"Far Right" can't win for GOP? ...BS!

[Liminal]

Which only goes to show that right wing politics all stems from Communism.

Don't you think you've huffed quite enough Easy-Off for one day?

No, really, I think you may be on to something here. The Communist origins right wing politics, an interesting theory, one you've clearly put a lot of thought into.

 

[Skylar]

[
And still not a word about actual fascism. You avoid it like it were the plague.....despite all the empty crowing about how much knowledge you imagine you possess on the topic.

I don't avoid the discussion that you run from. Fascism is a system that uses a dictator with complete power, belligerent aggressive nationalism, state sanctioned racism, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, forcible suppression of the press, and strict regimenting all industry and commerce.

And we don't have that. Nor is anyone of significance advocating such a system in any political party. Making your 'random pejorative' usage of the term yet another ignorant blunder of the basic meaning of the term.

Try again. This time without that tail tucked between quivering haunches.

I notice that despite your claim that you had offered in depth analysis, you have failed to point out where.

Reading comprehension isn't your strongest suit, is it?

I don't avoid the discussion that you run from. Fascism is a system that uses a dictator with complete power, belligerent aggressive nationalism, state sanctioned racism, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, forcible suppression of the press, and strict regimenting all industry and commerce.

And we don't have that. Nor is anyone of significance advocating such a system in any political party. Making your 'random pejorative' usage of the term yet another ignorant blunder of the basic meaning of the term.

I've offered you a specific definition of fascism with specific characteristics and compared it to what we have now and what is being advocated now by any member of significance of either party.

Your claims just don't hold up. You either don't know what fascism means....or don't care. As you're using it as a generic pejorative. Which it isn't.

Fact: Fascism is an authoritarian system that includes a centrally planned and managed economy, with the state in control of the means of production.

Says who? Quote your source. Mine is the dictionary.

Wait a minute, we just saw that Fascism is state control of the means of production?

And by 'saw' you mean you just typed the claim without any source or reference to anyone but yourself?

Odd that. Why don't you let us 'see' what your source for the definition of fascism is. As you citing you really isn't evidence of anything.

{Mussolini's fascism took another step at this time with the advent of the Corporative State, a supposedly pragmatic arrangement under which economic decisions were made by councils composed of workers and employers who represented trades and industries. By this device the presumed economic rivalry between employers and employees was to be resolved, preventing the class struggle from undermining the national struggle. In the Corporative State, for example, strikes would be illegal and labor disputes would be mediated by a state agency.}

Fascism by Sheldon Richman The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics Library of Economics and Liberty

No wonder you had to be pressed to give us your source. That's a libertarian website. Its owned, funded and run by the Liberty Fund, a libertarian non-profit founded by a libertarian industralist. The author is a libertarian and market anarchist as well as vice president and 'senior fellow' at the Future of Freedom Foundation which has received (and no, I'm not joking) the 'Ron Paul Liberty Media Award". With this from its 'About Us' page:

The Future of Freedom Foundation was founded in 1989 by FFF president Jacob Hornberger with the aim of establishing an educational foundation that would advance an uncompromising case for libertarianism in the context of both foreign and domestic policy.

About FFF - The Future of Freedom Foundation

Do you have a source on fascism that isn't whorishly pushing a libertarian political ideology? No wonder you've been so evasive on where you get your ideas on fascism.

Of course not, you have no knowledge of what you speak.

Or more accurately, I don't use flagrantly libertarian websites, libertarian funded foundations and former Cato Institute writers as my primary sources on fascism. All you'll get is someone whose goal is to 'advance an uncompromising case for libertarianism' as Mr. Richman's own website states.

That's not a recipe for anything but naked advocacy. Not accuracy.

Poor Skyler - so far out of her depth, yet so thick as to not have a clue....

Do you ever actually look at sources that don't already ape what you believe? Or do you automatically dismiss anyone who isn't a libertarian as being a credible source?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Everyone feels they aren't hard core anything. They feel they're moderates.

Especially when they aren't hardcore anything and no one can present any examples where they are! I keep asking for some examples.... still not a thing!

Conservatism is a philosophy and not an ideology. That means, conservatives are mostly not ideologues. They vary widely in their personal views on singular issues, they don't follow a template like liberal ideologues.

Nonsense and you can't give evidence to counter that. Your conservative philosophy is no more than nonsensical ideology that America rejects. Reagan would have turned you out in the alley.

Where are your examples? Still missing? What do I support that Reagan would have opposed? Explain what you think "conservative ideology" is and why you think it's radical or extreme?

You don't get "just once more" when we all know that you are far right and reactionary in your actions. You would not vote for RR, and you don't get to deflect.

The far right cannot win this election for the GOP without pulling the center.

 

[JakeStarkey]

[
And still not a word about actual fascism. You avoid it like it were the plague.....despite all the empty crowing about how much knowledge you imagine you possess on the topic.

I don't avoid the discussion that you run from. Fascism is a system that uses a dictator with complete power, belligerent aggressive nationalism, state sanctioned racism, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, forcible suppression of the press, and strict regimenting all industry and commerce.

And we don't have that. Nor is anyone of significance advocating such a system in any political party. Making your 'random pejorative' usage of the term yet another ignorant blunder of the basic meaning of the term.

Try again. This time without that tail tucked between quivering haunches.

I notice that despite your claim that you had offered in depth analysis, you have failed to point out where.

Instead, you spew more ad hom.

Fact: Fascism is an authoritarian system that inculdes a centrally planned and managed economy, with the state in control of the means of production.

What is socialism?

Full Definition of SOCIALISM
1
: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

Wait a minute, we just saw that Fascism is state control of the means of production?

You ignorant leftists claim that fascism and socialism are opposites, yet both are based on government (state) conttol of the means of production. How can this be? Simple, rather than "opposites," Fascism is in fact a form of socialism.

Mussolini was a Bolshevik, editor of Avanti! - the Bolshevik newspaper of Italy. In Il Fascisti, Mussolini wrote that he became disenfranchised by the obvious failures of Marxism, and would "fix" socialism. The lack of a profit motive was clear to him as a leading cause of failure "Man will not work for his own injury" wrote Il Duce. Mussolini was dedicated to fixing the flaws of Marx, not establishing free markets.

Laughing at your ignorance seems fitting, yet ignorance spreads like a venereal disease. The big lie that fascism is somehow "right wing" found fertile ground in the left, where questioning dogma and seeking knowledge are rare - to the point of non-existence. So now I answer the big lies.

Which only goes to show that right wing politics all stems from Communism.

You are teaching at Moscow University.

 

[Skylar]

Fascism is therefore opposed to Socialism to which unity within the State (which amalgamates classes into a single economic and ethical reality) is unknown, and which sees in history nothing but the class struggle. Fascism is likewise opposed to trade unionism as a class weapon, but when brought within the orbit of the State, Fascism recognises the real needs which gave rise to socialism and trade-unionism, giving them due weight in the guild or corporative system in which divergent interests are coordinated and harmonised in the unity of the State.

The Doctrine of Fascism
Benito Mussolini

So Sheldon Richmond says that Fascism is socialism. While Mussolini says that Fascism is opposed to Socialism. With Mussolini going into elaborate denunciation and refutation of socialism, its doctrine, its motivations and and its practice.

If you've read the Doctrine of Fascism, as you claimed, why would ignore and omit this wildly relevant quote from the work? Either you didn't read the Doctrine of Fascism, and are just mechanically aping whatever your favorite libertarian think tank tells you to think. Or you did read it and inentionally omitted pasages that you know obliterate your claims.

And it gets so much worse:

"Granted that the 19th century was the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy, this does not mean that the 20th century must also be the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy. Political doctrines pass; nations remain. We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the 'right', a Fascist century. "

For fuck's sake, Mussolini straight up says that Fascism is 'tending to the right'. And you still insist that Fascism isn't right wing?

Now either you knew all of this, and intentionally withheld it to lead us to believe something Mussolini explicitly refutes. Or you didn't have a fucking clue what you were talking about.

Which is it......dishonesty or hopeless ignorance? I win either way.

 

[Boss]

You don't get "just once more" when we all know that you are far right and reactionary in your actions. You would not vote for RR, and you don't get to deflect.

The far right cannot win this election for the GOP without pulling the center.

What? You mean someone changed the rules of debate where you can accuse me of anything you like without any evidence and I am supposed to just shut up and take it? When the fuck do you think that happened, Chuckles? I don't give a damn what you think "we all know" it's pretty apparent you don't know very much.

All through this thread you've had the chance to tell us what is "radical" about conservatism, what is "far right" other than "conservative" and how my views are different than Ronald Reagan. You have simply continued to fail. All you can do is keep on lying and trying to draw attention to yourself like a dummycrat rodeo clown.

The only reason I wouldn't vote for Ronald Reagan in 2016 is because he's dead and not running! IF he were alive and running, I would vote for him again just like I did in 1980 and 1988 when I worked on his fucking campaigns! So would MILLIONS of other conservatives who did not vote for McCain or Romney and won't vote for Jeb Bush or Chris Christie.

Newsflash to any Elite Republican reading this thread: Here is a devout Socialist who wants to change America into the Soviet Union run by Hillary Clinton... He is telling you that we need to run another fucking moderate for president in 2016! Do you really want to go with HIS advice here? Really???

 

[Flopper]

There's no such thing as a 'Far-Right'.

One either Recognizes, Respects, Defends and Adheres to the Principles that define America, or one does not and since there's no such thing as "REALLY Recognizing, Respecting, Defending, and Adhering to American Principles, well... you know.

The thing to understand however is that where one runs a campaign resting upon those principles... one wins. And that is because those principles speak to the human soul.

I haven't noticed that happening in my lifetime.

 

[Agit8r]

Okay, to start with... I take considerable exception to the left-wing incarnation of "the far right" because it essentially means "conservative." In a political context, the "far right" would be fascists or neo-confederates like Tim McVeigh.

Tomahto, tomayto:

Jacobin Reason Sneak Peek at the 2016 GOP Platform

 

[Boss]

I haven't noticed that happening in my lifetime.

...as he eats the Cheetos crumb which fell from his belly button!

 

[Skylar]

Newsflash to any Elite Republican reading this thread: Here is a devout Socialist who wants to change America into the Soviet Union run by Hillary Clinton... He is telling you that we need to run another fucking moderate for president in 2016! Do you really want to go with HIS advice here? Really???

There are no where near enough 'elite republicans' to win a presidential election. Or even a GOP primary. Your focus in inherently exclusionary. Its what's turned the 'Big Tent Party' into the a self contradictory mess that is trying to purge itself of 'RINOs' while its desperately trying to court their votes.

Republicans are by far the most sympathetic audience your ilk have. And even among them, you can't convince a plurality to vote your way. And yet you honestly think that you're going to see better support among moderates, liberals and independents than you will among the GOP?

Laughing......Nope! That's a straight up math fail there.

 

[Borillar]

Conservatives did have a voice in every election I cited. The more conservative 'voices' weren't nominated.

You claim they could have done better, or even won.

Well?

Name who could have won...

No... they didn't have a voice. I didn't claim they could have done better or even won. You're asking me to give you examples of someone who didn't exist and I can't do that.

If Conservatives had someone like Ronald Reagan who could have articulated Conservative philosophy, they would have won in a landslide over Obama or any other liberal lefty. The fact is, they had no such person on the national stage. They had a few who tried but failed because they weren't articulate enough. I can't change reality, it is what it is. Your demands that I present some alternate reality that never happened is kind of stupid.

After the disastrous presidency of W, there is nobody the repugs could have trotted out that could have won in 2008, no matter how right wing nutty. Even Rush Limbaugh and the ghost of Reagan couldn't have pulled it off.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The OP is yours, you can't defend it, so you accuse me of changing "the rules of debate where you can accuse me of anything you like without any evidence and I am supposed to just shut up and take it?" You are supposed to tell us with evidence why you are not far right, yet all you have done is confirm it.

You don't get "just once more" as a deflection, bub.

"IF he were alive and running, I would vote for him again just like I did in 1980 and 1988" is a lie. You would not vote for deficits and tax hikes and so on and so forth. Stop lying. Mitt, McCain, etc., are much more conservative than RR and you have admitted you would not vote for them.

I am a devoted and devout Republican who will not let far right reactionary wanks like Boss give us another far right losing candidate. Not ever going to happen.

 

[zeke]

What? You mean someone changed the rules of debate where you can accuse me of anything you like without any evidence and I am supposed to just shut up and take it?

Another idiot who thinks this is a "debate" forum. Good god dude. Find out what a real debate is. And this ain't it.
But at LEAST you seem to understand that yes, you can make any claim that you want, are not required to prove what you claim and after you have been shown to be wrong, you can come back and make that very same claim all over again. Of course it will still be wrong. But so what. This is the Internet. Not a "debate" society.

The only reason I wouldn't vote for Ronald Reagan in 2016 is because he's dead and not running! IF he were alive and running, I would vote for him again just like I did in 1980 and 1988 when I worked on his fucking campaigns!

And you worked on his campaign and voted for him in 1988? WTF? Was you trying to give Ronnie a third term or what? LMAO. Debate that.

 

[thanatos144]

[
Alas, its my ability to associate ideas with words that is such a problem for you and your amusing rhetorical blunders. You clearly don't know what fascism is. You use the term as a general pejorative, void of any applicable meaning or understanding.

How could something never demonstrated be a problem for me?

Your "logic" is flawed.

Which is made all the more funny when you start babbling about only you are an 'actual liberal'. As if the term doesn't have another meaning in modern parlance. It would be as foolish as arguing that faggots can only mean a bundle of sticks. The meaning of terms change.

Though to the best of my knowledge, neither fascism nor socialism have yet acquired new meanings that align with your random pejorative 'poopyhead' usage.

You know that the hate sites told you "fascism is right wing." That is the extent of your knowledge of fascism. You certainly have not read "Il Fascisti," noor did you even realize it existed. I have read it. (in English).

You don't have the slightest knowledge of Benito Mussolini or what his views were;

For instance, prior to forming the Fascisti; Mussolini was head of what;

a.) the reelect George W. Bush campaign
b.) the Italian Bolshevik Party
c.) the Tea Party
d.) the campaign staff of Ted Cruz

You don't know the answer - because you are entirely ignorant of the subject, as you are ignorant of most subjects. You serve the party by blindly chanting memes, there is no meaning to you, you are but a mindless drone.

Says who?

Anyone with an education beyond grammar school.

Not much of a historian are you. Fascism was a right wing populist movement. There is no dispute about that.

Except it was a left wing socialist who started it.... revisionist history you spout proves you have lost

When then, the logical conclusion of your reasoning must be, that all right wing political movements are based upon socialist ideals.

Lol how sad. .. it is all socialism. Large central government nanny state..... your ideology leads to death and slavery

 

[thanatos144]

The OP is yours, you can't defend it, so you accuse me of changing "the rules of debate where you can accuse me of anything you like without any evidence and I am supposed to just shut up and take it?" You are supposed to tell us with evidence why you are not far right, yet all you have done is confirm it.

You don't get "just once more" as a deflection, bub.

"IF he were alive and running, I would vote for him again just like I did in 1980 and 1988" is a lie. You would not vote for deficits and tax hikes and so on and so forth. Stop lying. Mitt, McCain, etc., are much more conservative than RR and you have admitted you would not vote for them.

I am a devoted and devout Republican who will not let far right reactionary wanks like Boss give us another far right losing candidate. Not ever going to happen.

We all know you are a joke democrat fakey so why keep up the front?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Buncha far right boneheads.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I've offered you a specific definition of fascism with specific characteristics and compared it to what we have now and what is being advocated now by any member of significance of either party.

You've attempted to erect a straw man, and failed miserably.

The ACA is a fascist system, but only covers 1/6th of our economy.

Your claims just don't hold up. You either don't know what fascism means....or don't care. As you're using it as a generic pejorative. Which it isn't.

The problem you have is they aren't my claims, they are the words of Benito Mussolini.

Says who? Quote your source. Mine is the dictionary.

I'm not sure why you Soros drones think that demands to prove that water is wet are effective rhetorical tools.

You claim the dictionary as your source, I can only surmise then that you are illiterate.

{
Full Definition of FASCISM
1
often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
}

Fascism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

And by 'saw' you mean you just typed the claim without any source or reference to anyone but yourself?

Illiterate fer sure.

{The son of a socialist blacksmith, Mussolini believed in government ownership and government control of the economy. He became outraged when socialists opposed Italian entry in World War I, because he figured that Italy could emerge from the war with an empire like Great Britain, France and Germany. So he blended nationalism with socialism and came up with economic fascism. This involved private ownership and government control of the economy. Individuals continued to own their property and their businesses, but without the right to do what they wanted. Government told everybody what they must do and not do.}


The Economic Leadership Secrets of Benito Mussolini

You have not a hint of a clue what you spew about.

Odd that. Why don't you let us 'see' what your source for the definition of fascism is. As you citing you really isn't evidence of anything.

That you lack the capacity to click a link and comprehend what you read is hardly indicative of anyone "hiding" anything

No wonder you had to be pressed to give us your source. That's a libertarian website. Its owned, funded and run by the Liberty Fund, a libertarian non-profit founded by a libertarian industralist. The author is a libertarian and market anarchist as well as vice president and 'senior fellow' at the Future of Freedom Foundation which has received (and no, I'm not joking) the 'Ron Paul Liberty Media Award". With this from its 'About Us' page:

Horrors.

If it's not ThinkProgress you simply won't accept it!

Of course as you engage in the logical fallacy of attacking the source, you fail to note that the information is consistent with all legitimate sources and the Libertarian think tanks are consistently the most accurate sources available.

Do you have a source on fascism that isn't whorishly pushing a libertarian political ideology? No wonder you've been so evasive on where you get your ideas on fascism.

Do you have a thought that isn't whorishly provided by George Soros and the leftist hate sites?

Or more accurately, I don't use flagrantly libertarian websites, libertarian funded foundations and former Cato Institute writers as my primary sources on fascism. All you'll get is someone whose goal is to 'advance an uncompromising case for libertarianism' as Mr. Richman's own website states.

That's not a recipe for anything but naked advocacy. Not accuracy.

Of course, you're wholly unbiased in your propagation of the big lie.

Do you ever actually look at sources that don't already ape what you believe? Or do you automatically dismiss anyone who isn't a libertarian as being a credible source?

Ad hom is the extent of your repartee.

 

[Uncensored2008]

So Sheldon Richmond says that Fascism is socialism. While Mussolini says that Fascism is opposed to Socialism. With Mussolini going into elaborate denunciation and refutation of socialism, its doctrine, its motivations and and its practice.

If you've read the Doctrine of Fascism, as you claimed, why would ignore and omit this wildly relevant quote from the work? Either you didn't read the Doctrine of Fascism, and are just mechanically aping whatever your favorite libertarian think tank tells you to think. Or you did read it and inentionally omitted pasages that you know obliterate your claims.

And it gets so much worse:

Mussolini became disenchanted with Marxism after his imprisonment in Switzerland. I stated this many pages ago, you are slowly catching up. It's amusing you think this is some sort of "gotcha," which is simply the reality that you're still 50 laps behind the rest of the pack.

"Granted that the 19th century was the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy, this does not mean that the 20th century must also be the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy. Political doctrines pass; nations remain. We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the 'right', a Fascist century. "

For fuck's sake, Mussolini straight up says that Fascism is 'tending to the right'. And you still insist that Fascism isn't right wing?[/quote]

I'm insisting you are an ignorant buffoon who doesn't have a basic grasp of terms.

For instance, you think that when Mussolini speaks against "liberalism" he is opposing leftist authoritarians like you.

{The Liberal State is a mask behind which there is no face; it is a scaffolding behind which there is no building.}

But is he opposing totalitarians who seek strong social and economic regimentation?

Let's look;

{The keystone of the Fascist doctrine is its conception of the State, of its essence, its functions, and its aims. For Fascism the State is absolute, individuals and groups relative.
} - Barack Obama

Nah, it was Il Duce - but could easily fit in any Obama speech. The idea that the state is absolute is the one the American democratic party promotes, so if Mussolini were considering the radical left to be "liberals" this would make no sense.

{The development into maturity of classical liberalism took place before and after the French Revolution in Britain, and was based on the following core concepts: classical economics, free trade,laissez-faire government with minimal intervention and taxation and a balanced budget. Classical liberals were committed to individualism, liberty and equal rights. The primary intellectual influences on 19th century liberal trends were those of Adam Smith and the classical economists, and Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill.}

Liberalism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Free trade? Laissez Faire? These are the opposite of what you promote, and the opposite of what Mussolini supported. The centralized, autocratic state that you promote is exactly what Mussolini supported. The use of private corporations favored by the state, provided legal monopoly and coercive marketing is the foundation of both Mussolini's third phase. and Obama's ACA (fascist care.)

Now either you knew all of this, and intentionally withheld it to lead us to believe something Mussolini explicitly refutes. Or you didn't have a fucking clue what you were talking about.

Which is it......dishonesty or hopeless ignorance? I win either way.

The issue is that you are scrambling to hate sites in hopes of finding something to support the big lie, you have no actual knowledge of the subject. The result is that you look like a fool, which in fact you are.

 

[Liminal]

I've offered you a specific definition of fascism with specific characteristics and compared it to what we have now and what is being advocated now by any member of significance of either party.

You've attempted to erect a straw man, and failed miserably.

The ACA is a fascist system, but only covers 1/6th of our economy.

Your claims just don't hold up. You either don't know what fascism means....or don't care. As you're using it as a generic pejorative. Which it isn't.

The problem you have is they aren't my claims, they are the words of Benito Mussolini.

Says who? Quote your source. Mine is the dictionary.

I'm not sure why you Soros drones think that demands to prove that water is wet are effective rhetorical tools.

You claim the dictionary as your source, I can only surmise then that you are illiterate.

{
Full Definition of FASCISM
1
often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
}

Fascism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

And by 'saw' you mean you just typed the claim without any source or reference to anyone but yourself?

Illiterate fer sure.

{The son of a socialist blacksmith, Mussolini believed in government ownership and government control of the economy. He became outraged when socialists opposed Italian entry in World War I, because he figured that Italy could emerge from the war with an empire like Great Britain, France and Germany. So he blended nationalism with socialism and came up with economic fascism. This involved private ownership and government control of the economy. Individuals continued to own their property and their businesses, but without the right to do what they wanted. Government told everybody what they must do and not do.}


The Economic Leadership Secrets of Benito Mussolini

You have not a hint of a clue what you spew about.

Odd that. Why don't you let us 'see' what your source for the definition of fascism is. As you citing you really isn't evidence of anything.

That you lack the capacity to click a link and comprehend what you read is hardly indicative of anyone "hiding" anything

No wonder you had to be pressed to give us your source. That's a libertarian website. Its owned, funded and run by the Liberty Fund, a libertarian non-profit founded by a libertarian industralist. The author is a libertarian and market anarchist as well as vice president and 'senior fellow' at the Future of Freedom Foundation which has received (and no, I'm not joking) the 'Ron Paul Liberty Media Award". With this from its 'About Us' page:

Horrors.

If it's not ThinkProgress you simply won't accept it!

Of course as you engage in the logical fallacy of attacking the source, you fail to note that the information is consistent with all legitimate sources and the Libertarian think tanks are consistently the most accurate sources available.

Do you have a source on fascism that isn't whorishly pushing a libertarian political ideology? No wonder you've been so evasive on where you get your ideas on fascism.

Do you have a thought that isn't whorishly provided by George Soros and the leftist hate sites?

Or more accurately, I don't use flagrantly libertarian websites, libertarian funded foundations and former Cato Institute writers as my primary sources on fascism. All you'll get is someone whose goal is to 'advance an uncompromising case for libertarianism' as Mr. Richman's own website states.

That's not a recipe for anything but naked advocacy. Not accuracy.

Of course, you're wholly unbiased in your propagation of the big lie.

Do you ever actually look at sources that don't already ape what you believe? Or do you automatically dismiss anyone who isn't a libertarian as being a credible source?

Ad hom is the extent of your repartee.

There are no legitimate historians anywhere who would characterize fascism as anything but a right wing populist movement. No actual scholars of history have ever described Fascism as a left wing movement, never would, never could have.

 

[Skylar]

So Sheldon Richmond says that Fascism is socialism. While Mussolini says that Fascism is opposed to Socialism. With Mussolini going into elaborate denunciation and refutation of socialism, its doctrine, its motivations and and its practice.

If you've read the Doctrine of Fascism, as you claimed, why would ignore and omit this wildly relevant quote from the work? Either you didn't read the Doctrine of Fascism, and are just mechanically aping whatever your favorite libertarian think tank tells you to think. Or you did read it and inentionally omitted pasages that you know obliterate your claims.

And it gets so much worse:

Mussolini became disenchanted with Marxism after his imprisonment in Switzerland. I stated this many pages ago, you are slowly catching up. It's amusing you think this is some sort of "gotcha," which is simply the reality that you're still 50 laps behind the rest of the pack.

Its amusing that you still think that your personal opinion on Fascism is more authoritative than Mussolini, the writer of the Doctrine of Fascism. You and your libertarian, Cato institute writer say one thing.

Mussolini says another. Now why would I ignore Benito and instead believe you?

And of course, Fascism has nothing to do with our current system. Fascism involves belligerent nationalism, state sanctioned racism, dictatorship, violent suppression of opposition and the press, and stringent controls on the economy and society.

We simply don't have that. Making your accusations of Fascism all the more uselessly ignorant. Again, you're using the term 'Fascism' as some generic pejorative, without any consideration for its actual meaning.

That's not how words work.

What is amusing is that if you read the passage in context, you see that most of Mussolini's criticism is of Lenin.

Actually, his criticism focuses primarily on Socialism's economic focus as the driver of history. Mussolini dedicates about a page and half to the dismantling of the entire idea and articulates his rejection of the philosophical basis of Socialism. And rejects both liberalism (classic liberalism, not our current use of the term) and socialism.

He never once mentions Lenin. And you know that. You know that 'in context' there's no mention of Lenin. You know that your claims are the purest bullshit. Your entire argument relies on your reader not having read the Doctrine.

For anyone who has (like myself) your fallacious nonsense is comically easy to refute. As you're literally making this shit up as you go along.