BIG LIAR: How Theodor Adorno redefined Fascism.

Fascism and Nazism are both phenomena of the left. This makes ideological sense, because at their core they represent ideologies of the centralized, all-powerful state. Moreover, fascism grew out of Marxism, and fascism’s founder Benito Mussolini, was a Marxist and lifelong socialist. Hitler, too, was a socialist who headed the National Socialist Party and in fact changed the name of the German Workers Party to make it the National Socialist German Workers Party.

How, then, did progressives in America re-define fascism and Nazism as phenomena of the right? This sleight-of-hand occurred after World War II, once fascism and Nazism were discredited with the reputation of Holocaust. Then progressives recognized it was important to cover up the leftist roots of fascism and Nazism and to move them from the left-wing column into the right-wing column.

The man most responsible for the progressive redefinition of fascism is Theodor Adorno, a German Marxist intellectual and a member of the influential Institute for Social Research, otherwise known as the Frankfurt School. The Frankfurt School scholars were leftists and most of them were refugees from Nazi Germany. Some settled in Europe; others like Adorno and Herbert Marcuse came to the United States.

Adorno’s influence in defining how fascism came to be understood in America cannot be underestimated. When he and Marcuse arrived, America had just waged war against the Nazis, and after the war Nazism became the very measure of political horror and evil. Not much was known about fascism and Nazism, outside of superficial newspaper and radio coverage. In academia and the media, there was an acknowledged curiosity about what had attracted so many people to fascism and Nazism, with its attendant anti-Semitism.

Marcuse and Adorno were Jewish, and so could be expected to know about anti-Semitism and the fate of the Jews. And they were refugees from the Nazis, so they could claim to be speaking about Nazism, as it were, “from the inside.” Their work was embraced by the American Jewish Committee, which naturally felt that these two German exiles would know precisely the nature of Nazism, fascism and anti-Semitism and how to overcome them. The two Frankfurt School scholars basically shaped what was considered anti-fascist education in the United States.

In reality, the American Jewish Committee had no idea that Adorno and Marcuse had their own agenda: not to fight fascism per se, but to promote Marxism and a leftist political agenda. Marxism and fascism are quite close; they are kindred collectivist ideologies of socialism. Their common enemy is, of course, free markets and the various institutions of the private sector, including the church and the traditional family. Marxism and fascism both sought to get rid of capitalism and remake the social order. So did Marcuse, Adorno and the Frankfurt School.

Adorno decided to repackage fascism as a form of capitalism and moral traditionalism. In effect, they reinvented fascism as a phenomenon of the political right. In this preposterous interpretation, fascism was remade into two things that real fascists despised: free markets and support for a traditional moral order. With a vengeance that appears only comic in retrospect, the Frankfurt School launched a massive program to uproot nascent fascism in the United States by making people less attached to the core economic and social institutions of American society.

The classic document in this regard is Adorno’s famous F-Scale. The F stands for fascism. Adorno outlined the scale in his 1950 book The Authoritarian Personality. The basic argument of the book was that fascism is a form of authoritarianism and that the worst manifestation of authoritarianism is self-imposed repression. Fascism develops early, Adorno argued, and we can locate it in young people’s attachments to religious superstition and conventional middle-class values about family, sex and society.

With a straight face, Adorno produced a list of questions aimed at detecting fascist affinities. “Obedience and respect for authority are the most important virtues children should learn.” “Homosexuality is a particularly rotten form of delinquency.” “No insult to our honor should ever go unpunished.” “No matter how they act on the surface, men are interested in women for only one reason.” Basically, a yes answer to these questions showed that you were a budding fascist.

The underlying logic of Adorno’s position was that German and Italian fascism were, at their core, characterized by internal psychological and sexual repression. A moment’s reflection, however, shows why this position is nonsense. By and large, the social attitudes toward religion, the family and sexuality were actually quite similar across these countries, allowing for some modest variation. One might speculatively argue that the Germans of the time were more uptight than, say, the French, but who would argue that the Italians were more repressed than, say, the English?

So Adorno’s F-scale had no power to explain why fascism established itself so powerfully and destructively in Germany and Italy but not elsewhere. Most real fascists, historian A. James Gregor dryly observes in The Ideology of Fascism, “would not have made notably high scores.” Now there is one question that would in fact have uncovered fascist affinities: Do you support increasing the power of the centralized state over individuals, families, churches and the private sector? Significantly, Adorno did not include this question on the F-scale, presumably because it would have brought enthusiastic yes responses from progressives and Democrats.

Given the patent absurdity of Adorno’s antifascism, with its obviously fraudulent and pseudo-scientific F-scale, why did the mainstream of American academia fall for it? Why did they go along with Adorno and proclaim his work the definitive basis for antifascist education? The short answer is that even then academia had a strong progressive tilt, and the progressives discovered the benefits of embracing Adorno’s thesis.

Here, after all, was a German Jewish scholar declaring fascism a phenomenon of the right. Clearly he was sticking fascism on conservatives who supported capitalism and affirmed religion and traditional families. This was a lie—real fascists detest those institutions and want to destroy them—but it was a politically convenient lie.

So the progressives delightedly climbed aboard the bandwagon and cheered him on, and the cheering continues. In 2005, for example, the progressive sociologist Alan Wolfe admitted flaws in Adorno’s work but praised The Authoritarian Personality as “more relevant now” because it “seems to capture the way many Christian-right politicians view the world.”

Adorno’s value to such people is that he empowers them to say, “Down with fascism! Now let’s get rid of conservatism and expose those evil people on the right.” And today Adorno’s deception enables the left to call Trump a fascist and Republicans the modern incarnation of the Nazi Party. Only by understanding this big lie can we inoculate ourselves against it and correctly locate fascism and Nazism where they have always belonged—on the political left.

I studied Fascism under one of the leading hitorians in the field: Dr. Gilbert Allardyce.

Modern fascism evolves from the left, as it did around the world prior to WWII in both Europe and the United States, as well as Japan.

In each historic case they were nationalists, the present day American fascists are racial and ethnic nationalists. They are also socialists who want to redistribute wealth according to their nationalist protocols . All want a brave new world, a Utopia , available only through a totalitarian State.Added to their cry for historic justice are rumblings of destruction.``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````

Read here:

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2009/05/barack_obama_the_quintessentia_1.html

dictatorship of the rich (fascism) or a dictatorship of the poor (communism).”

A Hugo Chavez, for example, is a Marxist. And a Fascist. At the same time, and I don't think its even possible to separate these elements.

As a practical matter, they go together. You might be able to separate between them in the laboratory, but as you find them in nature they are a single animal.

Went to a Dinesh D’Souza speech about a year ago when he talked about the KKK’s ties to the rat party and his time in prison.

Read mannnny years ago Fascism is a form of socialism that government controls private property by regulation, communism controls private property by ownership.

That seems pretty accurate. NAZI translate to National Socialist German Worker’s Party.

The ONLY people who consider the NAZI right wing are the communist, the idiots falling for the Anti-Fa, and a bunch of goofy old ladies who think the rats care about them.

“... the present day American fascists are racial and ethnic nationalists.”

And now the pogrom is against Caucasians [#knockOUTgame]. The Left, including self-loathing whites, wants to replace those who are accustomed to freedom and prosperity with those who will accept less and come from places where questioning authority can be hazardous to one’s health. Perfect citizens for the Party of Jim Crow.

They see themselves as benevolent Lords over a dusky Third World plantation where the citizenry is deliberately kept impoverished, ignorant, disenfranchised — and dependent.

That is why they are so hysterical at the suggestion of stopping illegal immigration and having young male Muslim ‘refugees’ forced upon our neighbors.

but as you find them in nature they are a single animal.

You're right. It's about control over the middle and lower class. Both groups.

Visited family living in a communist country in the 80's. It was absolutely appalling and a major eye opener.

There was no middle class! Just the ruling elites and those who lived off their scraps.

My cousin who was a bank VP and his wife a teacher had half the living space that I had as a college student!

His dad, a railroad conductor and his wife, a school secretary, half that! 2 fricken rooms with a bathroom and phone down the hall!

This was in Yugoslavia. Russians I've met say the Yugos had a party compared to what they went through under the USSR.

Their major dept. store had one rack of dresses in Zagreb which was right next to the toilet plungers!!!!

As a youngin, this was shocking and reinforced my Russian Grandfather Anti-Bolshevics, pro-small government rants. He went through the revolution and taught me well.

You will notice that much of the Left’s efforts are aimed at destroying the middle class. Obamacare is a case in point. It flipped the majority of new jobs from being full-time to part-time. It increased the number of those dependent upon government.

The self-sufficient middle class is a natural enemy of collectivism, because they are invested in lower taxes and smaller government.

The Left’s ultimate goal is to create a medieval socio-economic structure. There is a tiny elite lording over an impoverished mass. The only difference is leadership is selected by political blood-sport rather than birth.

Many years ago, Simon Wiesenthal of the Vienna Documentation Center, send me two versions of a book/study entitled “Ex-Nazis in the East German Government (Pankow Government).

I was tracking down a suspected KGB operative who was covering up for former Nazis in several Soviet Block governments (esp. East Germany and Czechoslovakia), for an article I was working on.

The suspected KGB operative was a longtime Communist Party USA front man whose job it was involved discrediting legitimate Nazi-hunters like the Klarsfelds and Wiesenthal and fooling ABC into thinking that he was the leader in this field.

Therefor my article not only exposed his real identity but I also threw in 5 prime examples of high-ranking ex Nazi offcials, including senior SS officers, who held positions in the East German (GDR) cabinet, the police etc. One was the deputy commandant of the Sachsenhausen work/concentration camp named Ernest Grossmann.

Interestingly, this CPUSA/KGB operative quickly disappeared from the public scene re the news media and I never saw him again in any major news story about ex-Nazis.

Moral of the story: Scratch a Communist police officer of rank in the Communist Block during the Cold War and you will probably find an ex-Nazi (Gestapo or SS officer) underneath the new red uniform.

Today’s Black Bloc anarchists are nothing but Communist street thugs using a modified “anti-capitalist” Marxist program to justify their aims and methods.

Thanks to writers like Dinesh and others, Freepers are getting the real story about the Antifa, the American Nazis, and other extremists that the mainstream media DOES NOT KNOW, WANT YOU TO KNOW, OR EVEN CARE ABOUT.

So as I say to the Leftist Lunatics, “Seigy Hail” comrades. Same old, same old, new names, new flags, same old commie bullshit!

Fascism is correctly considered part of the right because it supports things like: nation, family, tradition, hierarchy, order. All of these are hated by the left.

While both may be collectivist in nature, the exact form and aims of that collectivism differs. Fascism wants to make the people as a whole (the nation) stronger while socialism wants to make individuals equal in their condition.

Economic organization is only one small part of the overall philosophies. To concentrate on that alone misses larger contexts and reasons for collectivizing. For instance fascism tends to be more permissive of religion where as the socialism tends to undermine or prohibit religious expression.

You may not like or favor fascism but it is correctly considered part of the right, just as antifa or anarchism are correctly considered part of the left.

Saying things like “antifa are the real fascists” gains you nothing and merely looks like an attempt at a cheap rhetorical trick. Antifa are probably best described as left-wing anarchists. They oppose and want to destroy, nation, order, tradition, and family. Right wing collectivists tend to want to support or impose (through state power) all of these things.

You may not like collectivism and may make clear your disdain for it, but claiming left is right and right is left makes no sense.

Interestingly the fasces is included in may official seals.

“Fascism is correctly considered part of the right because it supports things like: nation, family, tradition, hierarchy, order.”

Conservatism is based upon freedom, individual empowerment and equality under the law. Nazism certainly did not favor family or tradition; those are to be replaced by the State. The Left favors hierarchy and order, because that is needed to enforce their vision of Utopia.

“Fascism wants to make the people as a whole (the nation) stronger while socialism wants to make individuals equal in their condition.”

Both forms of collectivism hold that the individual is to be subordinated to the State. Both make sure that those who do not fit in are exiled or executed.

“Saying things like “antifa are the real fascists” gains you nothing and merely looks like an attempt at a cheap rhetorical trick. Antifa are probably best described as left-wing anarchists.”

Actually, I didn’t mention AntiFa, but now that you’ve brought them up, consider this: They initiate violence against political opponents. They cheer when their threats successfully result in a speech being canceled — as they control what others get to hear. Those are essential components of fascism.

It’s really hard to say that they are anarchists, because they piss and moan about social programs being cut. How can you be against government if you favor collectivist redistribution?

There’s a generational split on the understanding of the term “fascist” tracing to the takeover of the US system of public education by Marxists, who were deeply traumatized by being allied with National Socialism from the outset of WWII. Mussolini, Hitler, et al. were fine with them right up to the point that they turned on “Uncle Joe” Stalin. They are, however, ideological soulmates.

People under the age of, say, 40 or so have been taught that US conservatism is by nature de facto fascist, by thinly disguised International Socialists with a vested interest in conflating the matter. However, the vast majority of people being called “fascist” by quislings of the German organization Anti-Fa or more fully and correctly “Antifaschistische Aktion” are ideologically descended from those who fought both Fascism/Nazism and Marxism. Anti-Fa, by comparison, are ideologically descended from communists attempting to wrest control of the entirety of the divided German country, from the Soviet zone that came to be known as East Germany.

Look up the history of “Antifasciste Action” going back to practically the Weimar era in Germany. Their objectives and methods today are much as they were then. To call them the “Red Front” is historically accurate, as they’re not exactly shy about calling themselves that outside of the United States.

I was talking about right versus left. The conservatism you refer to is relatively new (Barry Goldwater), is a small part of the overall right, and tends to be limited to the Anglosphere.

Are you saying modern conservatism is not for nation, family, and tradition? That would make sense given its utter failure to preserve any of these.

From your description it might be true to say that conservatives are the real liberals (albeit the classical type). It may also be true to say that fascism is not part of modern American conservatism, but that does not mean it is not part of the broader right wing. Just because it does not believe in tax cuts and the free-market does mean it is left-wing. The particular focus on those narrow issues is a feature of modern conservatism and not something inherently right-wing.

Fascists, Socialists, Marxists, AntiFa, BlackLivesMatter, the KKK, the Neo-NAZIs are all collectivist statists. They all believe in government as the Alpha and Omega. They are all Leftists.

Further, the entire 2-dimensional right-left spectrum is fraudulent, set up to give the false impression that the only choices are different forms of dictatorship. I recall a college class in which the professor presented us with a spectrum that had communism on one side and fascism on the other. Democracy and freedom was presented as in the middle of those.

Freedom is not a compromise between fascism and socialism. It is completely off of that spectrum. Freedom is the optimal human condition. We are born free. Everything else is a perversion, a sickness in a given society.

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.