workers Party” or Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (N.S.A.D.P). Hitler joined this party on September 12 1919 and became its leader in 1921. The party was banned in 1923, but was re-established in February 1925 and took control of Germany in 1933. After Germany’s defeat in World War 2, the Nazi Party was declared illegal by the Allied powers.
source: http://www.holocaust.com.au/glossary.htm
“All I know is that real fascists—and real communists for that matter—wouldn’t tolerate this same-sex marriage nonsense”
Actually, homosexuality is part-and-parcel of BOTH Nazism and Communism.
If you allow the people thier perversions, they acede to having other freedoms taken away from them.
In both Nazism and Soviet Communism, homosexuals only became pariahs AFTER the stromg-men took control, and was used as an excuse to remove them. Or worse.
It is merely a nickname based on the German pronunciation of the first four letters of Nationalsozialistische.
I’ve been posting this fact on here for almost two years and have been pelted with how wrong I was.
Well, it does my heart good to know that others are coming to the party, a bit late but the music is just starting.
If the central government is successful in turning the economy around (which is highly doubtful, since it's never been achieved before by any command economy), then the US electorate will gladly embrace Hussein's policy initiatives and become a full-blown socialist state.
However, it is much more likely (I'd say 90%+) that the entire economic system will fail. It's easy to make this prediction, because the FIRE model (from which tax receipts and lending capability is based) is based on 3 things that require suspending the laws of math (ie exponents): ever appreciating assets, credit expansion & securitization.
In the case of system failure, not only will the crackhead's new initiatives not implemented, but the entire facade of the welfare state will collapse in its entirety.
So, as you can see, all we have to do is wait, watch & observe. The time for effecting political change is long past. (Simply because looters now outnumber producers - that is, the "tipping point" has been reached.) It is now time for the market (baseline human instincts) to determine our fate.
Shirer would disagree with that point.
The Nazi/Hitler rise to power was due to the use of street violence (the SA) and alliances with the Army, the political elite, big business, and the junkers/agricultural estates (in that order).
Hitler paid only lip service to the labor unions and gave them the stiff arm by placing all authority with management to control wages and employment. In fact shortly after coming to power, Hitler abolished trade unions.
Long story short, attempts to clarify the political spectrum so as to link Hitler to socialism and communism is a silly exercise and there is a tremendous amount of disagreement with it among political scientists and historians. The NAZI party might have started out with many socialist components but Hitler is quite difficult to place on the spectrum. He was a malignant narcissistic monster who could and did move quite nimbly around the political spectrum when he thought it would gain him more power.
If Hitler had an ideology other than himself, it was German nationalism and antisemitism.
I don’t think SA Leader’s Ernst Roehm’s homosexuality was the main reason behind Hitler’s 1934 purge of the SA. At the time the newly appointed Chancellor Hitler was rebuilding Germany’s armed forces for future wars of aggression. He needed the support of the military. The Prussian aristocracy whose officer corp controlled the military were increasingly wary of Ernst Roehm’s private army ,the SA, whose numbers even exceeded that of the Wehrmacht. They wanted Roehm stopped and Hitler wanted the support of the traditional military. A deal was cut which precipitated the Purge: Hitler agreed to eliminate Roehm and disband the SA. In return, every German soldier was required swear a personal oath of allegiance to Hitler. Although Hitler tolerated homosexuality there has never been any solid evidence that he ever engaged in such activity. It is also worth noting that at the time Hitler was also currying favor with big German industrialists he would need for his military build up, and these business leaders were also quite wary of Roehm and the SA who did in fact represent the socialist and labor union wing of the Nazi movement.
Liberals have an agenda. They wait eagerly for excuses to push their agenda over on the public.
A shooting is an excuse to confiscate guns.
A heat spell is the excuse to ban normal light bulbs.
The economic downturn is the excuse for turning the country into a marxist nation.
They used Christianity as well
In the beginning they did. However, Christianity was perverted by the Nazis (as it is today my many). The priests were basically told to toe the Nazi line or they’d be dealt with. Slowly the church was forced to turn from God to State (and even Hitler himself) as the object of worship.
- - - - - - - - -
By the end of the 19th century, Germany was the LEAST religious and LEAST Christian country in all of Western civilization. Their top scholars (Julian Wellhausen and Friedrich Delitzsch as two examples among many) were hard-core theological liberals and Antisemites.
Hitler DID try to co-opt the liberal churches, and created the “German Christian movement” which made being Aryan more important than believing in Jesus.
Theologians such as Dietrich Bonehoeffer (who was executed by the Nazis) responded with the “Confessing Church movement.” Thousands of Christian pastors died in the death camps.
An article titled “The Nazis and Christianity” is a very good read.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/11/the_nazis_and_christianity.html
NAZI: Acronym for the “National Socialist German Workers Party” or Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (N.S.A.D.P). Hitler joined this party on September 12 1919 and became its leader in 1921. The party was banned in 1923, but was re-established in February 1925 and took control of Germany in 1933. After Germany’s defeat in World War 2, the Nazi Party was declared illegal by the Allied powers.
source: http://www.holocaust.com.au/glossary.htm
Röhm wanted and expected a Second Revolution, in which the Party would move directly into a class-based socialism, and in the process purge anything inconsistent with that goal (including, if necessary, the racialist focus of Party policy).
Hitler’s main motivation in the Röhm purge was to placate the military (whose support he needed), which felt threatened by a parallel Brownshirt military. Hitler gave them what they wanted (subjugation and deprecation of the SA), and in return got the personal oath from the military (officers and enlisted men).
The homosexuality was a convenient excuse, and anyway, Hitler preferred the SS (whose purity and loyalty he tightly controlled).
As regards Roehm and his sort, I have read all authoritative material on Hitler and, like you, have never seen any account of Hitler's participation in homosexual behavior. In fact, there are many cases of innuendo as to his preference for young women.
I do not consider the New South Wales Board of Jewish Education to be the final authority on the meaning of acronym.
The term ‘acronym’ was coined by Bell Labs as “a word created from the first letters of each word in a series of words.”
For that matter, USSR isn’t an acronym either (how would it be pronounced as a word?).
I’ve been posting this fact on here for almost two years and have been pelted with how wrong I was.
Well, it does my heart good to know that others are coming to the party, a bit late but the music is just starting.
- - - - - - - -
Well, you can at least have this consolation: if you were among the first to recognize that genuine fascism was coming to America, you will likely be rewarded with being among the first to be executed by the fascist state.
I just checked the copyright date on Goldberg’s “Liberal Fascism,” and noticed that it came out in 2007. He has certainly taken ALL KINDS of heat for his thesis, regardless of how obviously true it is or how well he defended it.
In any event, I’m here now - and I hope a lot more join me in joining you!!!
Precisely put. Much more accurate.
I was talking about fascism during the Clinton administration and the 2000 election. I was extremely pleased to see Jonah Goldberg’s book come out.
I have noticed a pattern in the last few years to try to redefine fascism on the internet. Many of the definitions deny the symbiotic relationship between government and the favored members of private industry.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.