Posted on 01/11/2008 9:19:00 AM PST by HKMk23
The incoherence of our political discourse results in part from sheer ignorance of political philosophy and its history.
-- snip --
Liberal Fascism goes a long way to providing that lost history and recovering the true origins and meanings of our political principles and ideals. Goldberg, a syndicated columnist and editor at the National Review, modestly calls himself a journalist. But he has in fact written a well-documented, fast-paced history of modern politics and political philosophy.
(Excerpt) Read more at victorhanson.com ...
This looks like another work that should be added to the "Patriot's Required Reading" list.
bttt
Ping to the Keeper of the FR Bibliophile ping list.
ping
I just listened to the Dennis Preager interview. I like the idea, but MSM will never let this one out. Cowards.
Read the NAZI Party’s 25 Point Plan.
"Given that 'fascist' is the most abused term in the political lexicon..."This is not a given. The most abused term is "liberal". The very phrase "liberal fascism" is an oxymoron.
The thesis is absolutely correct. The contemporary Left is very much in the tradition of communism, Naziism, and fascism. It champions the power of the state--sometimes, though not always, in preference to what it considers "a higher morality" or "social justice" but which is, in fact, an irrational, sloppy preference for one trendy thing over another--and the abolition of individual liberty.
Furthermore:
"And like fascism and communism, progressivism was (and still is) totalitarian, not in the lurid sense of gulags and concentration camps..."There is no reason whatsoever to assume that Leftists and their often lurid ideology would not, if possible, result in gulags and concentration campls. In fact, there is every reason to assume that they would.
1) Elect Hillary
2) If 1 falls through, elect Obama
Do note, though, that it wasn't VDH who authored this review.
I think the earliest concentration camps were setup by the British. And what does the author think the American Indian reservations were?
Liberalism began meaning individual rights and freedom from government interference - it's a Spanish word BTW. The left redefined the word to their benefit in order to glom onto a legacy of achievement that is not theirs.
Modern leftist ideologies are almost all historicist philosophies - philosophies that posit history as a process or journey. If liberalism was good when it was combating monarchy, slavery, mercantilism, etc., then progressivism has to be deprived from it somehow in order to be legitimate. So they just steal the name.
The review is EXCELLENT, and I urge anyone to read the whole thing. Just click on the link.
I will be buying the book also, even though I have long ago understood what Goldberg is saying. I am sure that I can profit from his superior and profession manner of expression.
I couldn't say which of the two terms are more frequently misused but I do agree that they are.
I've had a two year running argument with a friend who's fond of using "liberal fascist." I think it's an oxymoron too, but I have to say that the modern Democrat party is much better described as fascist than liberal, but still closer to communist than fascist.
I would say that the ancient Egyptians have the Brits beat by several centuries. Doubt me? Ask a Jew.
As for the comparison between an American Indian reservation, and a gulag or concentration camp -- that's quite a stretch. I get the thrust of the comparison, but the differences in both kind, and degree are too great to allow a credible equivalence.
Classic liberalism was about creating equality of opportunity.
Modern liberalism is about using the force of the state to bring about equality of outcome.
Dumb debate. It accepts the leftist idea that fascism was worse than communism, the latter certainly being influential on the left.
Antinomian is correct in that the British originated the term "Concentration Camp" in reference to the camps they kept the families of the Kommandos the fought in the Boer War.
To my mind, fascism IS worse than communism.
Communism at least accepts participation in the body of the whole by the individual, with a view to the individual's contributing "according to his means" to the collective "according to [it's] needs". It is, if idealized, the mutual rule of all by all for the benefit of all. Communism hinges upon altrusim, which requires the active denial of gratification of human nature, which is why it has never been implemented in its ideal form, and never will be.
Fascism, by stark contrast, demotes BOTH the individual AND collective humanity in deference to the superiority of an all-powerful State; embodied in a class of ruling elites. It is, if idealized, the absolute control of all by few for the benefit of all. Fascism indulges the human lust for power, which invites the active gratification of human nature.
Although the practical outworking of communism results in almost exactly the same thing as when fascism is implemented -- the control of all by few for the ostensible benefit of all, but the actual benefit of the few -- the fact remains that between the two distinct philosophies of governance, fascism is far and away the more Statist and totalitarian in its idealized form.
All of that stated, leftism inclines FAR more to control by a few over the many than to control by many over the many. The liberal default is to consider the mass of people as incapable of doing things on their own; we're not self-sufficeint enough to be left to our own devices, we individuals cannot be trusted to act in concert with the needs of a well-ordered society, we therefore NEED our Liberal elites to do our thinking for us, and to embody those correct thoughts in the Laws of the State so as to aid us in successfully governing our own squalid lives. And, despite the rampant liberal talk of peace, and tolerance, dare you even speak -- much less act -- at crossed purposes with their correct thinking, you will discover the raw incarnation of the totalitarian ideal that is fascism.
Thanks for that technical detail; I’ve not thoroughly studied British history.
Do you also know where they got the inspiration for their camps?
I don't know if it qualifies as "inspiration" but the rationale for the confinement of the families of the Kommandoes (Dutch farmers mostly, who were engaged in guerilla warfare against the British army) was to prevent any material support to the Kommandoes by family members. Some say that they also served as hostages but I've never found anything to support that.
I take you at your word about the Egyptians, and I'm sure that such things have occurred many times in history. I don't think Antinomians comparison to Indian Reservations is apt, but I do think that the camps where we confined the Nisei Japanese in this country would be.
Have a good weekend.
But the ancient Egyptians never claimed to be liberal, which was the point I was replying to.
As for the comparison between an American Indian reservation, and a gulag or concentration camp -- that's quite a stretch. I get the thrust of the comparison, but the differences in both kind, and degree are too great to allow a credible equivalence.
Again, the point was that a "liberal" government set out to systematically destroy a civilization that got in the way of their plans. And the Indian reservations certainly were like the Soviet gulags. The reason the population numbers were different was because the demographics were different; but in both cases the objective was to eliminate huge numbers of inconvenient people. Do you think Sherman and Custer would have been squeamish if the number of Indians had been twenty million instead of three?
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.