NeoConservatism vs Fascism

[midcan5]

Steerpike, HG was British not even sure what that other book is about? Nor what liberal means to a Brit? Liberal Fascism would be what exactly, and that is an adjective, not a noun, what he means could be something like George Bush's AmeriKa a sort of liberal state where fascism is the guiding ideology. Not relevant.

JG point is that liberalism is fascism, I didn't miss that, you did. I read enough about the book to know it is hogwash - how many times do I have to say that. Newspeak is part of fascism, you're not reading the links we provide.

quotes from author

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/11/11/latimes-jonah/

http://www.slate.com/id/2182871/

You want me to read a book by someone who can say this? "Yeah, I wanted to get into a lot of Eric Voegelin and all that in the book, but my publisher kept saying this is highbrow enough, we don't want to scare away readers. I'm very much in the Voegelin camp about how what unites what we call modern liberalism, progressivism, socialism, all of these isms, is the desire to immanentize the eschaton, the desire to sacralize life through politics, technology and the State's manipulation of technology. That was explicit in a lot of the Fascist intellectuals around Mussolini and it was explicit in a lot of the ideologues around Hitler as well. The Nazis – I shouldn't say all since it was a more ideologically heterodox movement than you might think – a lot of them wanted to replace the Bible with Mein Kampf, to change Christmas carols and call Hitler “the Redeemer” and so forth."

Puleeezz...pure unadulterated nonsense

http://voxday.blogspot.com/2008/01/interview-with-jonah-goldberg.html

 

[Steerpike]

Steerpike, HG was British not even sure what that other book is about?

I know he was British. There was actually communication across the Atlantic at the time, if you can believe such a thing.

I'm looking at your links now. The first one has nothing to do with the substance of the book I mentioned, so that's a straw man. The second one at least seems to be on point....

 

[Ravi]

Did you get a chance to find some examples?

 

[Steerpike]

Did you get a chance to find some examples?

Yes, but I haven't had time to type then into a computer because it's been too busy of a day. I don't expect to get a fair response to them anyway (I think the issue has been pre-judged, right?), so you'll have to wait until I get home this evening to get it.

 

[Ravi]

One would be fine. I'd just be interested in seeing what he has to say. I admit, I think the guy is a total asshole but that doesn't mean he can't make a point.

 

[Steerpike]

Midcan:

Looks to me like Noah at Slate agrees in essence with the historical argument Goldberg makes about the origins of fascism, but disagrees as to how that term is applied by Goldberg moving forward from that point.

Can't say I disagree...I believe I've already said something to similar effect. The truth it seems to me falls somewhere in between with respect to the influence of fascist ideology on events in this country in the 1930s, and I think that influence was definitely there. Goldberg makes too much hay of this, particular when he extends his arguments into the latter half of the 20th century. Noah, on the other hand, while recognizing the validity of some of Goldberg's initial premise, gives short shrift to what comes after. He really doesn't have much to say about it in relation to what is presented by Goldberg, and after he acknowledges that Goldberg has provided considerable research to support his views, you'd think Noah could do a bit more. Not in a Slate article, but somewhere.

 

[Steerpike]

One would be fine. I'd just be interested in seeing what he has to say. I admit, I think the guy is a total asshole but that doesn't mean he can't make a point.

Ok. I have the book out and looked up a few things last night re: the historical context, which is where I think Goldberg makes good points. I don't think his extension into the present time is so good. I'll try to post examples tonight when I get home. I have to have a dinner meeting with a client so I'm not sure what time that will be.

 

[midcan5]

Steerpike, my point is liberalism and fascism are different animals, I do not care how much research JD put into his book, he is simply being peevish as the quote below indicates. His research may be valid but his conclusions makes no sense to anyone familiar with both ideas.

"National Review editor Jonah Goldberg says he is fed up with liberals calling him a fascist. Who can blame him? Hurling the calumny "fascist!" at American conservatives is not fair. But Goldberg's response is no better. He lobs the f-word back at liberals, though after each of his many attacks he is at pains to say that they are not "evil" fascists, they just share a family resemblance. It's family because American liberals are descendants of the early 20th-century Progressives, who in turn shared intellectual roots with fascists. He adds that both fascists and liberals seek to use the state to solve the problems of modern society."

The last sentence is as intellectual as his thesis, they do both use the state but boy, which would you want to live under, an FDR world or a Mussolini world. And notice how the state operates under Bush, curious he didn't mention him more.

Liberalism is about the individual and about liberty, neither fits with the big F.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberalism/

I do find it immensely ironic that his quotation sin the link below are very close to fascist.

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/11/11/latimes-jonah/

quote above from here
[ame]http://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Fascism-American-Mussolini-Politics/dp/0385511841/ref=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1207261185&sr=1-1[/ame]

 

[midcan5]

"A new barbarism, illiteracy and impoverishment of language, new kinds of poverty, merciless remodeling of opinion by media, immiseration of the mind, obsolescence of the soul. Massified, standardizing modes, in every area of life, relentlessly re-enact the actual control program of modernity. Capitalism did not create our world; the machine did." Jean-François Lyotard


HG Wells died 1946. 'He was an outspoken socialist, his later works becoming increasingly political and didactic.' Orwell wrote this in 1944.

"By ‘Fascism’ they mean, roughly speaking, something cruel, unscrupulous, arrogant, obscurantist, anti-liberal and anti-working-class. Except for the relatively small number of Fascist sympathizers, almost any English person would accept ‘bully’ as a synonym for ‘Fascist’. That is about as near to a definition as this much-abused word has come."*

It demonstrates the confusion an idea can cause. If one can make fascism liberal one can make conservative socialism or communism utopia or democracy dictatorship. Education matters, see my thread on the Ideological Animal.

http://www.orwell.ru/library/articles/As_I_Please/english/efasc

Hallmarks of Fascism

anti-intellectualism
repudiation of rationalism and reason, emotion over reason
leader discovers and represents the will of the people
the state over the individual
nation supremacy, nationalism, national greatness
social Darwinism and constant struggle
action for actions sake, violence to strengthen nation
corporation-state unity
faith in the nation and the leader
hero worship
police state, crushing of opposition
National Socialism - add racism to fascism

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Fascism/Philosophic_Roots_Ideology.html

 

[AllieBaba]

Wow! It sounds exactly like what the Bush administration has been up to...is Bush a vegetarian, also?

The entire idea that liberal has any ties to nazism is insulting to America. The founders were the biggest liberals of all time. Are you claiming we were founded on nazi pricinples?

I imagine you loved this nimrods book.

No, the Bush admin hasn't eroded the power of the people, nor attempted to do so at any time.

Do you know what the Acronym "Nazi" transates to? It's a socialist party. Today's liberal party is a socialist party.

Our founding fathers were liberals at THAT time, which meant they had liberal views compared to the views of Tories, and those committed to a monarchy. Crack and book and see what that means. But if you plopped them down in today's political society, they would fall far to the right of the Conservative Right.

 

[Ravi]

I suggest you find yourself a dictionary. Liberal is liberal, socialist is socialist and neither are nazis just because the nazis used the world socialist in their name.

As for Bush, I always chuckle when he talks about promoting a liberal democracy in Iraq. TFF!

 

[AllieBaba]

Good grief. The word "Nazi" is an ACRONYM using the letters identifying a SOCIALIST party. In other words, Nazis are socialists. They identified themselves as such. Using "acronym finder" on the internet, you will find:
"What does NAZI stand for?
Nationalsozialist (member of NSDAP)"

See the word "sozialist"?


Today's liberalism = socialism. Different words for different, identical sides of the same nut. Individuality downplayed, big government supported, restrictive laws, etc.

 

[Ravi]

Do I need to repeat myself?

 

[jillian]

The National Socialist party described itself as socialist, and, at the time, conservative opponents such as the Industrial Employers Association described it as "totalitarian, terrorist, conspiratorial, and socialist."[7]

Among the key elements of Nazism were anti-parliamentarism, ethnic nationalism, racism, collectivism,[8] eugenics, antisemitism, opposition to economic liberalism and political liberalism,[9] a racially-defined and conspiratorial view of finance capitalism,[10] anti-communism, and totalitarianism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism

 

[BrianH]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism

Though mostly conservative myself, Nazism unfortunately is a result of far-right radical conservatism.

 

[jillian]

Though mostly conservative myself, Nazism unfortunately is a result of far-right radical conservatism.

Yep... which makes comments that it was "liberalism" (not your comments, obviouosly) kind of baseless and silly... and absurdly irrational....partisan for the sake of partisanship.

 

[BrianH]

Yep... which makes comments that it was "liberalism" (not your comments, obviouosly) kind of baseless and silly... and absurdly irrational....partisan for the sake of partisanship.

lol, yeah...liberals have been accused of abusing the term and using it quite frequently....but the actual fascism/nazism is something that reflects a far radical-right ideology.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

If you take the Right-Left line and connect both ends together so you have a circle instead of a straight line, you will find that the far left and the far right are next to each other.

 

[mattskramer]

If you take the Right-Left line and connect both ends together so you have a circle instead of a straight line, you will find that the far left and the far right are next to each other.

Geometry being compartable to Politics -

 

[BrianH]

If you take the Right-Left line and connect both ends together so you have a circle instead of a straight line, you will find that the far left and the far right are next to each other.

HMMMMMMM........ very interesting.....