One of the ugliest agit prop, street theatre tactics now being commonly used is the accusation: fascist, in effect, outlaw beyond the pale of civil protection. It is therefore appropriate to pause and seek clarification on what fascism really is about.
But first, let us draw attention to a disturbing historical parallel to what we saw on the streets of Berkeley only a few days past; headlining a comment in the still live agit-prop thread:
>>Let’s compare UCB, two Wednesdays ago and another Wednesday in 1921 in Bavaria
>> Wednesday, September 14, 1921
Hitler, a substantial number of members of the Turn-und Sportabteilung, the paramilitary arm of the Nazi Party [ = SA], and other Nazi party adherents disrupted a meeting in Munich at the Lowenbraukeller of the Bavarian League. One Nazi, Hermann Esser, climbed upon a chair and shouted that the Jews were to blame for the misfortunes of Bavaria, and the Nazis shouted demands that Otto Ballerstedt yield the floor to Hitler. The Nazis proceeded to beat up Ballerstedt and shoved him off the stage into the audience. Afterwards both Hitler and Esser were arrested, and Hitler commented notoriously to the police commissioner, “It’s all right. We got what we wanted. Ballerstedt did not speak.” The Bavarian League was federalist organization that objected to the centralism of the Weimar Constitution, but accepted its social program. Ballerstedt, an engineer whom Hitler regarded as “my most dangerous opponent” was its leader.>>
>>On 14 September 1921, there was a highly publicized incident, when Hitler, Hermann Esser, Oskar Körner (later to die in the Beer Hall Putsch) and some other NSDAP supporters stormed a Ballerstedt meeting in the Munich Löwenbräukeller in order to prevent him giving a lecture. Hitler achieved this goal by drastic measures: He reached Ballerstedt, then assaulted and injured him severely. Ballerstedt was then forcibly dragged out of the Hall. As a result, Hitler was on trial from 27 to 29 January 1922 on charges of a breach of the peace, public indecency and assault. He and Esser were convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for 100 days and payment of 1,000 Reichsmark. The prison sentence was served from 24 June to 27 July 1922 in Munich Stadelheim prison, where Hitler remained only a month.>>
–> Shouting down and silencing speaker through bully-boy tactics, check.
–> Beating up people who dare to differ, check.
–> Overly lenient policing of riots, check.
–> BTW, the speaker disappeared on the night of the long knives and his body was later found with a bullet to the back of the head.
–> Sounds familiar?>>
Let’s roll the tape:
So, we would be well advised to take pause then ask some pointed questions as to who is showing real fascist tendencies through their pattern of actions. I think we would all be well advised to cool down the temperature and get back to recognising that fundamental rights, freedoms and responsibilities should be mutually respected. In the words of the town clerk of Ephesus as reported in Ac 19:
Ac 19:38 If therefore Demetrius and the craftsmen with him have a complaint against anyone, the courts are open, and there are proconsuls. Let them bring charges against one another. 39 But if you seek anything further, it shall be settled in the regular assembly. 40 For we really are in danger of being charged with rioting today, since there is no cause that we can give to justify this commotion.” [ESV]
The clerk then dismissed the riot that — duly manipulated by Demetrius et al — had spent two hours in a blood-curdling fury, mindlessly shouting: “Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!”
With that in the back of our minds, let us now headline another comment in that same thread, to help us clarify the surprisingly vexed question as to just what fascism actually is:
>>Just what is Fascism/Nazism?
This is a hard Q to give an A to, especially as there is a persistent confusion that it is a “right wing” phenomenon: the extreme form of Capitalism even as Communism is the extreme form of Socialism. Where of course, Fascism and Nazism have become catch-all terms of abuse with enough murkiness that they are just what the agit prop activists want, especially as there is a general feeling that such are beyond the pale of civil discussion.
As in, shutting down discussion in a cloud of hostility, confusion and polarisation to the point where many think of an accused fascist or Nazi as effectively a demonised heretic to be despised and driven out by any means deemed necessary. And of course, serious Bible Believing Christians are then tagged, Christo-fascists or the equivalent.
We therefore need to put up some remarks that will begin to clarify the mess that is now being used to justify violence in the streets and destructive media narratives that use the street agit prop theatre as a platform to sow discord and undermine legitimate, peaceful transfer of power in accord with a lawful election. After all, everybody knows you must not surrender power to Nazis — those right wing thugs being led by the ignorant, stupid, insane and/or wicked.
Resemblance to what is currently going on is NOT coincidental.
No wonder there was a warning that if fascism were to make a comeback, it would do so in the guise of opposing fascism.
In short, the very name “Antifa” is a destructive lie.
(As we can see from its resort to notorious brownshirt tactics and violent suppression of others, even as it projects patently false accusations against those it targets.)
Now, in fact Fascism is a kissing cousin of Marxism-Leninism and Mao-ism, and arose from the rather noxious, tainted stew of trends and themes of the late C 19 as the Judaeo-Christian frame of thought was expelled from the mind-space of far too many intellectuals, artists and political figures. (Don’t forget that that frame of thought had Eugenics as a major movement among the educated and aspirants, and that this was tied to both social darwinism and racism.)
The first clue is the actual name of the Nazi Party: National Socialist German Worker’s/Labour Party.
Regardless of what the proto-fascist philosophers thought and wrote, real world fascism came out of in effect a split of the Socialist movement engendered by the first world war. Mussolini rejected the neutral stance of the socialist international and shifted to Italian Nationalism. His three-fold theme then shaped fascism: Everything in the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state — the essence of totalitarianism. Statism was wedded to socialisation of all of life (including an implicit takeover of capital through cartels dominated by the state though nominal ownership remained in private hands), and was tied to nietzschean superman political messianism modelled on a mythical view of the Caesars, and more. This implied one party rule, the police state in some form or other and a militaristic mentality that regimented the ordinary person. And, forget genuine freedom, that was to be shorn of “unnecessary” or “useless” components and the individual was only valuable insofar as he was a stick bound up in the bundle that bore the axe-head. This movement spread across Southern, Eastern and Central Europe and to Latin America, with varying degrees of intensity. (And of course, there were always inconsistencies, Fascism like Marxism is an inherently incoherent ideology held together by force, emotions and agit prop, not any legitimate community consensus based on the state as guardian of the rights of the individual.)
That is why I have put up this summary several times above:
FASCISM: At heart, it is the notion that in a day of “unprecedented” crisis that targets a large — locally dominant or pivotally influential — perceived victim group or class or religious or racial/national body, a super-man figure emerges to rescue the victims; one who is beyond ordinary human powers and limits (including those of morality and just law). A political messiah who stands as champion for the identity group to save it, defending it from the various scapegoated out-groups who are held to be to blame for the victimisation of the in-group. That super-man political messiah then seizes power and is widely recognised as a man of “destiny.” In an atmosphere of hysteria, slander and propagandistic deception that is usually multiplied by chaos and violence or at least riotous assemblies in the streets baying for blood, the power blocs, political, legal, military, corporate, religious, etc then align with him, giving him effectively unlimited power in the face of a crisis. We have now reached the threshold of tyranny. And because of the perceived unprecedented crisis, that super-man “people’s champion” figure is cheered on and supported in taking extraordinary measures; measures that sacrifice liberty and justice for the sake of the promised utopian order. And so reigns of terror and aggressive wars naturally emerge.
And if you think Hitler was not socialistic in his mindset, ponder his remark about the Nazi Flag:
“As National socialists we see our programme in our flag. In red we see the social thoughts of the movement, in white the nationalist thoughts, in the hooked-cross the mission of fighting for the victory of Aryan man and at the same time the victory of the concept of creative work. [NB: The double S in the swastika was seen as not just an abstract racial symbol but as two intertwined S’es: one for Socialism and the other for Seig, victory in German. Creative refers more broadly than to artistic also, and the word for that also begins with S in German. Cf the discussion in an online briefing here.]
The Econ Library discussion is also helpful:
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.
Fascism is to be distinguished from interventionism, or the mixed economy. Interventionism seeks to guide the market process, not eliminate it, as fascism did. Minimum-wage and antitrust laws, though they regulate the free market, are a far cry from multiyear plans from the Ministry of Economics.
Under fascism, the state, through official cartels, controlled all aspects of manufacturing, commerce, finance, and agriculture. Planning boards set product lines, production levels, prices, wages, working conditions, and the size of firms. Licensing was ubiquitous; no economic activity could be undertaken without government permission. Levels of consumption were dictated by the state, and “excess” incomes had to be surrendered as taxes or “loans.” The consequent burdening of manufacturers gave advantages to foreign firms wishing to export. But since government policy aimed at autarky, or national self-sufficiency, protectionism was necessary: imports were barred or strictly controlled, leaving foreign conquest as the only avenue for access to resources unavailable domestically. Fascism was thus incompatible with peace and the international division of labor—hallmarks of [ –> classical as opposed to current] liberalism . . .
Finally, Jonah Goldberg gives us words to ponder that we would do better to listen to and responsibly address rather than indulge in the now all too usual irresponsible rhetoric of mind-closing dismissal:
Angry left-wingers shout that all those to their right, particularly corporate fat cats and the politicians who love them, are fascists. Meanwhile, besieged conser-vatives sit dumbfounded by the nastiness of the slander. Bill Maher to the contrary, fascism is not “when corporations be-come the government.” Ironically, however, George Carlin’s conclu-sion is right, though not his reasoning. If fascism does come to America, it will indeed take the form of “smiley-face fascism”—nice fascism . . . .
The historian R. A. H. Robinson wrote twenty years ago, “Although enormous amounts of research time and mental energy have been put into the study of it . . . fascism has remained the great conundrum for students of the twentieth century.” Meanwhile, the authors of the Dictionnaire historique des fascismes et du nazisme flatly assert, “No universally accepted definition of the fascist phe-nomenon exists, no consensus, however slight, as to its range, its ide-ological origins, or the modalities of action which characterize it.” Stanley G. Payne, considered by many to be the leading living scholar of fascism, wrote in 1995, “At the end of the twentieth cen-tury fascism remains probably the vaguest of the major political terms.” There are even serious scholars who make a credible case that Nazism wasn’t fascist, that fascism doesn’t exist at all, and that it is primarily a secular religion (this is my own view). “[P]ut sim-ply,” writes Gilbert Allardyce, “we have agreed to use the word with-out agreeing on how to define it.”
And yet even though scholars admit that the nature of fascism is vague, complicated, and open to wildly divergent interpretations, many modern liberals and leftists act as if they know exactly what fascism is. What’s more, they see it everywhere—except when they look in the mirror. Indeed, the left wields the term like a cudgel to beat opponents from the public square like seditious pamphleteers. [–> this was written c. 2008 and was likely meant metaphorically]
After all, no one has to take a fascist seriously. You’re under no ob-ligation to listen to a fascist’s arguments or concern yourself with his feelings or rights. It’s why Al Gore and many other environmental-ists are so quick to compare global-warming skeptics to Holocaust deniers. Once such an association takes hold, there’s no reason to give such people the time of day.
In short, “fascist” is a modern word for “heretic,” branding an in-dividual worthy of excommunication from the body politic. The left uses other words—“racist,” “sexist,” “homophobe,” “christianist”— for similar purposes, but these words have less elastic meanings. Fascism, however, is the gift that keeps on giving. George Orwell noted this tendency as early as 1946 in his famous essay “Politics and the English Language”: “The word Fascism has now no mean-ing except in so far as it signifies ‘something not desirable.’ ” . . . .
Particularly in the aftermath of World War I—but beginning much earlier—a fascist moment arose on the ashes of the old European order. It drew together the various strands of European politics and culture—the rise of racist national-ism, the Bismarckian welfare state, and the collapse of Christianity as a source of social and political orthodoxy and universal aspira-tions. In place of Christianity, it offered a new religion of the di-vinized state and the nation as an organic community. This international movement had many variants and offshoots and went by different names in different countries. Its expression in dif-ferent societies varied depending on national culture. This is one of the reasons it is so hard to define [–> BTW, one reason why I focus on the key aspect, political messianism tied to the notion of a charismatic man of destiny above law and whose ideas, words, wishes and personality become a licence to his followers to speak and act without regard to truth, respect for others, fairness and requisites of justice in a world where we are finite, fallible, morally struggling and too often ill-willed] . . . .
Before the war, fascism was widely viewed as a progressive social movement with many liberal and left-wing adherents in Europe and the United States; the horror of the Holocaust completely changed our view of fascism as something uniquely evil and ineluctably bound up with extreme nationalism, paranoia, and genocidal racism. After the war, the American Progressives who had praised Mussolini and even looked sympathetically at Hitler in the 1920s and 1930s had to dis-tance themselves from the horrors of Nazism. Accordingly, leftist in-tellectuals redefined fascism as “right-wing” [–> reflecting Stalin’s propaganda] and projected their own sins onto conservatives, even as they continued to borrow heavily from fascist and pre-fascist thought . . . .
[It was in the 1930’s] that Stalin stumbled on a brilliant tactic of simply labeling all inconvenient ideas and movements fascist. Socialists and progressives aligned with Moscow were called social-ists or progressives, while socialists disloyal or opposed to Moscow were called fascists. Stalin’s theory of social fascism rendered even Franklin Roosevelt a fascist according to loyal Communists every-where. And let us recall that Leon Trotsky was marked for death for allegedly plotting a “fascist coup.” While this tactic was later de-plored by many sane American left-wingers, it is amazing how many useful idiots fell for it at the time, and how long its intellectual half-life has been . . . .
[Also] it must be noted that scholars have had so much difficulty explaining what fascism is because various fascisms have been so different from each other. For example, the Nazis were geno-cidal anti-Semites. The Italian Fascists were protectors of the Jews until the Nazis took over Italy. Fascists fought for the side of the Axis, but the Spanish stayed out of the war (and protected Jews as well) [–> though, a Spanish legion was organised and went to Russia to fight]. The Nazis hated Christianity, the Italians made peace with the Catholic Church (though Mussolini himself despised Christianity with an untrammeled passion), members of the Romanian Legion of the Archangel Michael styled themselves as Christian crusaders. Some fascists championed “state capitalism,” while others, such as the Blue Shirts of Kuomintang China, demanded the immediate seizure of the means of production. The Nazis were officially anti-Bolshevist, but there was a movement of “national Bolshevism” within Nazi ranks, too.
The one thing that unites these movements is that they were all, in their own ways, totalitarian [–> I add, and politically messianistic with a core narrative of rescue for the pivotal identity group]. But what do we mean when we say something is “totalitarian?” The word has certainly taken on an un-derstandably sinister connotation in the last half century. Thanks to work by Hannah Arendt, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and others, it’s be-come a catchall for brutal, soul-killing, Orwellian regimes. But that’s not how the word was originally used or intended. Mussolini himself coined the term to describe a society where everybody belonged, where everyone was taken care of, where everything was inside the state and nothing was outside . . .
Whatever one may choose to think about Goldberg’s book, Liberal Fascism, this summary hits all too close to home. As we look in this ugly mirror, let us all take serious, sobering pause.
Let us therefore stop, re-think and start afresh on sounder foundations of due regard for truth, fairness, accurate conceptions and a due appreciation of the price paid in blood and tears to bring us the lessons of sound history.>>
It is time for us to reconsider where we are heading as a civilisation, before it is too late:
Part of that is that we need to reconsider how we toss around loaded accusations like “fascist” and “Nazi” or the like. END
63 Replies to “You “Fascist”! (Really? What is a true “fascist”?)”
You Fascist! — really?
Fascism today mean support for academic freedom and English Common Law, among other evils.
Thus, anti-fascists are mostly Orwell’s Outer Party. the ‘crats who enforce what they didn;t invent and don;t understand, in order to keep the system that pays them going.
News, Ever so sad, and pointing straight over the cliff. KF
Joy Villa TROLLS 2017 Grammy’s Wearing Trump / “Make America Great Again” (MAGA) Dress
Get Your Freedom- Joy Villa Official Music Video (feat. HUOS Music)
Tremendous respect for Joy Villa. Imagine the courage it took to wear that dress in such a hostile environment. She never flinched. Makes me feel quite timid, actually.
I think the key characteristic which distinguishes fascism from Marxist-communism is nationalism. Fascisms tend to be highly nationalistic, so in that sense they are viewed as “right wing”– thus you have German fascism, Italian fascism, Spanish fascism, Argentinian fascism etc.
On the other hand, according to one on-line Marxist source:
Marxists, therefore, had a much more ideological, class oriented and subversive strategy which aimed to topple oppressive governments from within by class revolution. Fascists like Hitler and Mussolini relied almost exclusively on military power as a means of political expansion. Therefore, Marxists would see fascists as oppressors and themselves as liberators.
Both fascism and Marxist-communism have a strong emphasis on state control along with the denial of individual rights and freedoms. Marxists, of course, rationalize this by arguing the denial of liberty is temporary but necessary.
News @ 2 – I couldn’t give my immediate response to you here as I’d be banned. But, please. I’m British and, on the whole, I support English (& Welsh) law. I also support academic freedom. So please don’t to call me a fascist.
It’s easy for a pseudonymous person to to call someone a fascist on the internet. That devalues the force of the word – it becomes passé. But then it rather undermines the outrage of this post.
JAD, nationalism — a fancy and sometimes loaded word for patriotism — does not make one “right wing” insofar as that has any meaning. But, it was doubtless a handy agit prop talking point for Stalin. I suspect the more pivotal issue is the drift into cult of personality or the charismatic leader; which the communists say they despise — the nietzschean superman political messiah figure. Communitsts also tend to emphasise an economically dispossessed working or peasant class, whilst fascists have often been more or less middle class based. But they have had their fair share of larger than life personalities with cults, Castro being the most notorious in recent times. Another, is the difference on capital, fascists historically have been cleverer, realising that cartelisation, regulation and control backed up by intimidation is more likely to work; though the Junkers family will have an angry thing or two to say, given what happened to the founder of the aircraft company under Hitler. Indeed, China seems to have been going that way since the late 70’s. With Fidel Castro in the Caribbean, I think a case can be made that the two systems are very close indeed. KF
BO’H: Have you taken a bit of time to watch the video clip in the OP, where a victim speaks out, before you commented as you just did? Had you bothered, you would have realised this is a case precisely of standing up for academic freedom and being subjected to violence for that crime against the politically correct black shirts. this is a case of a victim BTW who is a lesbian woman, and somewhat of an anarchist who went with friends to hear someone speak at an event on a uni campus that was supposed to have proper security — indeed had just jacked the sponsors for was it US$ 5 – 6 thou more just before the event. FYI, people are being sucker-sprayed in the face with noxious chemicals [could easily be caustic ones or outright poison gases] for the crime of speaking to the press on the street in ways the black shirts do not approve. They are being pounced on, swarmed down, sucker-punched, clubbed, beaten and subjected to mayhem putting them in hospital with broken ribs due to being kicked and/or stomped while down and unconscious. Arson is being committed as well as wanton destruction of property by rioters, while police are on obvious stand down. That is more than reason enough to respond very sharply indeed to those shouting about fascism as a means of imposing a mob mentality outlaw status then resorting to classic fascist bully-boy tactics to shut down and intimidate or injure those they differ with. For this, there is simply no excuse.KF
Complete irretrievable drivel.
Fascism was created by Mussolini after he was thrown out of the Communist International for the crime of being an Italian Nationalist. German National Socialism had practically NOTHING to do with Italian Fascism, except that both violated one of the principles of Socialism by allowing individuals to retain ownership of businesses. But both Mussolini and Hitler were Socialists and therefore LEFT Wing. The Right Wing is composed of Libertarians and Anarchists. “Imagine that Libertarians conquered the world, and left everyone the Hell alone…”
When Americans today mention “fascists” what they really mean is “Communist”. Any deviation from the Party line would get you defrocked and probably killed by Stalin, and Mao, the “poet”, perfected Brainwashing if he didn’t invent it.
The reason that “fascist” is still used to suggest Authoritarian government is that the intellectual descendants of Stalin and Mao, who will send us ALL to the Camps as soon as they have the chance, is that the Leftists still control The Press and Academia. Agreeing to use THEIR terminology for “oppressive public censorship of ideas and discussion” perpetuates their control of The Press and Academia. The whole “politically correct” thing was CLASSIC Communism.
Try substituting “Communist” or “Socialist” for “Fascist” in a posting and see how WIDELY you are condemned.
Mahuna, pardon but there are several errors in your assertions. First, the Socialists and the Communists were and are different and Mussolini was involved with the Socialists rather than the Bolsheviks. Second, Mussolini had important antecedents [esp. certain philosophers], but there was a family of fascisms that requires a prime- case- plus- more- or- less- of- family- resemblance approach. Third, I actually agree that one form of the right wing (a much mushier concept than the left; e.g. the older RW was Monarchist) is libertarians plus one of the multiple types of movements of anarchic inclination. Do not forget, the golden age of communism is envisioned in anarchic terms also. Next, I agree that fascisms strike deals with capitalists etc, usually capturing them into state-run cartels and imposing totalitarian controls. I have obviously emphasised that it is essentially left wing and statist. I pointed out a key factor, political messianism; in extreme form the leadership principle. The Nazis are generally — and for cause — seen as part of the fascist family, just as Franco, several states in E and SE Europe, plus some in Latin America. As for what Americans (and many others) typically “mean” I suggest that the black shirt antifas target those to their right in their rioting and that in many many contexts right wing extremist is the usual meaning assigned — certainly, that is what they taught me in school and in the media decades ago. I also pointed to Stalin’s propaganda move and its descendants to today, directly and via Goldberg. I think we can agree that there has been a cultural marxist/ “critical theory” long march through institutions including much of the academy and the media. KF
Frankly, the fascist label is used far too frequently by both sides. Anyone who uses it in modern context to demonize the opposition, to be honest, is going for the emotional propaganda associated with the label because they lack a rational argument.
DD, Fascist came up in the specific context of de facto outlawing people then targetted for street violence up to and including mayhem followed by the usual media raping of one’s good name. A first corrective step is to break the programming and thus the narrative. KF
I fully agree. So, you agree that demonizing muslims simply because of their religion is evil? And, on that topic, why did you post that conspiracy theory [SNIP — vulgarity] about the Quebec mosque shooting? There is absolutely no evidence that there is some sort of government coverup to hide an Islamic attack as inferred from that link. All evidence, so far, points towards a disturbed individual who was “radicalized” by the type of anti Muslim nonsense that you spew [–> DENIGRATORY, rooted in strawman caricature of what I have written in response to earlier probing by DD — cf corrective response below]. Everything from your link referred to very early reports and witnesses. Accounts that anyone with an understanding of investigations know are the most unreliable. [ –> I responded in brief to a tangent pointing out a well known pattern, then returning to the main issue, you repeat the tangent, with behaviour that does not speak well of your approach, no further tangential matter will be tolerated. KF]
DD, you are again off on a loaded tangent; which begins to sound like the trifecta fallacy of distraction, distortion, denigration. FYI, Muslims, too, are people for whom Christ died. They are by and large trapped in a religious-ideological system that can too often become totalitarian, with a long history on this. The system explicitly denies the historically certain fact of Jesus’ crucifixion, much less the death and resurrection attested by 500+ witnesses and which launched the church with unstoppable power in witness to the gospel of salvation; nor does it acknowledge that this resurrection authenticates his claim to be Son of God with power. Indeed, it conflates the triune concept of God with idolatry and assigns it the worst sin as defined in Islam, shirk . . . often in the context of gross misunderstandings of what the Orthodox Christian faith actually creedally teaches, based on Scripture. (Cf. here for baseline info on Islam, and here for a 101 on the gospel and its warrant. Nehls and Eric here will give much more, often with details not known by many Muslims. Fr Zachariah Boutros here will be helpful.) Such are grave spiritual manifestations indeed, indicative of strong men to be bound so their captives can be set free by God’s grace through the gospel. Muslims, too, need the gospel, and it seems there is a whole movement of people whom Jesus is appearing to in dreams and calling to himself, with quite authentic conversions. We also have to take a sober assessment of what the moderate Muslims of Algeria called — with some cause — Islamofascism as a significant security threat tied to a 100 year global conquest plan as is for instance documented in captured documents from the Muslim Brotherhood, i.e. The Project — scroll down for English — I first saw a map of this general scheme on Sept 11,2001. Similarly, the explanatory memorandum (another captured document) (scroll down for English) revealed as part of the Holyland Foundation trial show that there is a strategy of settlement-/ civilisational jihad within that framework. I need no more than mention jihad by bands including the long history of suicidal raids going back to the assassin cult. There is a massive media/ elites denial of these well demonstrated facts, and we will have to deal with this also. KF
PS: I responded to this as it is a significant issue, but I will be even more stringent about tangent tactics than in previous threads you have tried to divert.
PPS: I will not tolerate vulgar language and expect you to show a modicum of responsible conduct. As for conspiracy theories, you have utterly distorted what I have noted, which is that we do not know enough to know what has actually happened, and a wide range of possibilities obtains. That, in a context where the media and governments have not had a good track record of truth. As just one test, kindly see if you can readily explain the significance of the occasion of which Sept 11 2001 is the 318th anniversary, less one day, and why this event is memorialised in a constellation in the sky. If you cannot, you do not know enough about what is going on to comment with confidence. 99+% of people, knowing only what the media tend to cover, do not have a clue on this. And yet, it is pivotal. One point among many.
SNIP — DD, you were warned to stick to focal topic. If you want to pursue tangents all over the place, please go elsewhere and get your own soap-box; e.g. blogger is free and it takes 10 – 15 minutes to set up a blog — you are free to link such through your handle here at UD, but please stay on topic more or less and avoid slides into the gutter. At least, you seem to have highlighted the need to address the conspiracy theory dismissive talking point — a focus for another thread, another time. Soon, DV. KF
PS: On the word that you used to try to lower tone towards the gutter, note AmHD: “Vulgar Slang.” (The same, that is used with several of the notorious seven words.) Collins is more indulgent, but the message is the same, coarse and coarsening, corrupt communication. The oh it’s acceptable language and tone stunt fails.
True, but that is typically the way it is framed in the U.S. by the so-called liberal elites in the mainstream media and higher education. National or patriotism, especially if it’s extreme = patriotism.
I think fascist is sometimes gets used too loosely to mean any kind of politically inspired street thuggery, bullying or repression of free speech etc.– but these thing are just as typical on the far left as they are on the far right. However, I still do think nationalism is important in distinguishing fascism from Marxist communism. The Marxism that is presently entrenched on U.S. university campuses is a cultural form of Marxism that comes to us via the Frankfurt school which expanded Marxist ideology from the oppressed working class to other oppressed classes– blacks, women, gays etc. (Thus the mantra: race, class, gender.) Ironically, as the last Presidential election demonstrated, at least in the U.S., the left and far left have pretty much written off the working class. For sure, American workers still want economic justice but I don’t think they see Marxism as the solution. Why? Because they want to own property and live comfortable lives. Historical economic Marxism is just too extreme.
American cultural Marxists, none the less, have a deep disdain for American nationalism and patriotism, as well as traditional moral and religious values. So again, they are going to label anything that they see as too nationalistic or patriotic as fascist.
Correction: “Nationalism or patriotism, especially if it’s extreme = fascism.”
JAD, there is a lot of good substance in your remarks. I fully agree that patriotism has been twisted from respecting the nation and its core highest values and vision, into the suspicion of fascism. That is slander; any reasonable person should be able to discern love of homeland and its family of clans from jingoistic, militaristic aggression tied to nietzschean superman beyond the law political messianism and totalitarianism. Cultural Marxism/Critical Theory has indeed run riot, and is wreaking havoc; drawing deeply on Frankfurt/Columbia School roots. You are right to point to the rust belt largely white working classes as a re-emerging force to be reckoned with in US politics in that context. The option to go Reagan Democrat gives leverage that being lost in the ever more radical Democrat coalition does not, I suppose. And some are going Tea Party-ish, insofar as that term has any relevance now. Yes, Fascism does get used loosely to point to SA-style bully-boy street thuggery. However, we must not underestimate the power of agit prop fed into media spin and gaslighting narratives to create a hysteria that renders many people suggestible so they can be induced to follow marches of folly. This is rooted in cynical disregard of duties of care to truth, warranting of claims, fairness, respect etc, and is wedded to the sort of ruthless power-lust that opens the door to nihilism. Hovering in the background is the undermining of support for ethical theism in the Judaeo-Christian, scriptural tradition engendered by the rise of evolutionary materialism dressed up in the lab coat. Plato’s warning has been ignored yet again, to our peril as a civilisation. KF
PS: The left-right political spectrum comes up yet again. Nearly two years back here at UD, I argued it is essentially useless, save for highlighting the cluster of related movements we call the left and viewing the “centre” and “right” as in effect currently reactions to the left along at least two or maybe several branches. The historic right was monarchism, but that has been largely irrelevant in the W for what, nigh on a century. What is “conservative” now is largely versions of classical liberalism, with some elements of protectionism etc in some cases. The libertarians and anarcho-capitalists [or the like] are another branch, highly suspicious of the state. Neo-Conservatism used to refer to former Marxists turned supporters of constitutional democracy in the more or less American tradition and of modern moderated capitalism and also sensitive to geo-strategic issues and the historic role of leading maritime powers in long-term contest with ambitious continental ones, often pivoting on rimlands of the Eurasian landmass; these days I wonder when I see Mrs Clinton derided as Neo-Con and lumped in with Geo W Bush. (I guess that may partly be neo-isolationism trying to lump together those it opposes.) Now, too, we see a more or less amorphous “alt-right” that seems to blend supporters of Christendom in some form, supporters of more secularised views of western civilisation, supporters of some sort of white man’s burden view of the just mentioned [BTW Christianity went to Africa from its roots in SW Asia before it went to Europe, just ask the Ethiopians and Egyptians] to worshippers of IQ score patterns who wrench IQ into a proxy for race, outright racists [including anti-Semites] and even more oddball notions. A mess.
PPS: Plato’s warning:
I read somewhere that Mussolini was, at first, a communist. At some point, early on, he soured on communism, and became nationalistic in view.
What I read was sketchy, and so not definitive, but the impression it left was that whereas communism has an international perspective–an international revolt of the proletariat–Mussolini wasn’t so much concerned with the ‘world,’ as with Italy as a nation.
The basic point here is: fascism is simply an adulterated form of communism: communism turned inward, not outward.
Therefore, ‘fascism’ will almost always be seen as coming from the Left, and not the Right.
Except that it came from the right. Numerous private companies, including Swiss banks, got rich because of Hitler.
SNIP. DD, you had your warning regarding trollish successive tangents, loaded strawmen etc. Please leave this thread and any other that I own. KF
PS: All the points you have raised can be more than adequately answered at any number of appropriate and readily venues but would derail this highly important topic. The insistence in teeth of warnings shows that derailment is your intent.
F/N: A little above DD shows ignorance of Lenin’s observation, more or less that capitalists would vie to sell him the rope he would use to hang them. His 1920’s New Economic Policy worked with capitalists and the USSR continued to work with investors in many projects. For decades, the Communist state of China has shifted to a market-based system, transforming its economy. Where, too, bankers routinely worked with anyone of any ideology, especially Swiss bankers. The OP of course exposes Stalin’s propaganda claim, and identifies the ways in which fascism’s roots, ideological vision and policies are of socialist bent. KF
PAV, Mussolini was part of the Socialist International. I doubt he was a Bolshevik. KF
PS: Wiki clip on relevant history in a nutshell:
Fair enough. Then I will talk about fascism, the topic of this OP. Regardless of the original definition of the term, I think the world would agree that the word is now defined by the actions of Nazi Germany. .
One major aspect of that regime was the empowering and government support of a limited number of private capitalists. By that definition, Trump is giving every indication of conforming to this specific aspect of fascism.
Another tool used by Hitler was the demonizing of a poorly understood (or, more accurately, a stereotyped) subset of society to focus attention on a false enemy. Trump has taken a lesson from that playbook, and demonized both Muslims and Mexicans.
Trump is far from being a Hitler, but it would be difficult to argue that he is not using some of the fascist tool kit.
When George W. Bush left office he stepped aside and let the newly elected, Barack Obama, pursue his own agenda and govern the country. That has pretty much been the historical precedent. Apparently not anymore.
I was amazed how quickly after Trump issued his temporary travel ban, on Friday 1/27/17 that protesters showed up “spontaneously” at airports across the U.S. the next day. Well, now we know that it wasn’t spontaneous. It had been orchestrated the OFA.
Curiously, the main stream media is not covering this. It’s another example of the way the news media in the U.S. has been politicized and corrupted. It’s also scary when a former president is not willing to relinquish power and turns to political agitation. It least that’s the way it appears.
Fascism is indeed instantly more recognisable with Hitler’s Protestant/Catholic Germany, more so than other fascist regimes such as Mussolin’s Catholic Italy or Tojo’s Budhist Japan ,Franco’s Catholic Spain, Quisling’s Protestant Norway, Admiral Horthy’s Vatican supported Hungarian coup, Ireland’s General O’Duffy Vatican supported Blue Shirts, the Vatican supported Vichy regime etc etc. All, I am afraid to say, extremely right wing.
Not to mention the the fascist agreement between Il Duce, and the Vatican of 1929, known as the Lateran Pact, which was a deal literally done with the Devil.
No fascism, populism, overt nationalism, and xenophobia, are all right wing ideas. Keep tradition, avoid change, villify the other, intolerance is a virtue: any of this ringing bells Kairos, BA?
Please Kairos, do not murky the waters of modern day student idiots, with the term ‘fascism’ before you accept that fascism= right wing rascism, intolerance, gay bashing, book burning, sexual frustration, and anti-modernism.
After all, Pope Pius XI described the Duce as, ‘a man sent by providence’, oops! Hitler’s first international treaty was with the Vatican on the 8th, July, 1933, oops!. It said basically, ‘stay out of the Church’s rearing of children, and you can do whatever’, and as we all know, Hitler did whatever.
Actually the historical relationship between Church/Fascism has a long pedigree, they fit each other like hand in glove.
DD & rvb8 put on a show of superficial talking points attempting to paint Trump and/or the political right as the correct historical home of “fascism”, but as usual their talking points only point out that they are out of their depth.
Fascism is a at it’s root an intolerant collection of centralized power. At the far right end of the political spectrum is libertarianism and, at the extreme right, anarchism. Claiming that the “extreme right” desires or has any form of centralized power is to completely misunderstand what the terms “right” and “left” mean when it comes to American politics.
Nobody who advocates a more powerful, centralized government (under crony capitalism or not, autocracy, theocracy or oligarchy, – Mao, Hitler, Mussolini, Bush, etc.) with more power over the lives of individuals is advocating politics or a social system on the right of the political spectrum, and they are certainly not “right-wing extremists”. Right-wing extremists are anarchists.
Calling the right wing “fascists” is sort of like the Democrats, with a long history of racial, ethnic and gender oppression and manipulation, creating a narrative where they are the party of “diversity”. It is the Republicans that ended slavery amd championed civil rights and equal rights for women while the Democrats shoved immigrants into boss-controlled ghettos and created their own army – the KKK – to enforce their racist ideology.
I don’t know if DD and rvb8 are aware of this and are pushing the narrative like good trolls, or if they are simply useful idiots parroting the vapid, easily refuted [SNIP — vulgar reference drawn to my attention by DD — KF Feb 16, 4:26 AN EC Time] they have been indoctrinated with.
I will for the moment simply set aside your snide but quite revealing insinuation about the Christian faith.
I do note the immediate context, in which the accusation of fascism is being used to “justify” street thuggery and disrespect for fundamental rights and freedoms, in the wider context of undermining peaceful, legitimate transfer of power in accord with a lawful election.
The immediate pivotal issue is, what does “right wing” mean. And the answer is mushy as there is no one readily defined “right wing” agenda. Indeed, about two years back I argued here at UD that the conventional political spectrum of L/R has long sine outlived any usefulness it did have; save that the left is still a recognisable cluster. Right probably now simply means disagrees with the left in one sense or another, especially connected to rejection of statist control and centralisation of economic power and/or its anti-freedom tendencies.
Stalin’s propaganda tricks — as pointed out in the OP — pivoted on this, and so everything to his “right” was “right wing” and “fascist”; depending on who was his target for the moment. This, in an era now past, when in fact most educated or influential people seemed to agree, the future was socialist — even conservatives who fought against it.
I put it to you that the best answer to the Fascism is a right wing phenomenon is to identify the type-case (Italy) and assess characteristics that give sufficiently close family resemblance. The type-case is Italy, which is where the ideology was actually defined, named and came to power. The characteristics are as I have identified in the OP, and as Econ Library and Goldberg have also pointed out.
I clip my descriptive outline, for reference:
Economically, let me clip the Econ Library, also from the OP:
In short, Fascism was nationalised socialism that was willing to make deals with existing institutions and established industries, came to power in a context of political messianism that was led by a charismatic strong man more or less seeking nietzschean superman above law status, and was backed by mobs, street toughs and/or secret police. Freedom was trimmed to a narrow space set by the strong man and/or his delegates, who could easily go beyond law to target those who fell out of the totalitarian, one-party statist ambit: everything within the state, nothing beyond the state, nothing in opposition to the one-party state.
It is thus easy to see that in an age where:
. . . the elites, institutions and industrialists in states with weak democratic traditions or weak monarchies would find the fascists to be the socialists within the borders and/or in the neighbourhood to be the socialists you could make a deal with. And, they did, only to find themselves embroiled in a growing war not of their making (if they were in E and/or SE Europe, Spain was able to survive up to the 1970’s).
It is now very rhetorically — or propagandistically — convenient for the radical left to try to smear fascism as right wing, but it should be clear that this in the main reflects propaganda.
As for the attempt to tar the church and the Christian Faith on the whole with the fascist brush, this goes wrong on many, many levels:
This is an ill-founded smear, pure and simple: fascism, populism, overt nationalism, and xenophobia, are all right wing ideas.
That you wish to cluster “overt nationalism” with what you clearly deem a rogues gallery reflects of course the internationalist progressivism of our day. It is also a gross insult to the natural patriotism that ordinary and normal people have for their homeland. Similarly, an IRRATIONAL fear of the foreigner is an ancient challenge reflected in how proverbially many languages of old made no difference between stranger and enemy. Populism, appeal to the common people, is a reflection of the democratic impulse but which can easily become the blunder that the popular view/common man is always right. What is right is right, not what is popular or simplistic. However, quite often the ordinary man who feels the pinch of hard reality accurately sees what the sneering elitist and ideologue are blinded to by Plato’s Cave shadow shows. Thus also we see the point that simplistic democracy is a dangerously unstable scheme of governance [cf. Plato’s parable of the ship of state and the history of Athens this reacts to, especially the life and times of Alcibiades], so it must be buttressed and stabilised through the many structures of a modern constitutional democracy.
As for empty repetition in that context of the mantra, fascism is right wing, that plainly falls for want of good warrant. (If you had said instead that fascist-like features can crop up in states that are all over the spectrum of ideologies an the conventional designations left vs right, that would be a different matter.)
As for the Pope saying a man of destiny or words to that effect, note my summary, which you have artfully side-stepped. I cannot tell to what extent the pope was being politically correct or was genuinely falling under the spell of politically messianistic heresy, or was speaking diplomatically in the context of representing a weak state [the Vatican] dealing with a dangerous strongman, but as a Protestant I think I had better leave that to Catholics who know more than I.
In short, your attempted dismissal compounded by sneering fails, and does so in ways that are unfortunately revealing, especially when we see the subtext of contempt and thinly veiled hostility to the gospel.
DD, I suspend, for the moment the instruction to leave the thread, on condition of continued responsible behaviour. If you are genuinely concerned about the points you made and cannot find answers that should be fairly readily accessible elsewhere — e.g. Google Sept 12, 1683, email me the list of points you have, I am willing to answer them in my own blog which is not constrained by what UD faces. KF
WJM, yup the line to libertarianism — some would snidely suggest libertinism instead — and then something like anarcho-capitalism of some form is indeed one branch of the “Right Wing” and one with specific relevance to the USA. There is now a branch on the “Alt Right” that seems to be ill defined other than by rejection of what they call “cuckservatives” and “neo-cons” multiplied by obsessions over IQ test scores correlated by “race” as well as by anti-zionism and antisemitism. Support for Monarchy with actual ruling power — the original right wing — is dead, and that death is amplified by what seems to be a case of Communist Monarchy in North Korea, which may be going through some sort of battle to eliminate potential heirs just now judging by apparent news of an assassination of a half-brother of the current de facto king. UK style constitutional monarchy still exists but then we have to look at the Scandinavian cases, which are in states distinctly left of centre in the democratic socialist welfare state tradition. And much more. At least, some issues are now being brought to the table, which can lead to a real discussion instead of the horrible pattern of arson, rioting, assault, mayhem and punch a fascist that we have been seeing. KF
That unseemly “alt-right” is almost entirely comprised of (1) libertarian hipsters and techies trolling the mainstream media, and (2) progressive operatives trolling libertarian/conservative sites/events in order to push the narrative of a dangerous, racist, anti-semite “alt-right”. You get one guy showing up at a Trump event with a swastika or a racist sign and that’s where all the media goes for their story.
If you ever see an “alt right” riot or heck, even an “alt-right” protest that amounts to more than 100 people, let me know. Meanwhile, we have a real issue on the left of intrusion, violence, destruction of property and intimidation by an army of fascists paid for by Soros.
Which, actually, isn’t so much of a bad thing if we have someone in power who understands how to use that kind of activity to his advantage.
WJM, as in oh here we have yet another agit prop street theatre event/incident/ useful idiot gleefully pounced on and used by the manipulative media to push its utopian progressivist cultural marxist radical agendas and Plato’s Cave shadow show narratives? Sounds all too familiar. KF
F/N: I also think Heine’s prophetic assessment of German apostasy is all too apt and sadly relevant:
Yes, the trends that led to the catastrophe were there in prototypical form 100 years ahead of time. And, the trends were specifically anti-Christian, post Christian and in material part neopagan.
The blatant attempts to blame the Church and the Christian faith for fascism, thus stand exposed as yet more of the same destructive trends.
“Except that it came from the right. Numerous private companies, including Swiss banks, got rich because of Hitler.”
Switzerland is not Germany. Hitler denounced capitalism.
Has Trump denounced capitalism? Do conservatives do that?
Hitler imposed a socialist state. Do conservatives push for that, or does the Left?
Nazism is equated with Fascism, and the symbol of that are the “Brownshirts”: thugs who would break up rallies, and pummel their opponents. That’s how Hitler got his start in national German politics.
Now, where do you see that kind of behavior coming from? The only thugs I see at work are the Black Lives Matter people and Soros’ operatives: both approved by the Democratic Party.
Open your eyes. Open your mind.
Like the centralized power to ban Muslim refugees from seven countries, but not Christian refugees from the same countries? Very much like the US turning away Jewish refugees from Europe but not the Christian refugees.
I am not saying that Trump is a modern day Hitler. Just that he has taken several strategies from Hitler’s playbook. You know it’s working when people who profess to be Christian post links to conspiracy sites that claim that the Quebec City mosque massacre was caused by Islamic radicals and covered up by Canadian government officials. That takes a special kind of stupid.
I use the word [SNIP — I do not have time to waste on vetting every comment for needless vulgarity, having warned. You received a reprieve and have disregarded within 24 hours, that speaks volumes. I will issue no further warnings after this point. KF] and get chastised for vulgarity and asked to leave the thread. WJM uses the acronym BS [not seen, if so, he needs to fix it, recall as I have just noted. KF], and nary a peep. Very telling. [yes, I do not have time to go over everything with a fine tooth comb and respond to what catches my eye. KF]
But seriously, all I have said is that Trump has used some of the same tactics used by Hitler. Which is clear for everyone to see. Not that he is the only one to have done this.
“all I have said is that Trump has used some of the same tactics used by Hitler.”
Trump and Hitler actually both drank water. Literally frightening that people will vote for this man. So dangerous.
Sure. Mock what you can’t defend. I have one question:
Is a persecuted Christian’s life more valuable than a persecuted muslim’s? According to Trump’s executive order, the answer is yes. Sorry, but that approach went out of fashion with the holocaust.
[ –> I will comment below on how you reacted to a good faith offer, which speaks volumes. and BTW, I had to close off comments in response to cyber-stalking and abusive commentary. KF]
Trump is not even a close comparison to Hitler. If he were, he would have his own version of the brown shirts out terrorizing people, breaking shop windows, closing down streets, burning cars,…
Oh wait, that’s already happening by leftist Democrats…the real Nazis.
You people really have a reading comprehension problem. Or are you trying to convince yourselves of something that you are not sure about. Where, exactly, did I say that Trump is like Hitler? In fact, I have gone out of my way that he isnt. All I have said is that he is using a couple of strategies pioneered by Hitler. Which is hard to dispute.
Darwins_downfall, I purposely mocked a useless troll. It was not my intention to defend you.
Kairoa @ 31,
I am not ‘insinuating’ a connection between authoritarian, fascist regimes and Christianity, (or any religion will do, Recip Erdogan and the BJP in India will also do to represent authoritarian fascism and religion today), I am telling you it is a contemporary and historic fact; it happened read a book!
You say these student rioters represent fascism, well if that’s true its a fascism we can tolerate, however idiotic, and it is idiotic.
There is a rich universal human history of the Church allying itself to power; the Vatican/Monarchy in Europe; the Emperor and Heaven in China/Japan; Chiefs in Africa and the Americas, and Oceania, and their respective witch doctors, voodoo priests, and faith healers.
This relationship between God/Heaven/Power and the manipulation of the masses is exactly what atheists want to end; you seem enamoured of the ‘good ole days’.
Fascism and Religion are two pillars of the same desire, to manipulate your thought and take away the ‘free will’ you say I haven’t got. They feed off one another and have supported one another well before there was a word, ‘fascism’ to describe the temporal part.
If you have to post a special post to explain your post was parody, might I suggest better parody?
And exactly why should I take suggestions from a neuronal illusion?
It’s not me that needs defending. But, I noticed that you avoided answering my question. I will repeat it. Is a persecuted Christian’s life more valuable than a persecuted muslim’s? Because that is the line in the sand that your president has drawn. I know what you believe, but it would be nice to hear you say it in your own words.
Can you tell me exactly how the moral virtue of human equality is to be grounded within Darwinian evolution.
You speak loftily about oppression of people all the while forgetting that your worldview offers no basis for objective morality.
PS, if you continue to address me improperly, I will seek to have you ‘deported’ from UD.
It isn’t. It is grounded in societal agreements and compromises. What ever made you think that evolution played a role in this, other than in providing us with the intelligence necessary to come to these agreements and compromises?
Since there is no morality other than what we as a society agree upon, I don’t see your point.
If you have to go tug on mommy’s skirt every time someone calls you a name, you are going to have a difficult time in life. Besides, how do you know that BSC77 isn’t complimentary?
According to this NY Post reporter Paul Sperry, it is not Trump who is using agitator “fascist” tactics but his predecessor who apparently cannot let go, so he is trying to undermine what historically has been a smooth transition of power. Of course, political protests, even passionate ones, are constitutional. However, the violence is not– and there has been some violence.
Like I said earlier up above @ 28, ”Curiously, the mainstream media is not covering this.” However, to be fair, I did see the following online article by NBC.
Other than that, the MSM is ignoring the story. (CNN, nothing; NY Times, nothing; Washington Post, nothing; ABC, nothing; CBS, nothing…)
I wonder, would this have been the media’s response if George W. Bush had reactivated his campaign and made a concerted effort to undermine Obama’s presidency? I think we all know what their response would have been: wall-to-wall coverage in an effort to provoke a public outcry.
Looking at it objectively, as an ethical non-partisan media should be doing, former president Obama is being more “fascist” (if by fascist you mean political agitator) than newly elected president Trump.
Another example of a double standard to which the MSM is completely oblivious.
RVB8, all you have managed to do is show that you are trotting out talking points without seriously engaging the substantial issues. Your distortions of the balance of history speak for themselves when put alongside your failure to engage something so manifestly pivotal to a sound understanding of what people had to deal with in the face of a monster. Don’t forget, two prinipals of this declaration are Neimoller a Confessor who went to concentration camp, and Boenhoffer, a martyr. Bishop of the Confessing Church and a leading theologian. respectively. That is no coincidence. I will just mention the White Rose martyrs on the Catholic side. Underlying, we see the habitual, thinly veiled hostility, bigotry and blinding rage of anti-Christian atheism, and the habitual resort to distraction, distortion, denigration precisely to taint, polarise, poison and confuse the atmosphere, frustrating sound discussion. This, in the face of an acknowledged genocide of Christians in the Middle East. That should itself speak volumes. KF
PS: Those interested in a somewhat more balanced approach to the history of the sins and blessings of Christendom may wish to go here as a beginning point. This, on the rise of modern liberty and democracy, will also help move to a more balanced appreciation, especially on the way distinctively Christian insights contributed to the rise of a stabilising framework for democracy. The insinuation that Christianity naturally supports fascism is a wicked lie and willful perversion. One I suspect strongly is driven by the telling fact that the two most murderous political movements of the past 100+ years have been from the totalitarian lefty: Communism and Fascism. (And notice, no capability to actually soundly counter the analysis now outlined that shows why Fascism is in fact a movement of socialist thought and politics.] To escape the logic of that, the trick has been to re-assign the latter to the right and to insinuate and accuse Christians as being Christo-fascists. No response whatsoever on the crucial issue that nihilistic nietzschean superman lawlessness and political messianism are destructive forms of anti-Christ spirit [I do not mean this as a mere metaphor, cf the White Rose Martyrs] and idolatrous deception fundamentally and irretrievably at odds with the core, creedal Christian faith. Not coming from some bloggist out there but from the authors of the Barmen Declaration [now seen as a key creedal Christian document of faithful confession in many circles], including Barth, Niemoller and Boenhoffer — where if you do not realise the weight of those names, you are not tall enough for this ride. In short, we see here slanderous turnabout projection, a notorious Nazi big lie propaganda tactic.
F/N: I should note — I don’t have time for a prolonged discussion — that the issue of refugee preferences for ME Christians and for Yazidis is driven by the fact of suspiciously low numbers admitted as refugees in the very recent past [as can be documented], the demonstrated issue of persecution to death, the previous unresponsiveness and the admission that we are looking at genocide. It is also clear that there is a dangerous terrorism threat from the ME with a list of seven countries composed by the Obama Administration as the low hanging fruit cases. The need for improved vetting should not be an issue, and the use of a temporary moratorium to sort out administrative problems is reasonable; never mind whatever problems have happened recently. Travel into a state is a privilege, not a right. The lack of responsible balance in media discussion and signs of spin narrative building on dirty street agit prop involving the black shirts [cf the issue of the 1921 comparative in the OP] is also revealing. Gotta run. KF
DD, you have received a final warning, any more abusive commentary by you and I will implement the suspended ban without further notice. FYI, I made you a good faith offer to answer questions, which you seem to have found whatever excuse to sneer at. If you and ilk wanted to be able to comment in my personal blog, you should have considered the likely response to abusive commentary and cyberstalking, not only in my blogs but in other places on the Internet. Civility and habitual incivility, for cause, have to be treated differently. I have to go now, I simply responded to what caught my eye. KF
WJM, I have had it brought to my attention that you used an abbreviation for a vulgarity, indeed it was cast in my teeth above as an imagined proof of my hypocrisy. I strongly suggest that if you did so — I am about to search and if necessary snip — you refrain from such in future. I here make reference to the broken window theory of community policing. We need to cultivate a consistently civil tone, which helps restrain spirals into the gutter. As it is, I found some useful commentary by a Ms Lauren Southern but her resort to potty mouth made me back away, shaking my head. KF
BA77, you have put your finger on a critical issue, grounding sound morality on the evolutionary materialist frame, especially fundamental equality and moral value of people, tied to our having a distinct, common nature and to its roots in the IS-OUGHT gap and the need for an IS that naturally grounds OUGHT in the root of reality. I would appreciate your additional comments on this point. I cannot put in more time on this just now, unfortunately. KF
JAD, sobering issues, care to further substantiate? No time to linger. KF
F/N: I forgot to note on second and third wave feminism (both with major cultural marxism roots), which bear significant responsibility for the ongoing 800+ million victim holocaust of the unborn, currently mounting up at a million per WEEK — per Guttmacher-UN figures. That is, a cluster of movements from the left (growing out of the great western apostasy Heine pointed to as exceedingly dangerous as far back as the 1830’s) are collectively responsible for 800+ and 150 – 200+ million dead [this last uses Rummel’s democide numbers plus the dead from WW II; the war with fascism . . . ] by most unnatural means in the past 100+ years. yes, coming on a billion lives taken. This is the worst record of blood guilt in human history, and it should flag leftist movements tainted by evolutionary materialism and other influences of anti-Christ spirits as exceedingly destructive and dangerous. While there has been and is genuine oppression and injustice that requires reform, reform is what we need not paths that predictably lead to rivers of blood. I therefore point us back to gospel ethics and the broader ethical framework of ethical theism as a desperately needed corrective. Where also we must recognise that evolutionary materialism is inherently self-referentially incoherent thus irretrievably irrational AND is equally irretrievably amoral, having in it no world root IS that can bear the weight of OUGHT. Thus, it all too easily opens the door to nihilism. Let us refuse to be distracted from this key, albeit — for many caught up in the romance of progressivism — very painful point. A sounder basis for reform is the insight of Judaeo-Christian ethical theism, that we are finite, fallible, fallen and morally struggling, thus far too often ill-willed. So, we need to start from a sobering ethical and spiritual inventory, and open our ears, eyes, minds and hearts to those who call us to sound reform. KF
PS: As it was patently ignored above, I call attention to what Locke turned to to found the pivotal premise of rights as foundation for liberty and self government by a free people, in his 2nd treatise on civil gov’t, Ch 2 Sec 5. Namely, this from “the judicious [Anglican Canon Richard] Hooker [in his Ecclesiastical Polity, 1594+]”:
F/N: Goldberg has something further to say on the “right wing” fascism accusation, well worth noting for record — and yes, as people have been beaten on the streets and peaceful, lawful, democratic transfer of power is being undermined, we need to speak for record, pp. 44 – 45:
Thus, it seems Stalin took up a theme rather than inventing out of whole cloth. In an era when the future looked to be socialist — even Conservatives thought that — and in which the then traditional right (Monarchy) was dying. The big proof would play out across four years of disastrous war, against a backdrop where the USA had showed that monarchies were not the only possible reasonably stable state.
Fascism could be seen as right of most traditional, second Socialist International, socialism.
Of course in the century since, it became clear that that future was not to be; esp. across the 1980’s. The right (insofar as the terms for where one sat in old French Assemblies are relevant) endures. The pol spectrum has a definite, ideological left from “liberals” [current sense] and/or “progressives” onward, with a mushy centre and several branches to the right. Of ourse, typically anything to my right is “extreme” seems to be a hallmark of rhetoric from the left. How a Bush could be regarded as a “Hitler” escapes me, for instance.
In the American setting Moderates, Conservatives, Libertarians and one type of anarchists seem to be the most relevant. British Conservativism is different. Crony Capitalistic authoritarian states, too. As for semi-feudal, somewhat mercantilist [cf. Hernando de Soto of Peru], crony capitalist states that often have an authoritarian head of state, that too is different. There are various populist, street capitalisms that have no creed as such — maybe, Mr Trump fits here, as a populist billionaire. Then there are those of the strange new amorphous networks now being called Alt Right (who talk about opposing the CTRL-Left), who exhibit worrying patterns as already remarked on. And doubtless more.
From a Brittanica article on Mussolini:
At the age of 19, a short, pale young man with a powerful jaw and enormous, dark, piercing eyes, he left Italy for Switzerland with a nickel medallion of Karl Marx in his otherwise empty pockets.
He turned away from Marxism, disillusioned, and went onto Fascism. This happened early on, and little, apparently, is known about it. Bottom line: Mussolini was a man of the Left, not the Right.
PaV, a key issue was nationalism/patriotism, esp. in the context of onset of WW 1. This broke the second Socialist International. Mussolini was expelled by the socialists. Later, Hitler et al later found that militant communists had a strongly German identity and this would draw them to his party. It is suggested, in some cases this included those sent to break up Hitler’s meetings. Both Mussolini and Hitler took power from the left — in effect displacing the older left — under the impact of a socialist vision to sweep away the old class-based order and bring the workers/produces to the centre of the political universe: populism is NOT a diagnostic of the “right.” The institutions, industrialists etc then found that the national socialists they could find some way to strike a deal with. Of course, they severely underestimated Hitler et al, especially after Hindenberg died and the Reichstag fire panicked the German parliament into passing an enabling act granting power to rule by decree. KF
PS: His father, apparently a blacksmith, raised him as a Socialist from birth.
PPS: Goldberg, pp. 45 – 46 on Mussolini:
>>In 1915 Mussolini was called up for service. He fought well, re-ceiving shrapnel in his leg. The war tended to accelerate his thinking.
The soldiers had fought as Italians, not as “workers.” Their sacrifice was not for the class struggle but for the Italian struggle. He began to formulate the idea—known as trincerocrazia—that veterans deserved to run the country because they had sacri?ced more and had the disci-pline to improve Italy’s plight (echoes of this conviction can be found in the “chicken hawk” epithet today). “Socialism of the trenches” seemed so much more plausible than socialism of the factory ?oor, for Mussolini had in effect seen it. On March 23, 1919, Mussolini and a handful of others founded the Fasci di Combattimento in Milan, aiming to form a popular front of pro-war leftists, from socialist vet-erans groups to Futurist, anarchist, nationalist, and syndicalist intel-lectuals. Some highlights from their program:
• Lowering the minimum voting age to eighteen, the minimum
age for representatives to twenty-?ve, and universal suffrage,
including for women.
• “The abolition of the Senate and the creation of a national
technical council on intellectual and manual labor, industry,
commerce and culture.”
• End of the draft.
• Repeal of titles of nobility.
• “A foreign policy aimed at expanding Italy’s will and power
in opposition to all foreign imperialisms.”
• The prompt enactment of a state law sanctioning a legal work-
day of eight actual hours of work for all workers.
• A minimum wage.
• The creation of various government bodies run by workers’
• Reform of the old-age and pension system and the establish-
ment of age limits for hazardous work.
• Forcing landowners to cultivate their lands or have them ex-
propriated and given to veterans and farmers’ cooperatives.
• The obligation of the state to build “rigidly secular” schools for
the raising of “the proletariat’s moral and cultural condition.”
• “A large progressive tax on capital that would amount to a
one-time partial expropriation of all riches.”
• “The seizure of all goods belonging to religious congregations
and the abolition of episcopal revenues.”
• The “review” of all military contracts and the “sequestration
of 85% of all war pro?ts.”
• The nationalization of all arms and explosives industries. 41
Ah, yes. Those anti-elitist, stock-market-abolishing, child-labor-ending, public-health-promoting, wealth-confiscating, draft-ending, secularist right-wingers!>>
PPPS: The NSDAP 25-point programme as translated at Nuremberg for the trials:
>>TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT 1708-PS
Edited by: Dr. Robert Ley
Published by: Central Publishing House of the N.S.D.A.P.
Franz Eher, successor Munich
The program of the NSDAP
The program is the political foundation of the NSDAP and accordingly the primary political law of the State. It has been made brief and clear intentionally.
All legal precepts must be applied in the spirit of the party program.
Since the taking over of control, the Fuehrer has succeeded in the realization of essential portions of the Party program from the fundamentals to the detail.
The Party Program of the NSDAP was proclaimed on the 24 February 1920 by Adolf Hitler at the first large Party gathering in Munich and since that day has remained unaltered. Within the national socialist philosophy is summarized in 25 points:
1. We demand the unification of all Germans in the Greater Germany on the basis of the right of self-determination of peoples.
2. We demand equality of rights for the German people in respect to the other nations; abrogation of the peace treaties of Versailles and St. Germain.
3. We demand land and territory (colonies) for the sustenance of our people, and colonization for our surplus population.
4. Only a member of the race can be a citizen. A member of the race can only be one who is of German blood, without consideration of creed. Consequently no Jew can be a member of the race.
5. Whoever has no citizenship is to be able to live in Germany only as a guest, and must be under the authority of legislation for foreigners.
6. The right to determine matters concerning administration and law belongs only to the citizen. Therefore we demand that every public office, of any sort whatsoever, whether in the Reich, the county or municipality, be filled only by citizens. We combat the corrupting parliamentary economy, office-holding only according to party inclinations without consideration of character or abilities.
7. We demand that the state be charged first with providing the opportunity for a livelihood and way of life for the citizens. If it is impossible to sustain the total population of the State, then the members of foreign nations (non-citizens) are to be expelled from the Reich.
8. Any further immigration of non-citizens is to be prevented. We demand that all non-Germans, who have immigrated to Germany since the 2 August 1914, be forced immediately to leave the Reich.
9. All citizens must have equal rights and obligations.
10. The first obligation of every citizen must be to work both spiritually and physically. The activity of individuals is not to counteract the interests of the universality, but must have its result within the framework of the whole for the benefit of all Consequently we demand:
11. Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of rent-slavery.
12. In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.
13. We demand the nationalization of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).
14. We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.
15. We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.
16. We demand the creation of a healthy middle class and its conservation, immediate communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low cost to small firms, the utmost consideration of all small firms in contracts with the State, county or municipality.
17. We demand a land reform suitable to our needs, provision of a law for the free expropriation of land for the purposes of public utility, abolition of taxes on land and prevention of all speculation in land.
18. We demand struggle without consideration against those whose activity is injurious to the general interest. Common national criminals, usurers, Schieber and so forth are to be punished with death, without consideration of confession or race.
19. We demand substitution of a German common law in place of the Roman Law serving a materialistic world-order.
20. The state is to be responsible for a fundamental reconstruction of our whole national education program, to enable every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education and subsequently introduction into leading positions. The plans of instruction of all educational institutions are to conform with the experiences of practical life. The comprehension of the concept of the State must be striven for by the school [Staatsbuergerkunde] as early as the beginning of understanding. We demand the education at the expense of the State of outstanding intellectually gifted children of poor parents without consideration of position or profession.
21. The State is to care for the elevating national health by protecting the mother and child, by outlawing child-labor, by the encouragement of physical fitness, by means of the legal establishment of a gymnastic and sport obligation, by the utmost support of all organizations concerned with the physical instruction of the young.
22. We demand abolition of the mercenary troops and formation of a national army.
23. We demand legal opposition to known lies and their promulgation through the press. In order to enable the provision of a German press, we demand, that: a. All writers and employees of the newspapers appearing in the German language be members of the race: b. Non-German newspapers be required to have the express permission of the State to be published. They may not be printed in the German language: c. Non-Germans are forbidden by law any financial interest in German publications, or any influence on them, and as punishment for violations the closing of such a publication as well as the immediate expulsion from the Reich of the non-German concerned. Publications which are counter to the general good are to be forbidden. We demand legal prosecution of artistic and literary forms which exert a destructive influence on our national life, and the closure of organizations opposing the above made demands.
24. We demand freedom of religion for all religious denominations within the state so long as they do not endanger its existence or oppose the moral senses of the Germanic race. The Party as such advocates the standpoint of a positive Christianity without binding itself confessionally to any one denomination. It combats the Jewish-materialistic spirit within and around us, and is convinced that a lasting recovery of our nation can only succeed from within on the framework: common utility precedes individual utility.
25. For the execution of all of this we demand the formation of a strong central power in the Reich. Unlimited authority of the central parliament over the whole Reich and its organizations in general. The forming of state and profession chambers for the execution of the laws made by the Reich within the various states of the confederation. The leaders of the Party promise, if necessary by sacrificing their own lives, to support by the execution of the points set forth above without consideration.
Adolf Hitler proclaimed the following explanation for this program on the 13 April 1928:
Regarding the false interpretations of Point 17 of the program of the NSDAP on the part of our opponents, the following definition is necessary:
“Since the NSDAP stands on the platform of private ownership it happens that the passage” gratuitous expropriation concerns only the creation of legal opportunities to expropriate if necessary, land which has been illegally acquired or is not administered from the view-point of the national welfare. This is directed primarily against the Jewish land-speculation companies.
Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression Volume IV
Office of the United States Chief Counsel for Prosecution of Axis Criminality
Washington, DC : United States Government Printing Office, 1946
USMARC Cataloging Record >>
It is interesting how Fordham Uni puts the introduction in their sourcebook page: “Combines extreme nationalism, racism and some socialist concepts”
F/N: Fordham renders into more intelligible form for those not immediately familiar with context:
>>Unification of Greater Germany (Austria + Germany)
Land + expansion
Anti-Versailles – abrogation of the Treaty.
Land and territory – lebensraum.
Only a “member of the race” can be a citizen.
Anti-semitism – No Jew can be a member of the race.
Anti-foreigner – only citizens can live in Germany.
No immigration – ref. to Jews fleeing pogr[o]ms.
Everyone must work.
Abolition of unearned income – “no rent-slavery”.
Nationalisation of industry
Divison of profits
Extension of old age welfare.
Death to all criminals
German law, not Roman law (anti- French Rev.)
Education to teach “the German Way”
Education of gifted children
Protection of mother and child by outlawing child labour.
Encouraging gymnastics and swimming
Formation a national army.
Duty of the state to provide for its volk.
Duty of individuals to the state >>