What does the current iteration of conservatives have in common with fascism?

[Wry Catcher]

This is just a reminder......the points in the very first thread are just cosmetic....they are used by the left to hide the fact that the left is the home of socialism...of which Fascism is just one flavor.........our democrat party and their brownshirts are the fascists of the United States...


Fascism: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty

As an economic system, fascism is socialism with a capitalist veneer. The word derives from fasces, the Roman symbol of collectivism and power: a tied bundle of rods with a protruding ax. In its day (the 1920s and 1930s), fascism was seen as the happy medium between boom-and-bust-prone liberal capitalism, with its alleged class conflict, wasteful competition, and profit-oriented egoism, and revolutionary Marxism, with its violent and socially divisive persecution of the bourgeoisie.
Fascism substituted the particularity of nationalism and racialism—“blood and soil”—for the internationalism of both classical liberalism and Marxism.
Where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society’s economic processes through direct state operation of the means of production, fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners.

Where socialism nationalized property explicitly, fascism did so implicitly, by requiring owners to use their property in the “national interest”—that is, as the autocratic authority conceived it. (Nevertheless, a few industries were operated by the state.)
Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities. Where socialism abolished money and prices, fascism controlled the monetary system and set all prices and wages politically.

In doing all this, fascism denatured the marketplace.Entrepreneurship was abolished. State ministries, rather than consumers, determined what was produced and under what conditions.

An article written by an avowed Libertarian isn't objective. Let's compare the OP bullet points with the Encyclopedia Britannica:

"Fascism, political ideology and mass movement that dominated many parts of central, southern, and eastern Europe between 1919 and 1945 and that also had adherents in western Europe, the United States, South Africa, Japan, Latin America, and the Middle East. Europe’s first fascist leader, Benito Mussolini, took the name of his party from the Latin word fasces, which referred to a bundle of elm or birch rods (usually containing an ax) used as a symbol of penal authority in ancient Rome. Although fascist parties and movements differed significantly from each other, they had many characteristics in common, including extreme militaristic nationalism, contempt for electoral democracy and political and cultural liberalism, a belief in natural social hierarchy and the rule of elites, and the desire to create aVolksgemeinschaft (German: “people’s community”), in which individual interests would be subordinated to the good of the nation. At the end of World War II, the major European fascist parties were broken up, and in some countries (such as Italy and West Germany) they were officially banned. Beginning in the late 1940s, however, many fascist-oriented parties and movements were founded in Europe as well as in Latin America and South Africa. Although some European “neofascist” groups attracted large followings, especially in Italy and France, none were as influential as the major fascist parties of the interwar period."

Open this link a read more, pay attention to the column on the left side. It will inform the curious and be ignored by the willfully ignorant.

fascism | politics

 

[2aguy]

This is just a reminder......the points in the very first thread are just cosmetic....they are used by the left to hide the fact that the left is the home of socialism...of which Fascism is just one flavor.........our democrat party and their brownshirts are the fascists of the United States...


Fascism: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty

As an economic system, fascism is socialism with a capitalist veneer. The word derives from fasces, the Roman symbol of collectivism and power: a tied bundle of rods with a protruding ax. In its day (the 1920s and 1930s), fascism was seen as the happy medium between boom-and-bust-prone liberal capitalism, with its alleged class conflict, wasteful competition, and profit-oriented egoism, and revolutionary Marxism, with its violent and socially divisive persecution of the bourgeoisie.
Fascism substituted the particularity of nationalism and racialism—“blood and soil”—for the internationalism of both classical liberalism and Marxism.
Where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society’s economic processes through direct state operation of the means of production, fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners.

Where socialism nationalized property explicitly, fascism did so implicitly, by requiring owners to use their property in the “national interest”—that is, as the autocratic authority conceived it. (Nevertheless, a few industries were operated by the state.)
Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities. Where socialism abolished money and prices, fascism controlled the monetary system and set all prices and wages politically.

In doing all this, fascism denatured the marketplace.Entrepreneurship was abolished. State ministries, rather than consumers, determined what was produced and under what conditions.

An article written by an avowed Libertarian isn't objective. Let's compare the OP bullet points with the Encyclopedia Britannica:

"Fascism, political ideology and mass movement that dominated many parts of central, southern, and eastern Europe between 1919 and 1945 and that also had adherents in western Europe, the United States, South Africa, Japan, Latin America, and the Middle East. Europe’s first fascist leader, Benito Mussolini, took the name of his party from the Latin word fasces, which referred to a bundle of elm or birch rods (usually containing an ax) used as a symbol of penal authority in ancient Rome. Although fascist parties and movements differed significantly from each other, they had many characteristics in common, including extreme militaristic nationalism, contempt for electoral democracy and political and cultural liberalism, a belief in natural social hierarchy and the rule of elites, and the desire to create aVolksgemeinschaft (German: “people’s community”), in which individual interests would be subordinated to the good of the nation. At the end of World War II, the major European fascist parties were broken up, and in some countries (such as Italy and West Germany) they were officially banned. Beginning in the late 1940s, however, many fascist-oriented parties and movements were founded in Europe as well as in Latin America and South Africa. Although some European “neofascist” groups attracted large followings, especially in Italy and France, none were as influential as the major fascist parties of the interwar period."

Open this link a read more, pay attention to the column on the left side. It will inform the curious and be ignored by the willfully ignorant.

fascism | politics

And that describes every single socialist country.....fascism is one type of socialism.....no matter how you try to hide it....fascism is socialism and socialism murdered close to 100 million people around the world....

 

[2aguy]

Mussolini was a marxist communist who wanted to be in charge...so he adapted his socialism to beat out the other marxists....he was a socialist.

 

[2aguy]

This is just a reminder......the points in the very first thread are just cosmetic....they are used by the left to hide the fact that the left is the home of socialism...of which Fascism is just one flavor.........our democrat party and their brownshirts are the fascists of the United States...


Fascism: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty

As an economic system, fascism is socialism with a capitalist veneer. The word derives from fasces, the Roman symbol of collectivism and power: a tied bundle of rods with a protruding ax. In its day (the 1920s and 1930s), fascism was seen as the happy medium between boom-and-bust-prone liberal capitalism, with its alleged class conflict, wasteful competition, and profit-oriented egoism, and revolutionary Marxism, with its violent and socially divisive persecution of the bourgeoisie.
Fascism substituted the particularity of nationalism and racialism—“blood and soil”—for the internationalism of both classical liberalism and Marxism.
Where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society’s economic processes through direct state operation of the means of production, fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners.

Where socialism nationalized property explicitly, fascism did so implicitly, by requiring owners to use their property in the “national interest”—that is, as the autocratic authority conceived it. (Nevertheless, a few industries were operated by the state.)
Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities. Where socialism abolished money and prices, fascism controlled the monetary system and set all prices and wages politically.

In doing all this, fascism denatured the marketplace.Entrepreneurship was abolished. State ministries, rather than consumers, determined what was produced and under what conditions.

An article written by an avowed Libertarian isn't objective. Let's compare the OP bullet points with the Encyclopedia Britannica:

"Fascism, political ideology and mass movement that dominated many parts of central, southern, and eastern Europe between 1919 and 1945 and that also had adherents in western Europe, the United States, South Africa, Japan, Latin America, and the Middle East. Europe’s first fascist leader, Benito Mussolini, took the name of his party from the Latin word fasces, which referred to a bundle of elm or birch rods (usually containing an ax) used as a symbol of penal authority in ancient Rome. Although fascist parties and movements differed significantly from each other, they had many characteristics in common, including extreme militaristic nationalism, contempt for electoral democracy and political and cultural liberalism, a belief in natural social hierarchy and the rule of elites, and the desire to create aVolksgemeinschaft (German: “people’s community”), in which individual interests would be subordinated to the good of the nation. At the end of World War II, the major European fascist parties were broken up, and in some countries (such as Italy and West Germany) they were officially banned. Beginning in the late 1940s, however, many fascist-oriented parties and movements were founded in Europe as well as in Latin America and South Africa. Although some European “neofascist” groups attracted large followings, especially in Italy and France, none were as influential as the major fascist parties of the interwar period."

Open this link a read more, pay attention to the column on the left side. It will inform the curious and be ignored by the willfully ignorant.

fascism | politics

The left winger who wrote the Encyclopedia Britannica crap isn't objective...he is pushing the left wing lies about Fascism....to hide the truth that socialism...in all of it's flavors, murdered 100 million innocent men, women and children around the world....

The accurate definition of Fascism..again...

Fascism: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty

As an economic system, fascism is socialism with a capitalist veneer. The word derives from fasces, the Roman symbol of collectivism and power: a tied bundle of rods with a protruding ax. In its day (the 1920s and 1930s), fascism was seen as the happy medium between boom-and-bust-prone liberal capitalism, with its alleged class conflict, wasteful competition, and profit-oriented egoism, and revolutionary Marxism, with its violent and socially divisive persecution of the bourgeoisie.
Fascism substituted the particularity of nationalism and racialism—“blood and soil”—for the internationalism of both classical liberalism and Marxism.
Where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society’s economic processes through direct state operation of the means of production, fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners.

Where socialism nationalized property explicitly, fascism did so implicitly, by requiring owners to use their property in the “national interest”—that is, as the autocratic authority conceived it. (Nevertheless, a few industries were operated by the state.)
Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities. Where socialism abolished money and prices, fascism controlled the monetary system and set all prices and wages politically.

In doing all this, fascism denatured the marketplace.Entrepreneurship was abolished. State ministries, rather than consumers, determined what was produced and under what conditions.

 

[2aguy]

This is just a reminder......the points in the very first thread are just cosmetic....they are used by the left to hide the fact that the left is the home of socialism...of which Fascism is just one flavor.........our democrat party and their brownshirts are the fascists of the United States...


Fascism: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty

As an economic system, fascism is socialism with a capitalist veneer. The word derives from fasces, the Roman symbol of collectivism and power: a tied bundle of rods with a protruding ax. In its day (the 1920s and 1930s), fascism was seen as the happy medium between boom-and-bust-prone liberal capitalism, with its alleged class conflict, wasteful competition, and profit-oriented egoism, and revolutionary Marxism, with its violent and socially divisive persecution of the bourgeoisie.
Fascism substituted the particularity of nationalism and racialism—“blood and soil”—for the internationalism of both classical liberalism and Marxism.
Where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society’s economic processes through direct state operation of the means of production, fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners.

Where socialism nationalized property explicitly, fascism did so implicitly, by requiring owners to use their property in the “national interest”—that is, as the autocratic authority conceived it. (Nevertheless, a few industries were operated by the state.)
Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities. Where socialism abolished money and prices, fascism controlled the monetary system and set all prices and wages politically.

In doing all this, fascism denatured the marketplace.Entrepreneurship was abolished. State ministries, rather than consumers, determined what was produced and under what conditions.

An article written by an avowed Libertarian isn't objective. Let's compare the OP bullet points with the Encyclopedia Britannica:

"Fascism, political ideology and mass movement that dominated many parts of central, southern, and eastern Europe between 1919 and 1945 and that also had adherents in western Europe, the United States, South Africa, Japan, Latin America, and the Middle East. Europe’s first fascist leader, Benito Mussolini, took the name of his party from the Latin word fasces, which referred to a bundle of elm or birch rods (usually containing an ax) used as a symbol of penal authority in ancient Rome. Although fascist parties and movements differed significantly from each other, they had many characteristics in common, including extreme militaristic nationalism, contempt for electoral democracy and political and cultural liberalism, a belief in natural social hierarchy and the rule of elites, and the desire to create aVolksgemeinschaft (German: “people’s community”), in which individual interests would be subordinated to the good of the nation. At the end of World War II, the major European fascist parties were broken up, and in some countries (such as Italy and West Germany) they were officially banned. Beginning in the late 1940s, however, many fascist-oriented parties and movements were founded in Europe as well as in Latin America and South Africa. Although some European “neofascist” groups attracted large followings, especially in Italy and France, none were as influential as the major fascist parties of the interwar period."

Open this link a read more, pay attention to the column on the left side. It will inform the curious and be ignored by the willfully ignorant.

fascism | politics

including extreme militaristic nationalism, contempt for electoral democracy and political and cultural liberalism, a belief in natural social hierarchy and the rule of elites, and the desire to create aVolksgemeinschaft (German: “people’s community”), in which individual interests would be subordinated to the good of the nation.

Every mass murdering socialist state had all of these attributes........the rest is just cosmetic......they were all socialists....

 

[ptbw forever]

The answer to the OP is "Nothing." Conservatism is the opposite of fascism. Socialism the mirror image of fascism. Trump is not a conservative. But Bernie Sanders is a socialist and he is a fascist.

lol, you're insane.

You are an idiot.

Even idiots comprehend reality, the insane, by definition, do not.

Only an idiot would actually believe that....

LOL You have not posted anything to suggest you are not intellectually challenged and/or brainwashed by RW propaganda.

BTW, Idiot is not defined in the DSM, nor is insane. Both are archaic terms and used today used as pejoratives. by posting, "lol, you're insane" was meant to insult you, and to express my opinion based on your remarks (evidence) that you are not open to thinking about things which challenge your beliefs (biases). I find nothing you've posted in this matter thoughtful or thought provoking.

As you literally quote left wing propaganda word for word....

The problem is that you have no clue what propaganda is without someone you agree with pointing it out to you. You have never posted anything resembling an original thought while your political opponents are literally slamming the only media outlets traditionally friendly to their political causes/parties, you are the one who is obviously the drone.

 

[2aguy]

Maos china....

a belief in natural social hierarchy and the rule of elites

the elite in Mao's leadership were not working class, they had wealthy backgrounds....and were as elite as elite can be.......not one of his politburo members came from the working class......

fascism is socialism.......stop trying to hide the truth...

The Chinese Communist Elite on JSTOR

 

[Wry Catcher]

The answer to the OP is "Nothing." Conservatism is the opposite of fascism. Socialism the mirror image of fascism. Trump is not a conservative. But Bernie Sanders is a socialist and he is a fascist.

lol, you're insane.

You are an idiot.

Even idiots comprehend reality, the insane, by definition, do not.

Only an idiot would actually believe that....

LOL You have not posted anything to suggest you are not intellectually challenged and/or brainwashed by RW propaganda.

BTW, Idiot is not defined in the DSM, nor is insane. Both are archaic terms and used today used as pejoratives. by posting, "lol, you're insane" was meant to insult you, and to express my opinion based on your remarks (evidence) that you are not open to thinking about things which challenge your beliefs (biases). I find nothing you've posted in this matter thoughtful or thought provoking.

An emoticon is not thoughtful, at least for those of below average intelligence and higher.

 

[Wry Catcher]

This is just a reminder......the points in the very first thread are just cosmetic....they are used by the left to hide the fact that the left is the home of socialism...of which Fascism is just one flavor.........our democrat party and their brownshirts are the fascists of the United States...


Fascism: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty

As an economic system, fascism is socialism with a capitalist veneer. The word derives from fasces, the Roman symbol of collectivism and power: a tied bundle of rods with a protruding ax. In its day (the 1920s and 1930s), fascism was seen as the happy medium between boom-and-bust-prone liberal capitalism, with its alleged class conflict, wasteful competition, and profit-oriented egoism, and revolutionary Marxism, with its violent and socially divisive persecution of the bourgeoisie.
Fascism substituted the particularity of nationalism and racialism—“blood and soil”—for the internationalism of both classical liberalism and Marxism.
Where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society’s economic processes through direct state operation of the means of production, fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners.

Where socialism nationalized property explicitly, fascism did so implicitly, by requiring owners to use their property in the “national interest”—that is, as the autocratic authority conceived it. (Nevertheless, a few industries were operated by the state.)
Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities. Where socialism abolished money and prices, fascism controlled the monetary system and set all prices and wages politically.

In doing all this, fascism denatured the marketplace.Entrepreneurship was abolished. State ministries, rather than consumers, determined what was produced and under what conditions.

An article written by an avowed Libertarian isn't objective. Let's compare the OP bullet points with the Encyclopedia Britannica:

"Fascism, political ideology and mass movement that dominated many parts of central, southern, and eastern Europe between 1919 and 1945 and that also had adherents in western Europe, the United States, South Africa, Japan, Latin America, and the Middle East. Europe’s first fascist leader, Benito Mussolini, took the name of his party from the Latin word fasces, which referred to a bundle of elm or birch rods (usually containing an ax) used as a symbol of penal authority in ancient Rome. Although fascist parties and movements differed significantly from each other, they had many characteristics in common, including extreme militaristic nationalism, contempt for electoral democracy and political and cultural liberalism, a belief in natural social hierarchy and the rule of elites, and the desire to create aVolksgemeinschaft (German: “people’s community”), in which individual interests would be subordinated to the good of the nation. At the end of World War II, the major European fascist parties were broken up, and in some countries (such as Italy and West Germany) they were officially banned. Beginning in the late 1940s, however, many fascist-oriented parties and movements were founded in Europe as well as in Latin America and South Africa. Although some European “neofascist” groups attracted large followings, especially in Italy and France, none were as influential as the major fascist parties of the interwar period."

Open this link a read more, pay attention to the column on the left side. It will inform the curious and be ignored by the willfully ignorant.

fascism | politics

And that describes every single socialist country.....fascism is one type of socialism.....no matter how you try to hide it....fascism is socialism and socialism murdered close to 100 million people around the world....

As posted, the willfully ignorant will not open the link. Thanks so much for proving my point.

 

[Staidhup]

I find it interesting in that the left is willing to disclose and expose their ignorance in proclaiming the other side is Fascist. Their problem is fear mongering and word association without fully understanding what Fascism is all about. Those that live in glass houses should not be throwing stones. Maybe its time they look in the mirror, then they will see the true face of Fascism.

 

[basquebromance]

 

[The Rabbi]

Barney Frank said he favoted single payer but didnt have the votes.
Barack Obama said he favored single payer.
Bernie Sanders favors single payer.
These people are mainstream in the Democratic Party so their views are widely shared. Single payer is the goal. Clearly.

The argument comes down to semantic; whether single payer is technically nationalizing the industry, or not.

Who do you think the "single payer" is?

For one taking the profit out of healthcare. Did Jesus charge to treat the sick? For another it does not eliminate private for profit medical providers.

Lol. Dont even try to get all sanctimonious on us. Jesus healing the sick has nothing to do with our worthless obamacare.

The point is, Jesus didn't profit from good works, nor did he teach the hungry how to fish, he feed them. So let's not pretend the New Right, the callous conservatives, are Christian in deeds, wearing a cross and a flag pin does not make one a patriot or a Christian.

Which part of the Gospel recommends stealing money and giving it to people?

 

[Agit8r]

The argument comes down to semantic; whether single payer is technically nationalizing the industry, or not.

Who do you think the "single payer" is?

For one taking the profit out of healthcare. Did Jesus charge to treat the sick? For another it does not eliminate private for profit medical providers.

Lol. Dont even try to get all sanctimonious on us. Jesus healing the sick has nothing to do with our worthless obamacare.

The point is, Jesus didn't profit from good works, nor did he teach the hungry how to fish, he feed them. So let's not pretend the New Right, the callous conservatives, are Christian in deeds, wearing a cross and a flag pin does not make one a patriot or a Christian.

Which part of the Gospel recommends stealing money and giving it to people?

It doesn't. However the Book of Acts does describe the structure of the Early Church.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I find it interesting in that the left is willing to disclose and expose their ignorance in proclaiming the other side is Fascist. Their problem is fear mongering and word association without fully understanding what Fascism is all about. Those that live in glass houses should not be throwing stones. Maybe its time they look in the mirror, then they will see the true face of Fascism.

One more critic who claims to know what "Fascism is all about", yet does not provide any evidence to prove such a statement. Next I expect someone will post a link to PoliticalChic, using her(?) as an authority.

 

[The Rabbi]

I find it interesting in that the left is willing to disclose and expose their ignorance in proclaiming the other side is Fascist. Their problem is fear mongering and word association without fully understanding what Fascism is all about. Those that live in glass houses should not be throwing stones. Maybe its time they look in the mirror, then they will see the true face of Fascism.

One more critic who claims to know what "Fascism is all about", yet does not provide any evidence to prove such a statement. Next I expect someone will post a link to PoliticalChic, using her(?) as an authority.

Fascism is about state control over business, partnerships with big business and big labor, regulation of citizens' lives to "improve" them, stamping out dissent, criminalizing speech, and demonizing opposition.
I think I just described the present Democratic Party.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I find it interesting in that the left is willing to disclose and expose their ignorance in proclaiming the other side is Fascist. Their problem is fear mongering and word association without fully understanding what Fascism is all about. Those that live in glass houses should not be throwing stones. Maybe its time they look in the mirror, then they will see the true face of Fascism.

One more critic who claims to know what "Fascism is all about", yet does not provide any evidence to prove such a statement. Next I expect someone will post a link to PoliticalChic, using her(?) as an authority.

Fascism is about state control over business, partnerships with big business and big labor, regulation of citizens' lives to "improve" them, stamping out dissent, criminalizing speech, and demonizing opposition.
I think I just described the present Democratic Party.

You don't think, you emote.

FYI, there is no Fascism, per se; there were/are fascist states with common characteristics outlined in the link I provided. The same common characteristic we've seen in kind, if not always in degree, from the New Right. See the link and peruse the column on the left, in this link for some examples.

fascism - Conservative economic programs | politics

Then you might (well maybe not you) but those with an open mind and some sense of the rhetoric used by people on the right - elected or members of the power elite or the hoi polloi - will see how and why I asked the question in the OP.

 

[The Rabbi]

I find it interesting in that the left is willing to disclose and expose their ignorance in proclaiming the other side is Fascist. Their problem is fear mongering and word association without fully understanding what Fascism is all about. Those that live in glass houses should not be throwing stones. Maybe its time they look in the mirror, then they will see the true face of Fascism.

One more critic who claims to know what "Fascism is all about", yet does not provide any evidence to prove such a statement. Next I expect someone will post a link to PoliticalChic, using her(?) as an authority.

Fascism is about state control over business, partnerships with big business and big labor, regulation of citizens' lives to "improve" them, stamping out dissent, criminalizing speech, and demonizing opposition.
I think I just described the present Democratic Party.

You don't think, you emote.

FYI, there is no Fascism, per se; there were/are fascist states with common characteristics outlined in the link I provided. The same common characteristic we've seen in kind, if not always in degree, from the New Right. See the link and peruse the column on the left for in this link for some examples.

fascism - Conservative economic programs | politics

Then you might (well maybe not you) but those with an open mind and some sense of the rhetoric used by people on the right - elected or members of the power elite or the hoi polloi - will see how and why I asked the question in the OP.

Go read Golberg's Liberal Fascism and then we can talk.
Oh, wait. You haven't read a book in your life.
Sure, there is no Fascism. lol. You're such an incompetent turd.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I find it interesting in that the left is willing to disclose and expose their ignorance in proclaiming the other side is Fascist. Their problem is fear mongering and word association without fully understanding what Fascism is all about. Those that live in glass houses should not be throwing stones. Maybe its time they look in the mirror, then they will see the true face of Fascism.

One more critic who claims to know what "Fascism is all about", yet does not provide any evidence to prove such a statement. Next I expect someone will post a link to PoliticalChic, using her(?) as an authority.

Fascism is about state control over business, partnerships with big business and big labor, regulation of citizens' lives to "improve" them, stamping out dissent, criminalizing speech, and demonizing opposition.
I think I just described the present Democratic Party.

You don't think, you emote.

FYI, there is no Fascism, per se; there were/are fascist states with common characteristics outlined in the link I provided. The same common characteristic we've seen in kind, if not always in degree, from the New Right. See the link and peruse the column on the left for in this link for some examples.

fascism - Conservative economic programs | politics

Then you might (well maybe not you) but those with an open mind and some sense of the rhetoric used by people on the right - elected or members of the power elite or the hoi polloi - will see how and why I asked the question in the OP.

Go read Golberg's Liberal Fascism and then we can talk.
Oh, wait. You haven't read a book in your life.
Sure, there is no Fascism. lol. You're such an incompetent turd.

Thanks so much for the referral on Goldberg, if I only read books I'd read it, the review was so enlightening (not in the way you hoped) I would have enjoyed a good many laughs. For others, here is are review of what Rabbit considers to be the truth, and nothing but the truth (according to Rabbi(t) known far and wide as mendacious, his most redeeming character flaw):

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/30/books/review/Oshinsky-t.html?_r=0

 

[Wry Catcher]

Here's a bit from another review, for the curious:

"Jonah Goldberg tells us he wrote this book to get even. The liberals started it by “insist[ing] that conservatism has connections with fascism” (p. 22). Conservatives “sit dumbfounded by the nastiness of the slander” (p. 1). “The left wields the term fascism like a cudgel” (p. 3). So Jonah Goldberg has decided it is time to turn the tables and show that “the liberal closet has its own skeletons” (p. 22). After years of being “called a fascist and a Nazi by smug, liberal know-nothings” he decides that “responding to this slander is a point of personal privilege” (p. 392).

"Feeling oneself a victim is wonderfully liberating. Anything goes. So Jonah Goldberg pulls out all the stops to show that fascism “is not a phenomenon of the right at all. It is, and always has been, a phenomenon of the left” (p. 7). The reader perceives at once that Goldberg likes to put things into rigid boxes: right and left, conservative and liberal, fascist and non-fascist. He doesn’t leave room for such complexities as convergences, middle grounds, or evolution over time. Thus Father Coughlin was always a man of the left, and so was Mussolini (Giacomo Matteotti or the Rosselli brothers, leaders of the Italian left whom Mussolini had assassinated, would have been scandalized by this view). The very mention of a “Third Way” puts one instantly into the fascist box.

"That’s too bad, because there really is a subject here. Fascism – a political latecomer that adapted anti-socialism to a mass electorate, using means that often owed nothing to conservatism – drew on both right and left, and tried to transcend that bitter division in a purified, invigorated, expansionist national community. A sensitive analysis of what fascism drew from all quarters of the political spectrum would be a valuable project. It is not Jonah Goldberg’s project.

"The bottom line is that Goldberg wants to attach a defaming epithet to liberals and the left, to “put the brown shirt on [your] opponents,” as he accuses the liberals of doing (p. 392). He goes about this task with a massive apparatus of scholarly citations and quotations. But Goldberg’s scholarship is not an even-handed search for understanding, following the best evidence fully and open-mindedly wherever it might lead. He chooses his scholarly data selectively and sometimes misleadingly in the service of his demonstration."

- See more at: The Scholarly Flaws of "Liberal Fascism"

 

[The Rabbi]

Here's a bit from another review, for the curious:

"Jonah Goldberg tells us he wrote this book to get even. The liberals started it by “insist[ing] that conservatism has connections with fascism” (p. 22). Conservatives “sit dumbfounded by the nastiness of the slander” (p. 1). “The left wields the term fascism like a cudgel” (p. 3). So Jonah Goldberg has decided it is time to turn the tables and show that “the liberal closet has its own skeletons” (p. 22). After years of being “called a fascist and a Nazi by smug, liberal know-nothings” he decides that “responding to this slander is a point of personal privilege” (p. 392).

"Feeling oneself a victim is wonderfully liberating. Anything goes. So Jonah Goldberg pulls out all the stops to show that fascism “is not a phenomenon of the right at all. It is, and always has been, a phenomenon of the left” (p. 7). The reader perceives at once that Goldberg likes to put things into rigid boxes: right and left, conservative and liberal, fascist and non-fascist. He doesn’t leave room for such complexities as convergences, middle grounds, or evolution over time. Thus Father Coughlin was always a man of the left, and so was Mussolini (Giacomo Matteotti or the Rosselli brothers, leaders of the Italian left whom Mussolini had assassinated, would have been scandalized by this view). The very mention of a “Third Way” puts one instantly into the fascist box.

"That’s too bad, because there really is a subject here. Fascism – a political latecomer that adapted anti-socialism to a mass electorate, using means that often owed nothing to conservatism – drew on both right and left, and tried to transcend that bitter division in a purified, invigorated, expansionist national community. A sensitive analysis of what fascism drew from all quarters of the political spectrum would be a valuable project. It is not Jonah Goldberg’s project.

"The bottom line is that Goldberg wants to attach a defaming epithet to liberals and the left, to “put the brown shirt on [your] opponents,” as he accuses the liberals of doing (p. 392). He goes about this task with a massive apparatus of scholarly citations and quotations. But Goldberg’s scholarship is not an even-handed search for understanding, following the best evidence fully and open-mindedly wherever it might lead. He chooses his scholarly data selectively and sometimes misleadingly in the service of his demonstration."

- See more at: The Scholarly Flaws of "Liberal Fascism"

Gee a review filled with nothing but empty assertions and name calling. No wonder you like it, it's just like all your posts.