Posted on 05/22/2016 12:36:25 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
As I wrote in this space a few weeks ago, Donald Trump is no fascist, but there are many pundits who are calling him that. Their efforts, I think, tells us more about their ignorance of fascism than about Trump and his followers.
The latest to show off his ignorance is Robert Kagan of the Brookings Institution, writing in the Washington Post. Fascist movements, according to Kagan, are incoherent mobocracies with strong leaders. They had, he claims,
“ no coherent ideology, no clear set of prescriptions for what ailed society. ‘National socialism’ was a bundle of contradictions, united chiefly by what, and who, it opposed; fascism in Italy was anti-liberal, anti-democratic, anti-Marxist, anti-capitalist and anti-clerical. Successful fascism was not about policies but about the strongman, the leader (Il Duce, Der Fuhrer), in whom could be entrusted the fate of the nation.
It’s fanciful to call Nazism a bundle of contradictions when, a decade before coming to power, it had a detailed diagnosis of what ailed Germany, and how to fix it. It was called Mein Kampf, and it provided the basis for the Third Reich. Kagan apparently doesn’t consider the Nazis’ racist doctrines to be explicit either, even though they were the basis for very detailed legislation, indoctrination in all the schools and universities, military operations, and eventually the Holocaust. Nazism was a great deal more than one-man rule by a charismatic leader.
As for Italian fascism, it is perverse to call it anti-clerical. In fact, Mussolini greatly empowered the Catholic Church, required religious education in the schools, and granted enhanced autonomy to the Holy See. “Successful fascism” in Italy was very much about policies. That’s why it was so greatly admired throughout the West...
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
The closest was Huey Long.
Eradicating Universal Suffrage and taking severe measures against those seeking to undermine the State.
Sounds like a plan.
It is pretty simple: The left applies the term “fascist” to anyone who disagrees with them.
It isn’t any more complicated than that. They have no idea what it means.
Benito Mussolini was a Communist who couldn’t secure the nomination of that party in his quest for Prime Minister.
So he broke away and set up what he called “The Fagot Party” (Fascist in Italian.)
He then rode a populist wave.
Some of the Fascist tactics included: showing up at oppositional rallies. Fascists would lock hands, block roads and do other things to prevent supporters of the opposition from having their rallies.
Fascists would often set it up so they outnumbered the opposition. Although threats were seldom overt, the sheer numbers were intimidating.
The strategy worked. The Fascists eventually were swept to power.
Mussolini then governed as a Bernie Sanders style Socialist. In fact, the very definition Mussolini laid out for “Fascism” was the concept that the people could have private property as long as they were serving the public interest.
Didn’t take long for the Fascists to nationalize the banks, the hospitals, factories, major shops and property owned by people who didn’t support the Fascist.
This was all done in the name of “the people”. Some were concerned, but their criticism was swept aside for “the greater good”.
One of Benito’s targets was “the greedy”.
Now I see a lot of these ideas being pushed and tactics being used in American politics in 2016.
But none of them are coming from Trump’s side.
Well, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
One thing communism and fascism absolutely share in common is totalitarianism.
A plan of hell if the state is doing this for the sake of embracing wickedness its own self.
Why do you assume that statehood is some unalloyed, uncontaminatable good?
We are all living with fascism now: takeover of General Motors, followed by dissolution of Cadillac franchises (which just happened to be predominantly owned by political adversaries of Obama); takeover of the institution of marriage; takeover of the entire health care industry; takeover of all student loans; it goes on and on.
It is easy to understand. Leftists make their living taking simple, obvious things and obfuscating them into opacity. (Then they mock conservatives who insist that it is really not that complex.)
Leftists have to make everything incomprehensible, so that they can avoid their twin demons: truth and right.
NAZI Germany was a good example of fascism (versus communism - not that I think they are that much different: tyranny is, ultimately, tyranny.)
Willy Messerschmitt and Ernst Heinkel were both brilliant, and both were allowed a certain amount of freedom to run their companies.
However, Willy was much more in Adolph’s good graces than Ernst. As a result, some superior designs by Heinkel languished, while less advanced designs by Messerschmitt were given production.
(This was to the good of the Allies cause, by the bye.)
Historically, Fascism was a well-developed doctrine that had supporters and admirers in nations throughout the world. As such, it's an example of how supposedly intelligent people can be taken in by a false but attractive doctrine.
Despite the outcries of the Leftists, Trump is no Mussolini.
You are correct.
The State would have to be inherently good, moral, and be comprised of and serve the interests of righteous citizens.
There will always be a State.
The trick is keeping evil degenerate bastards like the ones currently running it from getting in a position to do so.
Drive them out, eradicate them, and make it impossible for them to return.
Allowing imbeciles to have a say in who runs the State is not an option.
Unfort, even your graph doesn’t help ‘fill in the holes’
‘Limited Govt’ is not a label. It’s bloviation w/out definition. Same with ‘Free economy’
‘Constitutional Republic’ should have been used; as much as the ‘Free market’ in the last item.
***
Funny too how so many expect a 3rd party to provide ‘good results’ when it comes to education. As if GOVT schools are going to instill the basis of ‘how to be independent’...C’est la vie, debate for another day.
Def. Fascist leaning oligarchy.
We have our own govt spying on us (NSA/TSA) and labeling a chunk of the population as ‘terrorists’ (rt-wing extremists) for wanting to adhere to the Constitution; where it is now ‘legal’ to hold someone indefinitely with no recourse to a lawyer/courts.
IMO, that’s pretty ‘full-on’, regardless if govt continues to allow the ‘net to continue for the sake of appearance (how many E.O. of ‘take-over in times of “trouble”’ do we need?).
I’ve seen the Spectrum with the term Constitutional Republic. I looked up the term Limited Government. I found, limited government is a political system in which legalized force is restricted through delegated and enumerated powers. Those “enumerated powers” speak of what we have in our Constitution.
What you wrote does make one think.
Fascism, now and always, believes in holiness and in heroism; that is to say, in actions influenced by no economic motive, direct or indirect . . .The Declaration of Independence put forth a different vision:Fascism, the more it considers and observes the future and the development of humanity quite apart from political considerations of the moment, believes neither in the possibility nor the utility of perpetual peace.
...The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone....
all men are . . . endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights . . .The clear implication of Mussolini’s manifesto as you quote it is dictatorship by a hero - and indeed, dictatorship by Mussolini himself. Whenever he imputes anything to Fascism, he imputes it to himself personally - there is no difference. Compare Mussolini's "Fascism, the more it considers and observes the future and the development of humanity” with “The more I consider and observe the future and the development of humanity.” The sense is identically the same. He is speaking in the usage of the royal “we.” The great hero, Mussolini himself - not merely a secular hero but a hero of “holiness” as well. As to humility before God, of that there is no trace.whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Trump is now in his sixties, and only now assays his first venture into politics. Mussolini, OTOH, was until 2014 the youngest prime minister in the history of Italy. Mussolini’s early experience was as a newspaper writer, and as head of government he became the de facto editor in chief of all Italian newspapers. Trump has almost no open support among journalists - not only among the MSM but among nominally less Democrat-slanting organs such as the Wall St. Journal editorial page. Trump also has little enough support among legislators, Republican as well as Democrat. And he does not own the military, either. His threat as a dictator is vague, to put it mildly.
Mussolini reminded me of Roman Emperor Augustus - only moreso. The means of business with the corporate cronyism we see today is fascism lite and has really been ramped up under Emperor Obama. Is it true that anyone who seriously wants to be president is a pathological narcissist at best and a demonic psychopath at worst? I will judge Trump by his “fruit” - we could do worse, and we have with the last 3 or 4 occupants of the WH as proof of that.
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.