You will notice that my comments were directed towards "the author". Apparently it is not you who I was calling "Marxist", but the author. I hope that clears it up.
Now the only thing I wonder is, Just how long ago was this LoC definition of "fascism" written?
Seriously now, "extreme measure taken by the bourgeoisie to forestall the proletarian revolution"? I'm guessing 1940, give or take ;-)
I tend to trust what the Israeli's themselves say in publications like Ha'aratz
It's "the Israeli's" who write Ha'aratz? All of them? All Israelis get together and write Ha'aratz in a collaborative effort? Or, all Israelis agree with everything said by Ha'aretz? Ha'aretz speaks for "the Israelis", does it?
Did you mean to say, "I tend to trust what the writers of Ha'aratz say", by any chance? "The Israelis". Right.
Last summer, Ha'aratz mentioned that Israel was in fact succumbing to fascism, that the persecuted were becoming the persecutors.
"Mentioned" this, you say? They "mentioned" this, did they? Perhaps you forgot to append the essential words "in an op-ed piece".
The statement is accurate when you take into account what is happening in the Occupied Territories.
Ok, I get it, please stop piling it on. You earnestly sought a definition of "fascism" which would cover whatever it is Israel is doing in the "Occupied Territories". And you found one, the LoC definition laden with Marxist baggage. Kudos to you, and kudos again.
While you were researching stuff in the Library of Congress, perhaps you also should've pulled out the old George Orwell essay (I think it was), also presumably from the 1940's, in which he complains that the word "fascism" has lost all meaning and has come to mean, "something the speaker disagrees with". But I digress.
Again, what is reported in the United States isn't what the rest of the world hears and sees.
True. "The rest of the world", more often than not, doesn't have a free press, for one thing. Also, most of what they "know" about America is what they have learned from watching American movies, not by watching or reading news.
This is one of many reasons why the rest of the world isn't behind us on our current pet project.
You seem to be mistaken. Britain, Australia, Kuwait, Qatar. Italy, Spain, Poland, Eastern European countries. Saudi Arabia and Turkey, nominally. What is this crap about the "rest of the world" not being behind us? Did you mean to say "France and Germany and Iraq" are not behind us?
Anyway, there is a kernel of truth to what you say; where anti-Americanism and huge opposition to this war is found, it's often because the people are ill informed. (For example, there seems to be a huge amount of people who think that the United States can't fight a war without UN approval, or that the opinion of citizens in Germany or France is relevant to what orders the U.S. Commander-in-Chief gives to U.S. troops, for some reason, as if French and German people are, somehow, magically, secretly, kinda-sorta "American voters" in some weird vague abstract way. All of this, of course, is simply incorrect. I blame their media for not explaining the issue correctly.)
My objective with the article was to get people talking, debating and questioning realities and what we are told.
In other words, to pave the way for people to call Israel "fascist" (this is that "questioning realities" thing, I assume). Yeah, I got that part.
It appears you all are. Thank you.
You're welcome. And thank you, for explaining your motives in posting such a definition to the web. You indeed cleared things up for me.
It really doesn't matter if you agree with the definition or not.
Of course not, given that you're uninterested in truth, and more focused on political goals (like calling Israel "fascist") and other ways of "questioning realit[y]". (Emphasis mine.)