Liberal Fascism-The Secret History of the American Left from Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning

FrontPageMagazine.com ^ | February 26, 2008 | David Forsmark

[television is just wrong]

I often wonder about what will become of all the minorities, gays and lesbians, when the dems don’t need them anymore.

[The Forgotten Man]

An excellent read, and a must read for conservatives. It is frightening what has happened in this country, has been rewritten out of history, and fails to be taught....

[rellimpank]

-—good post—good book—

[Red Badger]

[MrB]

Libs get all up in arms when you point out where they are blatantly fascists.

INVARIABLY, they point to some conservative position that puts limits on behavior, 99% of the time, it’s a sex-related issue.

There’s not many, if any, issues outside of the right to stick your genitals wherever you feel like it at this moment, without consequences,

where the left is actually pro-freedom.

[stockpirate]

Hitler and Stalin murdered over 50,000,000 Capitalist’s!

[LucyJo]

Added to my “to buy”-”must read” list.

[The_Reader_David]

Objectively, sexual license is actually anti-freedom, because it’s chief social effect is to weaken the family, thereby tilting the balance of social control from parents to the state.

This is why sex is the one area in which the modern American fascists ostensibly support freedom.

I’m sick of ‘left’ and ‘right’: the seating arrangment in the French National Assembly is irrelevant, and the actual usage since about 1920 has been ‘left’ = ‘supports international socialism’ (whether of the sort with the Comintern at its head, or of the ‘let the UN decide, let’s make the world a copy of Sweden’ sort), and ‘right’ = ‘opposes international socialism’. A usage whose ambiguity (Nazis are ‘right’ since they oppose the international aspect, free-traders are ‘right’ since they oppose the socialist aspect) only serves the interests of the left (which does seem to have a precise meaning).

[Red6]

Essentially, fascism is a nationalistic version of socialism, but it’s still socialism.

Fascism was born out of the post WWI experience but heavily borrowed on the largely popular communist/socialist movements in Europe starting in the mid 1860s. Hitler’s Germany was a socialist state, where the first gun laws were passed, Kindergeld came about……….

The socialist today attempts to paint fascism as a concept that is politically right, but in fact the right is in it’s traditional American values about privatization, decentralization, individual rights, personal responsibility, God, etc is about as far removed from fascism or socialism as you can get. Post WWII this “perception” of the right being fascist was groomed by the left, in fact the left likes to see themselves as the opposition, as the oppressed, and as victims of the fascists, who were in reality just another form of socialists competing for power in the 1920s – 30s. The fascist socialists saw the communist socialists as competition and a threat, and once in power eliminated them. Essentially, the differences between a Hitler and Stalin are about semantics. What is true however is that socialism has serious political and societal ramifications since it places extreme power into the hands of state systems, centralizes power, sees collective rights as superseding those of the individual, is essentially Godless may that be the Nazi regime or Soviets etc etc etc.

The American right, is the antithesis of socialism; which is about centralization, collective and secular thought, state managed nanny states etc. That’s also one of the reasons why European socialist so despise us American conservatives.

[MrB]

I agree that the promotion of sexual indiscriminateness (it’s not “freedom”)

has the goal of destroying the family. The further goal is to destroy the traditional society and culture.

The ASSes (authoritarian secular socialists) want to impose THEIR version of a society on everyone, but they know that if the people are given the choice between the proven success of traditional values vs the demonstrable failures of secular socialism, they’ll never choose the latter. Only if there is no choice, if the other choice is destroyed, will the people choose secular socialism.

[TBP]

One of three currrent books guaranteed to get liberals foaming at the mouth (as if anyone could tell the difference)

The other two are Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy by M. Stanton Evans and The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness by Lyle H. Rossiter Jr., MD.

Try going to your bookstore and asking for these books. I asked for Liberal Fascism at my bookstore and I was told that they didn't have it in and "we won't be ordering it." (IOW, we're good libs, so you're not allowed to rad that -- thus proving Jonah Goldberg's point.)

After reading these three, I plan to go back and re-read Michael Savage's Liberalism Is a Mental Disorder and Ann Coulter's Treason. (Hey, ask your bookstore for those, too.) :)

[TBP]

I often wonder about what will become of all the minorities, gays and lesbians, when the dems don’t need them anymore.

They'll get stomped on, just like The Party of Compassion does to everyone else. The only people they ever really cared about or wanted to support were themselves.

[TBP]

Here is another one that sounds interesting:

THE ENEMIES WITHIN: OPINIONS I HAVE GATHERED ACROSS THE INTERNET. Why Liberals Hate Themselves The Secret to the Suicidal Liberal Mind. By Jack Wheeler, Freedom Research Foundation

[Bluebird Singing]

“Applying the language of war to domestic problems.”

Mrs. Bill Clinton, fascist, speaks of Bush’s “War Against Science” because he doesn’t support “stem cell” (human embryo) research.

http://video.msn.com/?mkt=en-us&brand=msnbc&fg=copy&vid=f21ff4fe-d84a-4234-8228-431f7a07fb1a&from=00

Chilling.

[Zionist Conspirator]

I've made some of these points before, but I think they're important in understanding "liberal fascism":

Theodore Roosevelt was a true proto-fascist, and it is my personal opinion that had he lived to see Mussolini's movement he would have been the first American Fascist with a capital "f." His youth, his crusading nature, his dramatic speaking style, his lauding of "the strenuous life," his jingoism, his militarism, and his domestic interventionism in the economy all point in this direction.

There was a "progressive" element to the temperance/prohibition movement (especially in the early years), but by the Twenties the Fundamentalist Protestant element had become just as important, if not more so. The "wet" states and populations were in the areas we now recognize as liberal, while the Bible Belt was solidly "dry." Also, I notice that Prohibition gets lambasted by the liberal media quite often (because it "didn't work"), yet that same media wants to apply the same logic to guns. Furthermore, conservatives' arch-villain FDR made the repeal of Prohibition one of his major issues.

I believe the author makes an error when he identifies Woodrow Wilson's "goon squad" as "the American Legion." The American Legion was not organized until 1919, and it was made up of the American Expeditionary Forces. I believe I've read about the organization the author truly has in mind, and it isn't The American Legion.

Lay off of Julia Ward Howe! The Battle Hymn of the Republic is one of the most inspirational patriotic songs of all time! And if the Union's confidence in the rightness of its cause is "fascist," isn't every government at war for what it feels is a "just cause" similarly "fascist" (including the Confederacy, which fired the first shot)? Seems to me this is one of those universal human attitudes shared by fascists rather than a specifically fascist attitude. (Pinging wideawake for the Julia Ward Howe thing.)

[wideawake]

All societies are bound together not simply by the physical necessity and convenience of commerce and cooperation to sustain the basic requirements of life, but also by shared ideals, aspirations, etc.

I think the notable distinction between the ideals of a non-fascist society and the ideals of a fascist society are - as Mussolini emphasized and as Carl Schmitt analyzed - that the fascist society is built on a mythic goal.

And by "mythic" neither Mussolini or Schmitt meant "imaginary" but that the goal was invented by the fascist movement, invested with religious significance and raised to a transformative event.

To the Nazis, the elimination of Jews from the world was a way to save Aryan man from destruction and to usher in a glorious new age of Aryan world ascendancy.

The Holocaust was not imaginary, but its ideology and its contemplated results were mythic.

The Battle Hymn Of The Republic is not really in that mold.

It basically says, in florid language, that slavery is a blemish on a land that considers itself a land of freedom and that fighting to end slavery is moral and that God is happy with and supports those who fight to free their fellow man from oppression.

This is not the creation of heretofore unknown myth, but a repetition of common Scriptural tropes: that God is on the side of the just, that oppression of the poor and weak is something God hates, and that those who fight to accomplish God's justice will be rewarded. Her imagery is that of the Second Coming, in which a glorious Christ will judge the nations - and the message is that if the USA fights to end the oppression of slaves, then it can feel confident of that judgment when it comes.

If The Battle Hymn Of The Republic was about killing every last Confederate without mercy and said that the ending of slavery would create an earthly paradise in which the USA would conquer and rule the whole world, then it might be characterized as fascist.

But it doesn't really fit the mold.

[wintertime]

ping

[Fiddlstix]

Bump
To read later

[rbosque]

Margaret Sanger—

“Always to me any aroused group was a good group, and therefore I accepted an invitation to talk to the women’s branch of the Ku Klux Klan...In the end, through simple illustrations I believed I had accomplished my purpose. A dozen invitations to speak to similar groups were proffered.” (Margaret Sanger: An Autobiography, P.366)

“We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population. and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.” Margaret Sanger’s December 19, 1939 letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble, 255 Adams Street, Milton, Massachusetts. Original source: Sophia Smith Collection, Smith College, North Hampton, Massachusetts. Also described in Linda Gordon’s Woman’s Body, Woman’s Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America. New York: Grossman Publishers, 1976.