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
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.>>
Wiki’s summary:
>>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.
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:
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:
The Fasces
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.]
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.’ ” . . . .
The Logo of Mussolini’s Fascist Party
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:
Of Lemmings, marches of folly and cliffs of self-falsifying absurdity . . .
Part of that is that we need to reconsider how we toss around loaded accusations like “fascist” and “Nazi” or the like. END
Comments
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. KFkairosfocus
February 15, 2017
February
02
Feb
15
15
2017
03:59 AM
3
03
59
AM
PDT
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. KFkairosfocus
February 15, 2017
February
02
Feb
15
15
2017
03:49 AM
3
03
49
AM
PDT
RVB8,
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:
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.
Economically, let me clip the Econ Library, also from the OP:
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.
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:
1: socialist triumph seemed inevitable and
2: you were dealing with a dangerous strong man, his mobs or his secret police, vs
3: the Bolshevik case that clearly identified their intent by massacring the Russian Royal family as had the Jacobins of the 1790's (in addition to very similar power-apparatus and methods), where also
4: strong neighbouring potentially aggressive and economically dominant states were fascist
. . . 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:
a: Nietzschean superman or even generally authoritarian or charismatic would-be political messiahs demand to be above law, which violates the premise of ethical theism that we are under moral government through the law of our responsibly, rationally significantly free created nature. Let me add from the citation by Locke from Canon Richard Hooker in his 2nd essay on civil govt, Ch 2 Sec 5, as augmented from Hooker's Ecclesiastical Polity:
. . . if I cannot but wish to receive good, even as much at every man's hands, as any man can wish unto his own soul, how should I look to have any part of my desire herein satisfied, unless myself be careful to satisfy the like desire which is undoubtedly in other men . . . my desire, therefore, to be loved of my equals in Nature, as much as possible may be, imposeth upon me a natural duty of bearing to themward fully the like affection. From which relation of equality between ourselves and them that are as ourselves, what several rules and canons natural reason hath drawn for direction of life no man is ignorant . . . [Hooker then continues, citing Aristotle in The Nicomachean Ethics, Bk 8:] as namely, That because we would take no harm, we must therefore do none; That since we would not be in any thing extremely dealt with, we must ourselves avoid all extremity in our dealings; That from all violence and wrong we are utterly to abstain, with such-like . . . [Eccl. Polity,preface, Bk I, "ch." 8, p.80]
b: Lawlessness in particular, is rebellion against God, and his Christ [who is risen Lord and Eschatological Judge of the quick and the dead]. Let us note 2 Thess 2 (with Ps 2, Isa 45:18 - 23 and the C1 creedal song in Phil 2:5 - 11 in the back of our minds!):
2 Thess 2:1 Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we ask you, brothers,[a] 2 not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed, either by a spirit or a spoken word, or a letter seeming to be from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come.
3 Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness[b] is revealed, the son of destruction,[c] 4 who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God.
5 Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things? 6 And you know what is restraining him now so that he may be revealed in his time. 7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work. Only he who now restrains it will do so until he is out of the way. 8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will kill with the breath of his mouth and bring to nothing by the appearance of his coming.
9 The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders, 10 and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. 11 Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false, 12 in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness. [ESV]
. . . the force of this should be both obvious and patently relevant to any proto-figure who exhibits the same spirit of anti-/counterfeit- Christ, on whatever grounds, theological, philosophical, ideological, academic etc.
c: Any political messiah is of the blasphemous spirit of antichrist, erecting himself, his notions and ideology in the place of our Lord. Hence, theses of the Barmen Declaration, 1934:
8.03 Be not deceived by loose talk, as if we meant to oppose the unity of the German nation! Do not listen to the seducers who pervert our intentions, as if we wanted to break up the unity of the German Evangelical Church or to forsake the Confessions of the Fathers!
8.04 Try the spirits whether they are of God! Prove also the words of the Confessional Synod of the German Evangelical Church to see whether they agree with Holy Scripture and with the Confessions of the Fathers. If you find that we are speaking contrary to Scripture, then do not listen to us! But if you find that we are taking our stand upon Scripture, then let no fear or temptation keep you from treading with us the path of faith and obedience to the Word of God, in order that God's people be of one mind upon earth and that we in faith experience what he himself has said: "I will never leave you, nor forsake you." Therefore, "Fear not, little flock, for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom." . . . .
8.07 We publicly declare before all evangelical Churches in Germany that what they hold in common in this Confession is grievously imperiled, and with it the unity of the German Evangelical Church. It is threatened by the teaching methods and actions of the ruling Church party of the "German Christians" and of the Church administration carried on by them. These have become more and more apparent during the first year of the existence of the German Evangelical Church. This threat consists in the fact that the theological basis, in which the German Evangelical Church is united, has been continually and systematically thwarted and rendered ineffective by alien principles, on the part of the leaders and spokesmen of the "German Christians" as well as on the part of the Church administration. When these principles are held to be valid, then, according to all the Confessions in force among us, the Church ceases to be the Church and the German Evangelical Church, as a federation of Confessional Churches, becomes intrinsically impossible [--> political messianism and statist imposition of cartel dominated by ideologically motivated and bound activists exhibiting deepest heresy and idolatry] . . . .
8.09 In view of the errors of the "German Christians" of the present Reich Church government which are devastating the Church and also therefore breaking up the unity of the German Evangelical Church, we confess the following evangelical truths:
8.10 - 1. "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me." (John 14.6). "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who does not enter the sheepfold by the door, but climbs in by another way, that man is a thief and a robber. . . . I am the door; if anyone enters by me, he will be saved." (John 10:1, 9.)
8.11 Jesus Christ, as he is attested for us in Holy Scripture, is the one Word of God which we have to hear and which we have to trust and obey in life and in death.
8.12 We reject the false doctrine, as though the church could and would have to acknowledge as a source of its proclamation, apart from and besides this one Word of God, still other events and powers, figures and truths, as God's revelation. [--> cf influence of the Hegelian scheme of thought]
8.13 - 2. "Christ Jesus, whom God has made our wisdom, our righteousness and sanctification and redemption." (1 Cor. 1:30.)
8.14 As Jesus Christ is God's assurance of the forgiveness of all our sins, so, in the same way and with the same seriousness he is also God's mighty claim upon our whole life. Through him befalls us a joyful deliverance from the godless fetters of this world for a free, grateful service to his creatures.
8.15 We reject the false doctrine, as though there were areas of our life in which we would not belong to Jesus Christ, but to other lords--areas in which we would not need justification and sanctification through him.
8.16 - 3. "Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body [is] joined and knit together." (Eph. 4:15,16.)
8.17 The Christian Church is the congregation of the brethren in which Jesus Christ acts presently as the Lord in Word and sacrament through the Holy Spirit. As the Church of pardoned sinners, it has to testify in the midst of a sinful world, with its faith as with its obedience, with its message as with its order, that it is solely his property, and that it lives and wants to live solely from his comfort and from his direction in the expectation of his appearance. [--> what the church in material part at core is.]
8.18 We reject the false doctrine, as though the Church were permitted to abandon the form of its message and order to its own pleasure or to changes in prevailing ideological and political convictions.
8.19 - 4. "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. It shall not be so among you; but whoever would be great among you must be your servant." (Matt. 20:25,26.)
8.20 The various offices in the Church do not establish a dominion of some over the others; on the contrary, they are for the excercise of the ministry entrusted to and enjoined upon the whole congregation.
8.21 We reject the false doctrine, as though the Church, apart from this ministry, could and were permitted to give itself, or allow to be given to it, special leaders vested with ruling powers.
8.22 - 5. "Fear God. Honor the emperor." (1 Peter 2:17.)
Scripture tells us that, in the as yet unredeemed world in which the Church also exists, the State has by divine appointment the task of providing for justice and peace. [It fulfills this task] by means of the threat and exercise of force, according to the measure of human judgment and human ability. The Church acknowledges the benefit of this divine appointment in gratitude and reverence before him. It calls to mind the Kingdom of God, God's commandment and righteousness, and thereby the responsibility both of rulers and of the ruled. It trusts and obeys the power of the Word by which God upholds all things.
8.23 We reject the false doctrine, as though the State, over and beyond its special commission, should and could become the single and totalitarian order of human life [--> cf Mussolini's dictum], thus fulfilling the Church's vocation as well.
8.24 We reject the false doctrine, as though the Church, over and beyond its special commission, should and could appropriate the characteristics, the tasks, and the dignity of the State, thus itself becoming an organ of the State. [--> notice the cartelisation principle extended to the church, which was being here decisively rejected. Remember, men paid for this classic confession in the teeth of Nazism, with their lives and liberty.]
8.25 - 6. "Lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age." (Matt. 28:20.) "The word of God is not fettered." (2 Tim. 2:9.)
8.26 The Church's commission, upon which its freedom is founded, consists in delivering the message of the free grace of God to all people in Christ's stead, and therefore in the ministry of his own Word and work through sermon and sacrament.
8.27 We reject the false doctrine, as though the Church in human arrogance could place the Word and work of the Lord in the service of any arbitrarily chosen desires, purposes, and plans.
. . . The issues I have pointed to could hardly be clearer, and the source here is right at the root of the German Nazi state, just a year after it took power.
d: The abuse of any creature made in God's image is directly blasphemy against the giver of that image, so totalitarian police states are inevitably unspeakably evil and are inherently in opposition to good order for the community and people. (It is unsurprising that marches of ruinous folly and wickedness inevitably ensue.)
e: Yes, churches from time to time have fallen far from the principles of the gospel (cf. Sermon on the Mount, Mt 5 - 7 and Paul's ethics of civil society in say Rom 13:1 - 10 etc), but such failures and apostasies are not of the essential nature of the Faith, they instead reflect our finite, fallible, morally fallen/struggling and too often ill-willed nature.
f: Such are to be repented of and reformed.
g: Nor are such issues right/left wing, they are universal.
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.
KFkairosfocus
February 15, 2017
February
02
Feb
15
15
2017
03:42 AM
3
03
42
AM
PDT
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.William J Murray
February 15, 2017
February
02
Feb
15
15
2017
03:42 AM
3
03
42
AM
PDT
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.rvb8
February 14, 2017
February
02
Feb
14
14
2017
10:13 PM
10
10
13
PM
PDT
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.
In what’s shaping up to be a highly unusual post-presidency, Obama isn’t just staying behind in Washington. He’s working behind the scenes to set up what will effectively be a shadow government to not only protect his threatened legacy, but to sabotage the incoming administration and its popular “America First” agenda.
He’s doing it through a network of leftist nonprofits led by Organizing for Action. Normally you’d expect an organization set up to support a politician and his agenda to close up shop after that candidate leaves office, but not Obama’s OFA. Rather, it’s gearing up for battle, with a growing war chest and more than 250 offices across the country.
OFA activists helped organize anti-Trump marches across US cities, some of which turned into riots. After Trump issued a temporary ban on immigration from seven terror-prone Muslim nations, the demonstrators jammed airports, chanting: “No ban, no wall, sanctuary for all!”
Run by old Obama aides and campaign workers, federal tax records show “nonpartisan” OFA marshals 32,525 volunteers nationwide. Registered as a 501(c)(4), it doesn’t have to disclose its donors, but they’ve been generous. OFA has raised more than $40 million in contributions and grants since evolving from Obama’s campaign organization Obama for America in 2013…
http://nypost.com/2017/02/11/how-obama-is-scheming-to-sabotage-trumps-presidency/
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.john_a_designer
February 14, 2017
February
02
Feb
14
14
2017
10:09 PM
10
10
09
PM
PDT
SNIP. DD, you had your warning regarding trollish successive tangents, loaded strawmen etc.
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.Darwins_downfall
February 14, 2017
February
02
Feb
14
14
2017
09:16 PM
9
09
16
PM
PDT
..Darwins_downfall
February 14, 2017
February
02
Feb
14
14
2017
08:43 PM
8
08
43
PM
PDT
PAV, Mussolini was part of the Socialist International. I doubt he was a Bolshevik. KF
PS: Wiki clip on relevant history in a nutshell:
The International Workingmen's Association (the First International) was the first international body to bring together organisations representing the working class.[5] It was formed in London on 28 September 1864 by socialist, communist and anarchist political groups and trade unions.[6] [--> Note the three main factions of the Left] Tensions between moderates and revolutionaries led to its dissolution in 1876 in Philadelphia.[7] The Second International was formed in Paris on 14 July 1889 as an association of the socialist parties.[8] Differences over World War I led to the Second International being dissolved in 1916. [--> Mussolini was expelled over his Italian Nationalism, so we can see the logic of Internationalist vs Nationalistic Socialists]
International Socialist Commission (ISC, also known as Berne International) was formed in February 1919 at a meeting in Berne by parties that wanted to resurrect the Second International.[9] In March 1919 communist parties formed Comintern (the Third International) at a meeting in Moscow.[10] Parties which did not want to be a part of the resurrected Second International (ISC) or Comintern formed the International Working Union of Socialist Parties (IWUSP, also known as Vienna International/Vienna Union/Two-and-a-Half International) on 27 February 1921 at a conference in Vienna.[11] The ISC and the IWUSP joined to form the Labour and Socialist International (LSI) in May 1923 at a meeting in Hamburg.[12] The rise of Nazism and the start of World War II led to the dissolution of the LSI in 1940. The Socialist International was formed in Frankfurt in July 1951 as a successor to the LSI.[13]
kairosfocus
February 14, 2017
February
02
Feb
14
14
2017
08:11 PM
8
08
11
PM
PDT
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. KFkairosfocus
February 14, 2017
February
02
Feb
14
14
2017
08:09 PM
8
08
09
PM
PDT
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. Darwins_downfall
February 14, 2017
February
02
Feb
14
14
2017
06:46 PM
6
06
46
PM
PDT
PaV:
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.Darwins_downfall
February 14, 2017
February
02
Feb
14
14
2017
03:56 PM
3
03
56
PM
PDT
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.PaV
February 14, 2017
February
02
Feb
14
14
2017
03:48 PM
3
03
48
PM
PDT
PPS: Plato's warning:
Ath [in The Laws, Bk X 2,350+ ya]. . . .[The avant garde philosophers and poets, c. 360 BC] say that fire and water, and earth and air [i.e the classical "material" elements of the cosmos], all exist by nature and chance, and none of them by art . . . [such that] all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only [ --> that is, evolutionary materialism is ancient and would trace all things to blind chance and mechanical necessity] . . . .
[Thus, they hold] that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made.-
[ --> Relativism, too, is not new; complete with its radical amorality rooted in a worldview that has no foundational IS that can ground OUGHT, leading to an effectively arbitrary foundation only for morality, ethics and law: accident of personal preference, the ebbs and flows of power politics, accidents of history and and the shifting sands of manipulated community opinion driven by "winds and waves of doctrine and the cunning craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming . . . " cf a video on Plato's parable of the cave; from the perspective of pondering who set up the manipulative shadow-shows, why.]
These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might,
[ --> Evolutionary materialism -- having no IS that can properly ground OUGHT -- leads to the promotion of amorality on which the only basis for "OUGHT" is seen to be might (and manipulation: might in "spin") . . . ]
and in this way the young fall into impieties, under the idea that the Gods are not such as the law bids them imagine; and hence arise factions [ --> Evolutionary materialism-motivated amorality "naturally" leads to continual contentions and power struggles influenced by that amorality at the hands of ruthless power hungry nihilistic agendas], these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is,to live in real dominion over others [ --> such amoral and/or nihilistic factions, if they gain power, "naturally" tend towards ruthless abuse and arbitrariness . . . they have not learned the habits nor accepted the principles of mutual respect, justice, fairness and keeping the civil peace of justice, so they will want to deceive, manipulate and crush -- as the consistent history of radical revolutions over the past 250 years so plainly shows again and again], and not in legal subjection to them [--> nihilistic will to power not the spirit of justice and lawfulness].
kairosfocus
February 14, 2017
February
02
Feb
14
14
2017
01:59 AM
1
01
59
AM
PDT
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.kairosfocus
February 14, 2017
February
02
Feb
14
14
2017
01:39 AM
1
01
39
AM
PDT
Correction: "Nationalism or patriotism, especially if it’s extreme = fascism."john_a_designer
February 13, 2017
February
02
Feb
13
13
2017
09:36 PM
9
09
36
PM
PDT
KF,
nationalism — a fancy and sometimes loaded word for patriotism — does not make one “right wing” insofar as that has any meaning.
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.john_a_designer
February 13, 2017
February
02
Feb
13
13
2017
07:24 PM
7
07
24
PM
PDT
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.Darwins_downfall
February 13, 2017
February
02
Feb
13
13
2017
06:41 PM
6
06
41
PM
PDT
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.kairosfocus
February 13, 2017
February
02
Feb
13
13
2017
05:47 PM
5
05
47
PM
PDT
KF:
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]Darwins_downfall
February 13, 2017
February
02
Feb
13
13
2017
04:03 PM
4
04
03
PM
PDT
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. KFkairosfocus
February 13, 2017
February
02
Feb
13
13
2017
03:39 PM
3
03
39
PM
PDT
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.Darwins_downfall
February 13, 2017
February
02
Feb
13
13
2017
03:21 PM
3
03
21
PM
PDT
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. KFkairosfocus
February 13, 2017
February
02
Feb
13
13
2017
03:02 PM
3
03
02
PM
PDT
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
February 13, 2017
February
02
Feb
13
13
2017
02:19 PM
2
02
19
PM
PDT
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.KFkairosfocus
February 13, 2017
February
02
Feb
13
13
2017
01:15 PM
1
01
15
PM
PDT
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. KFkairosfocus
February 13, 2017
February
02
Feb
13
13
2017
01:01 PM
1
01
01
PM
PDT
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.Bob O'H
February 13, 2017
February
02
Feb
13
13
2017
12:54 PM
12
12
54
PM
PDT
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:
“Socialists [Marxists] are internationalists. Whereas nationalists believe that the world is divided primarily into different nationalities, socialists consider social class to be the primary divide. For socialists, class struggle--not national identity--is the motor of history. And capitalism creates an international working class that must fight back against an international capitalist class.”
http://isreview.org/issues/13/marxism_nationalism_part1.shtml
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.john_a_designer
February 13, 2017
February
02
Feb
13
13
2017
12:40 PM
12
12
40
PM
PDT
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.Truth Will Set You Free
February 13, 2017
February
02
Feb
13
13
2017
10:03 AM
10
10
03
AM
PDT
Joy Villa TROLLS 2017 Grammy's Wearing Trump / "Make America Great Again" (MAGA) Dress
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhAZ6rIvPKQ
Get Your Freedom- Joy Villa Official Music Video (feat. HUOS Music)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkuxB8GxakEbornagain77
>>Let’s compare UCB, two Wednesdays ago and another Wednesday in 1921 in Bavaria
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.)
“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.]
