The liberal march towards EXTREME fascism

[Tehon]

Friedrich Hayek clearly made the distinction back during the time of fascism (the 1930's) that it was exclusively a left wing ideology.

I can't really link to his book - you just have to go buy it and then actually read it. About the best I can do is quote for you and add a link to the book:

“Some of the most damning, in fact, come from men who not long before had themselves been members of the Labour party. Thus Mr. Ivor Thomas, in a book apparently intended to explain why he left that party, comes to the conclusion that “from the point of view of fundamental human liberties there is little to choose between communism, socialism, and national socialism. They all are examples of the collectivist or totalitarian state . . . in its essentials not only is completed socialism the same as communism but it hardly differs from fascism.”

“Few are ready to recognize that the rise of fascism and naziism was not a reaction against the socialist trends of the preceding period but a necessary outcome of those tendencies”

“Have not the parties of the Left as well as those of the Right been deceived by believing that the National Socialist party was in the service of the capitalists and opposed to all forms of socialism?”

“While “progressives” in England and elsewhere were still deluding themselves that communism and fascism represented opposite poles, more and more people began to ask themselves whether these new tyrannies were not the outcome of the same tendencies.”

Excerpt From: F. A. Hayek. “The Road to Serfdom.” University of Chicago Press, 2010-04-06. iBooks. This material may be protected by copyright.

Check out this book on the iBooks Store: https://itun.es/us/vAe3H.l

It literally continues through out the entire book but these few passages are more than enough proof. I highly recommend reading it. It is a comprehensive look at economics and where those systems ultimately lead to.

Perfect. The Road to Serfdom was written in the '40s, FYI.

“Have not the parties of the Left as well as those of the Right been deceived by believing that the National Socialist party was in the service of the capitalists and opposed to all forms of socialism?”

He clearly believes that there is more than one form of socialism and that not all socialism is connected to the left, as evidenced by this quote from the same book.

"It is disquieting to see in England and the United States today the same drawing together of forces and nearly the same contempt of all that is liberal in the old sense. ‘Conservative socialism’ was the slogan under which a large number of writers prepared the atmosphere in which National Socialism succeeded. It is ‘conservative socialism’ which is the dominant trend among us now."

 

[P@triot]

I can explain why fascism is usually associated with the right.

- The original fascists often affiliated themselves with the right, while being critical of communists and what Mussolini described as modern individualist liberals.

But that simply isn't true. At all. Adolf Hitler never "affiliated himself with the right". Progressives have simply come to that conclusion because he turned against the Soviets in the middle of World War II. Well guess what, given enough time, he also would have turned on Benito Mussolini.

He was a maniacal dictator. People like that do not allow their political views to restrain them. They don't think to themselves "well gee....Joseph Stalin is a fellow dictator....we should play nice together and become good friends". You can't apply rational thinking to irrational psychopaths.

 

[P@triot]

I can explain why fascism is usually associated with the right.

- Mussolini rejected egalitarianism and typical left wing positions on social equality. Class division is a tenet in fascist thought.

Yeah....and class division is exclusively a "tenet" of left-wing ideology. Why do you think the left spends all day on this board crying about "wealth inequality" and the right simply rolls their eyes and says "more class warfare"?

So far you're 0-2. You're trying to make the right take responsibility for the most basic forms of left-wing ideology under the guise that they are fascist views and that fascism is right-wing.

 

[toxicmedia]

I could literally strangle Jonah Goldberg, and Glenn Beck, for starting this ultra nonsensical faulty analogy between Liberals and Fascists. Glenn Beck's attempt to rewrite the political spectrum to support that crap was adorable, and probably well intended, as well as quite delusional. But Goldberg...and his work of fiction...Liberal Fascism. That has lead to this crap being thrown out by every enthusiastic and sophomoric intellectual infantile "so called" conservative who reads it. Fascists hated Liberals almost as much as they hated ethnic minorities.

Like all fascist progressives - you're completely uninformed. For one thing - Glenn Beck explicitly proclaims fascism as "right-wing". Sadly, he's as stupid as you are when it comes to the political spectrum.

Any and all forms of oppressive/authoritarian control is by it's very nature left-wing. The fundamental principle of "right-wing" is liberty and the individual. So naturally, the further right you go (i.e. the more "radical") government gets smaller and smaller, less and less powerful until you reached the end of the spectrum - anarchy. No laws. No rules. No government. The polar opposite of fascism.

Just keep on regurgitating that Goldberg that has your conspiracy loving psyche propped up.

You must LOVE Info Wars

Well...considering I've never even heard of "Goldberg" (unless you are referring to the former Georgia Bulldog defensive lineman turned WWF wrestler), it's safe to say your desperate cries to blame your ignorance on him simply do not uphold in this instance.

First and foremost, it's basic common sense (something you clearly lack). The further right you go, government gets smaller and less powerful until you reach anarchy. No government. No rules. Pure, unadulterated freedom. Fascism is the polar opposite of that and one would have to be incredibly stupid not to realize it. Additionally, Nazi stood for National Socialist. So unless you think socialism is right-wing (which would further deteriorate your already pitiful credibility), it's unequivocally clear that Adolf Hitler and the Nazi's were left-wing to their core. Would you deny they were fascists?

Finally, as I have posted on a multitude of occasions now, esteemed and world-renowned economist Friedrich Hayek (who held 3 doctorate degrees, including one for economics - so he has all of the pedigree that libtards love) clearly made the distinction back during the time of fascism (the 1930's) that it was exclusively a left wing ideology.

I have clearly illustrated why this is the case (the right believes in the individual and small government so the further right you go the individual becomes more empowered and government becomes smaller until it disappears and there are no laws or rules at all). All you've done is scream "Goldberg" like an idiot with Tourettes Syndrome (without even articulating who or what "Goldberg" is or why he/she/it is relevant). In short, you've been completely obliterated in this discussion. Do you have anything of substance at all to add? I'll give you one last shot before we all just laugh at you and put you on ignore. Can you even remotely articulate how it is you've come to the conclusion that oppressive, totalitarian fascism is on the same side of the political spectrum as libertarians, sovereign citizens, and anarchists without screaming "Goldberg"?!?

Here ya go Patriot...just add this to the drivel you're trying to pass off as original thought


Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left from Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning - See more at: Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left from Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning | Jonah Goldberg | Conservative Book Club


“Fascists!” “Brownshirts!” “Jackbooted stormtroopers!” Such are the insults typically hurled at conservatives by their liberal opponents. But who are the real fascists in our midst? In “Liberal Fascism,” National Review columnist Jonah Goldberg shows that the original fascists are really on the left — and that liberals, from Woodrow Wilson to FDR to Hillary Clinton, have advocated policies and principles remarkably similar to those of Hitler and Mussolini. Replacing manufactured myths with enlightening research, Goldberg begins by showing how the Italian fascism, German Nazism and American Progressivism (forebear of modern liberalism) all drew from the same intellectual foundations the idea that the state can create a kind of social utopia for its citizens. He then traces fascism’s history in the U.S. — from Woodrow Wilson’s war socialism and FDR’s New Deal to today’s liberal push for a greater alliance between big business and government. Finally, Goldberg reveals the striking resemblances between the opinions advanced by Hitler and Mussolini and the current views of the left on such diverse issues as government’s role in the economy, campaign finance reform, campus “speech codes,” education, environmentalism, gun control, abortion, and euthanasia. Impeccably researched and persuasively argued, Liberal Fascism will elicit howls of indignation from the liberal establishment — and rousing cheers from the right. How fascism, Nazism, Progressivism, and modern liberalism are all alike in principle, in that all believe that government should be allowed to do whatever it likes, so long as it is for “good reasons” How, before World War II and the Holocaust, fascism was considered a progressive social movement both in the U.S. and Europe — but was redefined afterwards as “right wing” How the Nazis were ardent socialists (hence the term “National Socialism”) who loathed the free market, believed in free health care, opposed inherited wealth, spent vast sums on public education, purged Christianity from public policy, and inserted the authority of the state into every nook and cranny of daily life How the Nazis declared war on smoking; supported abortion, euthanasia, and gun control; and maintained a strict racial quota system in their universities — where campus speech codes were all the rage Adolph Hitler, Man of the Left: how his views and policies regarding capitalism, class warfare, environmentalism, gun control, euthanasia and even smoking are remarkably close to those of modern liberals How Woodrow Wilson and the other founding fathers of American liberalism were far crueler jingoists and warmongers than modern conservatives have ever been How Wilson’s crackdown on civil liberties in the name of national security far exceeds anything even attempted by Joe McCarthy, much less George W. Bush How Mussolini and Hitler both thought — quite rightly — that they were doing things along the same lines as FDR How, in the 1930s, FDR’s New Deal was praised for its similarity to Italian Fascism — “the cleanest, neatest, most efficiently operating piece of social machinery,” said an influential member of FDR’s team How, just like modern liberals, Mussolini promised a “Third Way” that “went beyond tired categories of left and right” in order to “get things done” Mussolini’s and Hitler’s not-so-secret admirers: how many prominent progressives — from W.E.B. Dubois in the U.S. to George Bernard Shaw England — publicly praised German Nazism and Italian Fascism Liberal fascism and the cult of the state: how progressivism shared with fascism a conviction that, in a truly modern society, the state must take the place of religion How American Progressives, like Hitler’s Nazis, were convinced that the state could, through planning and pressure, create a pure race, a society of new men How Nazis, fascists and American progressives — including Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger — all shared a belief in racial engineering through eugenics, and the alleged “need” for abortion and euthanasia it implied How it was largely Christian conservatives who stood against the progressive enthusiasm for racist eugenics The fascist underpinnings of progressive education The 1960s: fascism takes to the streets — how the New Left used the means and methods of Hitler’s brownshirts and the fascist squadristi to further their agenda How the Kennedy-Johnson era marked the final evolution off Progressivism into a full-blown religion and a national cult of the state — with Kennedy its sacrificial “Christ” and LBJ its Pauline architect The Great Society: LBJ’s fascist utopia How the modern heirs of the fascist tradition include the New York Times, the Democratic Party, the Ivy League professoriate, and the liberals of Hollywood The tempting of conservatism: the fascist tendencies lurking in “compassionate conservatism” and other pseudo-conservative trends “‘It is my argument that American liberalism is a totalitarian political religion,’ Jonah Goldberg writes near the beginning of Liberal Fascism. My first reaction was that he is engaging in partisan hyperbole. That turned out to be wrong. Liberal Fascism is nothing less than a portrait of twentieth-century political history as seen through a new prism. It will affect the way I think about that history — and about the trajectory of today’s politics — forever after.” —-Charles Murray, author of “Human Accomplishment” and coauthor (with Richard J. Herrnstein) of “The Bell Curve” “In the greatest hoax of modern history, Russia’s ruling ‘socialist workers party,’ the Communists, established themselves as the polar opposites of their two socialist clones, the National Socialist German Workers Party (quicknamed ‘the Nazis’) and Italy’s Marxist-inspired Fascisti, by branding both as ‘the fascists.’ Jonah Goldberg is the first historian to detail the havoc this spin of all spins has played upon Western thought for the past seventy-five years, very much including the present moment. Love it or loathe it, Liberal Fascism is a book of intellectual history you won’t be able to put down — in either sense of the term.” —Tom Wolfe, author of “Bonfire of the Vanities” and “I Am Charlotte Simmons” “Liberal Fascism will enrage many people on the left, but Jonah Goldberg’s startling thesis deserves serious attention. Going back to the eugenics movement there has been a strain of elitist moral certainty that allows one group of people to believe they have the right to determine the lives of others. We have replaced the divine right of kings with the divine right of self-righteous groups. Goldberg will lead you to new understanding and force you to think deeply.” —Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House, author of “Winning the Future” “Jonah Goldberg argues that liberals today have doctrinal and emotional roots in twentieth century European fascism. Many people will be shocked just by the thought that long-discredited fascism could mutate into the spirit of another age. It’s always exhilarating when someone takes on received opinion, but this is not a work of pamphleteering. Goldberg’s insight, supported by a great deal of learning, happens to be right.” —David Pryce-Jones, author of “The Strange Death of the Soviet Union” “Jonah Goldberg brilliantly traces the intellectual roots of fascism to their surprising source, showing not only that its motivating ideas derive from the left but that the liberal fascist impulse is alive and well among contemporary progressives-and is even a temptation for compassionate conservatives.” — Ronald Bailey, science correspondent for Reason magazine - See more at: Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left from Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning | Jonah Goldberg | Conservative Book Club

So what exactly is your point here? I've never heard of Jonah Goldberg before this. Clearly he had no influence on me. You can't make an outrageous accusation and then hide behind some obscure name that actually proves you wrong to begin with.

Let's forget about 'ole Jonah here. Not knowing who he is, I have no reason to grant him credibility. I'm still waiting on you to explain how an oppressive, totalitarian ideology could possibly be interpreted as "right-wing" when it is the polar opposite in every conceivable definition.

I have to apologize.

You may or may not care, but I have been taking a bad mood out on you.

I'm sorry.

Let me explain.

For whatever reason...The GOP has begun to try and do away with the Left V Right, Democrat V Republican, Liberal V Conservative, Commie V Nazis dichotomy. I believe that reason is because they were able to call lefties Commie Pinkos for decades, but also wanted to mitigate how lefties would play the Nazi card on them.

So...they, mainly Goldberg and Assoc...came up with a loosely strung together set of flawed generalitites posing as analologies, and evidence that Democrats are both Commies and Nazis...and Republicans are neither.

Truth is, both are neither.

 

[P@triot]

I can explain why fascism is usually associated with the right.

- While not exclusive to the right, most right-wing movements from today and the 20th century emphasize militarism and ultranationalism, which are more tenets of fascism.

And since fascism is left-wing....

You know who else emphasizes "militarism"? Every single dictator ever. You name a dictator, they strongly emphasized "militarism".

 

[P@triot]

I have to apologize. You may or may not care, but I have been taking a bad mood out on you. I'm sorry. Let me explain.

For whatever reason...The GOP has begun to try and do away with the Left V Right, Democrat V Republican, Liberal V Conservative, Commie V Nazis dichotomy. I believe that reason is because they were able to call lefties Commie Pinkos for decades, but also wanted to mitigate how lefties would play the Nazi card on them.

So...they, mainly Goldberg and Assoc...came up with a loosely strung together set of flawed generalitites posing as analologies, and evidence that Democrats are both Commies and Nazis...and Republicans are neither.

Truth is, both are neither.

No apology necessary. As far as the ideologies go...

I never entirely understood why the left worked so hard to paint fascism as right-wing. I can only surmise that A.) they didn't want to be associated with such a disturbing ideology and B.) they wanted to be able to paint the right as "evil" with something.

But here is the thing - there are plenty of legitimate evils of extreme right-wing ideology that could be attacked without falsely accusing them of being responsible for a decisively left-wing school of thought. There are a few things to legitimately attack libertarians are. And there are endless things to legitimately attack both Sovereign Citizens and Anarchists on.

Anything wholly oppressive and totalitarian is left-wing. This includes communism, marxism, fascism, etc. Anything wholly anarchical (Sovereign Citizen, Anarchists, etc.) is right-wing.

This bizarre belief that fascism is right-wing was the result of Hitler turning on the Soviets. But that wasn't due to right vs. left. That was due to the fact that all dictator desire to over throw every other dictator and rule the world.

 

[P@triot]

"Human beings are born with different capacities. If they are free, they are not equal. And if they are equal, they are not free." - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

 

[Tehon]

This fear of trusting uncontrolled social forces is closely related to two other characteristics of conservatism: its fondness for authority and its lack of understanding of economic forces. Since it distrusts both abstract theories and general principles,[6] it neither understands those spontaneous forces on which a policy of freedom relies nor possesses a basis for formulating principles of policy. Order appears to the conservative as the result of the continuous attention of authority, which, for this purpose, must be allowed to do what is required by the particular circumstances and not be tied to rigid rule. A commitment to principles presupposes an understanding of the general forces by which the efforts of society are co-ordinated, but it is such a theory of society and especially of the economic mechanism that conservatism conspicuously lacks. So unproductive has conservatism been in producing a general conception of how a social order is maintained that its modern votaries, in trying to construct a theoretical foundation, invariably find themselves appealing almost exclusively to authors who regarded themselves as liberal. Macaulay, Tocqueville, Lord Acton, and Lecky certainly considered themselves liberals, and with justice; and even Edmund Burke remained an Old Whig to the end and would have shuddered at the thought of being regarded as a Tory.

Why I Am Not a Conservative By Nobel laureate F. A. Hayek

 

[Tehon]

This reinforces what I posted in post #341. Hayek believed that conservatism was linked to collectivism via nationalism. Nationalism being the main fascist tenet.


A great deal more might be said about the close connection between conservatism and nationalism, but I shall not dwell on this point because it might be felt that my personal position makes me unable to sympathize with any form of nationalism. I will merely add that it is this nationalistic bias which frequently provides the bridge from conservatism to collectivism: to think in terms of "our" industry or resource is only a short step away from demanding that these national assets be directed in the national interest.

Why I Am Not a Conservative By Nobel laureate F. A. Hayek

 

[Tehon]

Only at first foes it seem paradoxical that the anti-internationalism of conservatism is so frequently associated with imperialism. But the more a person dislikes the strange and thinks his own ways superior, the more he tends to regard it as his mission to "civilize" other[10] - not by the voluntary and unhampered intercourse which the liberal favors, but by bringing them the blessings of efficient government. It is significant that here again we frequently find the conservatives joining hands with the socialists against the liberals - not only in England, where the Webbs and their Fabians were outspoken imperialists, or in Germany, where state socialism and colonial expansionism went together and found the support of the same group of "socialists of the chair," but also in the United States, where even at the time of the first Roosevelt it could be observed

Why I Am Not a Conservative By Nobel laureate F. A. Hayek

 

[P@triot]

Only at first foes it seem paradoxical that the anti-internationalism of conservatism is so frequently associated with imperialism. But the more a person dislikes the strange and thinks his own ways superior, the more he tends to regard it as his mission to "civilize" other[10] - not by the voluntary and unhampered intercourse which the liberal favors, but by bringing them the blessings of efficient government. It is significant that here again we frequently find the conservatives joining hands with the socialists against the liberals - not only in England, where the Webbs and their Fabians were outspoken imperialists, or in Germany, where state socialism and colonial expansionism went together and found the support of the same group of "socialists of the chair," but also in the United States, where even at the time of the first Roosevelt it could be observed

Why I Am Not a Conservative By Nobel laureate F. A. Hayek

Except that liberal during the period that Hayek wrote that was not the American progressive "liberal" of today. The American progressive "liberal" of today is the side trying to force their own "superior ways" by "bringing them the blessings of efficient government".

 

[P@triot]

Only at first foes it seem paradoxical that the anti-internationalism of conservatism is so frequently associated with imperialism. But the more a person dislikes the strange and thinks his own ways superior, the more he tends to regard it as his mission to "civilize" other[10] - not by the voluntary and unhampered intercourse which the liberal favors, but by bringing them the blessings of efficient government. It is significant that here again we frequently find the conservatives joining hands with the socialists against the liberals - not only in England, where the Webbs and their Fabians were outspoken imperialists, or in Germany, where state socialism and colonial expansionism went together and found the support of the same group of "socialists of the chair," but also in the United States, where even at the time of the first Roosevelt it could be observed

Why I Am Not a Conservative By Nobel laureate F. A. Hayek

That perfectly describes conservatism today.

 

[P@triot]

Only at first foes it seem paradoxical that the anti-internationalism of conservatism is so frequently associated with imperialism. But the more a person dislikes the strange and thinks his own ways superior, the more he tends to regard it as his mission to "civilize" other[10] - not by the voluntary and unhampered intercourse which the liberal favors, but by bringing them the blessings of efficient government. It is significant that here again we frequently find the conservatives joining hands with the socialists against the liberals - not only in England, where the Webbs and their Fabians were outspoken imperialists, or in Germany, where state socialism and colonial expansionism went together and found the support of the same group of "socialists of the chair," but also in the United States, where even at the time of the first Roosevelt it could be observed

Why I Am Not a Conservative By Nobel laureate F. A. Hayek

That perfectly describes liberalism today.

 

[Old Rocks]

Well, silly ass P@triot, after Clinton's two terms are done, maybe you can get another total fruit bar to make a fool of himself and everyone else that supports him or her. Maybe Bachman is your girl. LOL

 

[regent]

So are conservatives now going to change the definitions of all the political and economic labels or just some? What will happen to their bread and butter; labels of communism and socialism? Are they now dead? I can understand their need for new labels as it seems fewer and fewer Americans shake with fear when a Democratic program is labeled socialist or communist. Maybe fascism will work better?

 

[Onyx]

This is the same horseshit the fascist left always drags out.

Most modern fascists LIE about who they are in order to get into power. Hence we get the nonsense "Hitler was a nationalist/rightwing/Christian fundamentalist!" Total lies told by Hitler in order to win over various groups.

Those are just the facts. You are free to come to another conclusion with those in mind.

 

[Tehon]

Only at first foes it seem paradoxical that the anti-internationalism of conservatism is so frequently associated with imperialism. But the more a person dislikes the strange and thinks his own ways superior, the more he tends to regard it as his mission to "civilize" other[10] - not by the voluntary and unhampered intercourse which the liberal favors, but by bringing them the blessings of efficient government. It is significant that here again we frequently find the conservatives joining hands with the socialists against the liberals - not only in England, where the Webbs and their Fabians were outspoken imperialists, or in Germany, where state socialism and colonial expansionism went together and found the support of the same group of "socialists of the chair," but also in the United States, where even at the time of the first Roosevelt it could be observed

Why I Am Not a Conservative By Nobel laureate F. A. Hayek

Except that liberal during the period that Hayek wrote that was not the American progressive "liberal" of today. The American progressive "liberal" of today is the side trying to force their own "superior ways" by "bringing them the blessings of efficient government".

Except that it was published in 1960, so when, since then, do you think the modern liberal morphed?

And he was not critiquing liberalism, he was critiquing conservatism, so please, try to stay focused and avoid the red herring fallacies, mkay.

 

[owebo]

Like all fascist progressives - you're completely uninformed. For one thing - Glenn Beck explicitly proclaims fascism as "right-wing". Sadly, he's as stupid as you are when it comes to the political spectrum.

Any and all forms of oppressive/authoritarian control is by it's very nature left-wing. The fundamental principle of "right-wing" is liberty and the individual. So naturally, the further right you go (i.e. the more "radical") government gets smaller and smaller, less and less powerful until you reached the end of the spectrum - anarchy. No laws. No rules. No government. The polar opposite of fascism.

Just keep on regurgitating that Goldberg that has your conspiracy loving psyche propped up.

You must LOVE Info Wars

Well...considering I've never even heard of "Goldberg" (unless you are referring to the former Georgia Bulldog defensive lineman turned WWF wrestler), it's safe to say your desperate cries to blame your ignorance on him simply do not uphold in this instance.

First and foremost, it's basic common sense (something you clearly lack). The further right you go, government gets smaller and less powerful until you reach anarchy. No government. No rules. Pure, unadulterated freedom. Fascism is the polar opposite of that and one would have to be incredibly stupid not to realize it. Additionally, Nazi stood for National Socialist. So unless you think socialism is right-wing (which would further deteriorate your already pitiful credibility), it's unequivocally clear that Adolf Hitler and the Nazi's were left-wing to their core. Would you deny they were fascists?

Finally, as I have posted on a multitude of occasions now, esteemed and world-renowned economist Friedrich Hayek (who held 3 doctorate degrees, including one for economics - so he has all of the pedigree that libtards love) clearly made the distinction back during the time of fascism (the 1930's) that it was exclusively a left wing ideology.

I have clearly illustrated why this is the case (the right believes in the individual and small government so the further right you go the individual becomes more empowered and government becomes smaller until it disappears and there are no laws or rules at all). All you've done is scream "Goldberg" like an idiot with Tourettes Syndrome (without even articulating who or what "Goldberg" is or why he/she/it is relevant). In short, you've been completely obliterated in this discussion. Do you have anything of substance at all to add? I'll give you one last shot before we all just laugh at you and put you on ignore. Can you even remotely articulate how it is you've come to the conclusion that oppressive, totalitarian fascism is on the same side of the political spectrum as libertarians, sovereign citizens, and anarchists without screaming "Goldberg"?!?

Here ya go Patriot...just add this to the drivel you're trying to pass off as original thought


Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left from Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning - See more at: Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left from Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning | Jonah Goldberg | Conservative Book Club


“Fascists!” “Brownshirts!” “Jackbooted stormtroopers!” Such are the insults typically hurled at conservatives by their liberal opponents. But who are the real fascists in our midst? In “Liberal Fascism,” National Review columnist Jonah Goldberg shows that the original fascists are really on the left — and that liberals, from Woodrow Wilson to FDR to Hillary Clinton, have advocated policies and principles remarkably similar to those of Hitler and Mussolini. Replacing manufactured myths with enlightening research, Goldberg begins by showing how the Italian fascism, German Nazism and American Progressivism (forebear of modern liberalism) all drew from the same intellectual foundations the idea that the state can create a kind of social utopia for its citizens. He then traces fascism’s history in the U.S. — from Woodrow Wilson’s war socialism and FDR’s New Deal to today’s liberal push for a greater alliance between big business and government. Finally, Goldberg reveals the striking resemblances between the opinions advanced by Hitler and Mussolini and the current views of the left on such diverse issues as government’s role in the economy, campaign finance reform, campus “speech codes,” education, environmentalism, gun control, abortion, and euthanasia. Impeccably researched and persuasively argued, Liberal Fascism will elicit howls of indignation from the liberal establishment — and rousing cheers from the right. How fascism, Nazism, Progressivism, and modern liberalism are all alike in principle, in that all believe that government should be allowed to do whatever it likes, so long as it is for “good reasons” How, before World War II and the Holocaust, fascism was considered a progressive social movement both in the U.S. and Europe — but was redefined afterwards as “right wing” How the Nazis were ardent socialists (hence the term “National Socialism”) who loathed the free market, believed in free health care, opposed inherited wealth, spent vast sums on public education, purged Christianity from public policy, and inserted the authority of the state into every nook and cranny of daily life How the Nazis declared war on smoking; supported abortion, euthanasia, and gun control; and maintained a strict racial quota system in their universities — where campus speech codes were all the rage Adolph Hitler, Man of the Left: how his views and policies regarding capitalism, class warfare, environmentalism, gun control, euthanasia and even smoking are remarkably close to those of modern liberals How Woodrow Wilson and the other founding fathers of American liberalism were far crueler jingoists and warmongers than modern conservatives have ever been How Wilson’s crackdown on civil liberties in the name of national security far exceeds anything even attempted by Joe McCarthy, much less George W. Bush How Mussolini and Hitler both thought — quite rightly — that they were doing things along the same lines as FDR How, in the 1930s, FDR’s New Deal was praised for its similarity to Italian Fascism — “the cleanest, neatest, most efficiently operating piece of social machinery,” said an influential member of FDR’s team How, just like modern liberals, Mussolini promised a “Third Way” that “went beyond tired categories of left and right” in order to “get things done” Mussolini’s and Hitler’s not-so-secret admirers: how many prominent progressives — from W.E.B. Dubois in the U.S. to George Bernard Shaw England — publicly praised German Nazism and Italian Fascism Liberal fascism and the cult of the state: how progressivism shared with fascism a conviction that, in a truly modern society, the state must take the place of religion How American Progressives, like Hitler’s Nazis, were convinced that the state could, through planning and pressure, create a pure race, a society of new men How Nazis, fascists and American progressives — including Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger — all shared a belief in racial engineering through eugenics, and the alleged “need” for abortion and euthanasia it implied How it was largely Christian conservatives who stood against the progressive enthusiasm for racist eugenics The fascist underpinnings of progressive education The 1960s: fascism takes to the streets — how the New Left used the means and methods of Hitler’s brownshirts and the fascist squadristi to further their agenda How the Kennedy-Johnson era marked the final evolution off Progressivism into a full-blown religion and a national cult of the state — with Kennedy its sacrificial “Christ” and LBJ its Pauline architect The Great Society: LBJ’s fascist utopia How the modern heirs of the fascist tradition include the New York Times, the Democratic Party, the Ivy League professoriate, and the liberals of Hollywood The tempting of conservatism: the fascist tendencies lurking in “compassionate conservatism” and other pseudo-conservative trends “‘It is my argument that American liberalism is a totalitarian political religion,’ Jonah Goldberg writes near the beginning of Liberal Fascism. My first reaction was that he is engaging in partisan hyperbole. That turned out to be wrong. Liberal Fascism is nothing less than a portrait of twentieth-century political history as seen through a new prism. It will affect the way I think about that history — and about the trajectory of today’s politics — forever after.” —-Charles Murray, author of “Human Accomplishment” and coauthor (with Richard J. Herrnstein) of “The Bell Curve” “In the greatest hoax of modern history, Russia’s ruling ‘socialist workers party,’ the Communists, established themselves as the polar opposites of their two socialist clones, the National Socialist German Workers Party (quicknamed ‘the Nazis’) and Italy’s Marxist-inspired Fascisti, by branding both as ‘the fascists.’ Jonah Goldberg is the first historian to detail the havoc this spin of all spins has played upon Western thought for the past seventy-five years, very much including the present moment. Love it or loathe it, Liberal Fascism is a book of intellectual history you won’t be able to put down — in either sense of the term.” —Tom Wolfe, author of “Bonfire of the Vanities” and “I Am Charlotte Simmons” “Liberal Fascism will enrage many people on the left, but Jonah Goldberg’s startling thesis deserves serious attention. Going back to the eugenics movement there has been a strain of elitist moral certainty that allows one group of people to believe they have the right to determine the lives of others. We have replaced the divine right of kings with the divine right of self-righteous groups. Goldberg will lead you to new understanding and force you to think deeply.” —Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House, author of “Winning the Future” “Jonah Goldberg argues that liberals today have doctrinal and emotional roots in twentieth century European fascism. Many people will be shocked just by the thought that long-discredited fascism could mutate into the spirit of another age. It’s always exhilarating when someone takes on received opinion, but this is not a work of pamphleteering. Goldberg’s insight, supported by a great deal of learning, happens to be right.” —David Pryce-Jones, author of “The Strange Death of the Soviet Union” “Jonah Goldberg brilliantly traces the intellectual roots of fascism to their surprising source, showing not only that its motivating ideas derive from the left but that the liberal fascist impulse is alive and well among contemporary progressives-and is even a temptation for compassionate conservatives.” — Ronald Bailey, science correspondent for Reason magazine - See more at: Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left from Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning | Jonah Goldberg | Conservative Book Club

So what exactly is your point here? I've never heard of Jonah Goldberg before this. Clearly he had no influence on me. You can't make an outrageous accusation and then hide behind some obscure name that actually proves you wrong to begin with.

Let's forget about 'ole Jonah here. Not knowing who he is, I have no reason to grant him credibility. I'm still waiting on you to explain how an oppressive, totalitarian ideology could possibly be interpreted as "right-wing" when it is the polar opposite in every conceivable definition.

I have to apologize.

You may or may not care, but I have been taking a bad mood out on you.

I'm sorry.

Let me explain.

For whatever reason...The GOP has begun to try and do away with the Left V Right, Democrat V Republican, Liberal V Conservative, Commie V Nazis dichotomy. I believe that reason is because they were able to call lefties Commie Pinkos for decades, but also wanted to mitigate how lefties would play the Nazi card on them.

So...they, mainly Goldberg and Assoc...came up with a loosely strung together set of flawed generalitites posing as analologies, and evidence that Democrats are both Commies and Nazis...and Republicans are neither.

Truth is, both are neither.

Strange how stupid you liberals are...

 

[owebo]

Only at first foes it seem paradoxical that the anti-internationalism of conservatism is so frequently associated with imperialism. But the more a person dislikes the strange and thinks his own ways superior, the more he tends to regard it as his mission to "civilize" other[10] - not by the voluntary and unhampered intercourse which the liberal favors, but by bringing them the blessings of efficient government. It is significant that here again we frequently find the conservatives joining hands with the socialists against the liberals - not only in England, where the Webbs and their Fabians were outspoken imperialists, or in Germany, where state socialism and colonial expansionism went together and found the support of the same group of "socialists of the chair," but also in the United States, where even at the time of the first Roosevelt it could be observed

Why I Am Not a Conservative By Nobel laureate F. A. Hayek

Except that liberal during the period that Hayek wrote that was not the American progressive "liberal" of today. The American progressive "liberal" of today is the side trying to force their own "superior ways" by "bringing them the blessings of efficient government".

Except that it was published in 1960, so when, since then, do you think the modern liberal morphed?

And he was not critiquing liberalism, he was critiquing conservatism, so please, try to stay focused and avoid the red herring fallacies, mkay.

The modern liberal never morphed....they just changed the way the shackle people...

 

[Tehon]

Only at first foes it seem paradoxical that the anti-internationalism of conservatism is so frequently associated with imperialism. But the more a person dislikes the strange and thinks his own ways superior, the more he tends to regard it as his mission to "civilize" other[10] - not by the voluntary and unhampered intercourse which the liberal favors, but by bringing them the blessings of efficient government. It is significant that here again we frequently find the conservatives joining hands with the socialists against the liberals - not only in England, where the Webbs and their Fabians were outspoken imperialists, or in Germany, where state socialism and colonial expansionism went together and found the support of the same group of "socialists of the chair," but also in the United States, where even at the time of the first Roosevelt it could be observed

Why I Am Not a Conservative By Nobel laureate F. A. Hayek

That perfectly describes conservatism today.

That is such BS, we burned through trillions of dollars bringing democracy to Iraq largely because conservatives marched in perfect lockstep with Bush.

You are nothing if not an ideologue.