https://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Fascism-American-Mussolini-Politics/dp/0767917189

Contrary to what most people think, the Nazis were ardent socialists (hence the term “National socialism”). They believed in free health care and guaranteed jobs. They confiscated inherited wealth and spent vast sums on public education. They purged the church from public policy, promoted a new form of pagan spirituality, and inserted the authority of the state into every nook and cranny of daily life. The Nazis declared war on smoking, supported abortion, euthanasia, and gun control. They loathed the free market, provided generous pensions for the elderly, and maintained a strict racial quota system in their universities—where campus speech codes were all the rage. The Nazis led the world in organic farming and alternative medicine. Hitler was a strict vegetarian, and Himmler was an animal rights activist.

Do these striking parallels mean that today’s liberals are genocidal maniacs, intent on conquering the world and imposing a new racial order? Not at all. Yet it is hard to deny that modern progressivism and classical fascism shared the same intellectual roots. We often forget, for example, that Mussolini and Hitler had many admirers in the United States. W.E.B. Du Bois was inspired by Hitler's Germany, and Irving Berlin praised Mussolini in song. Many fascist tenets were espoused by American progressives like John Dewey and Woodrow Wilson, and FDR incorporated fascist policies in the New Deal.

Jonah Golberg strkes again! This idea that fascism is left-wing is perpetuated by Goldberg's book, Liberal Facism.

>Contrary to what most people think, the Nazis were ardent socialists (hence the term “National socialism”). They believed in free health care and guaranteed jobs. They confiscated inherited wealth and spent vast sums on public education. They purged the church from public policy, promoted a new form of pagan spirituality, and inserted the authority of the state into every nook and cranny of daily life. The Nazis declared war on smoking, supported abortion, euthanasia, and gun control. They loathed the free market, provided generous pensions for the elderly, and maintained a strict racial quota system in their universities—where campus speech codes were all the rage. The Nazis led the world in organic farming and alternative medicine. Hitler was a strict vegetarian, and Himmler was an animal rights activist.

What do RWers consider fascist? Universal healthcare, public education, Social Security, organic food, separation of church and state, gun control, a woman's right to choose, public awareness on the dangers of smoking, etc.

When you argument rests upon equating Nazism with universal healthcare, public education, and Social Security, you really don't have an argument. You simply have BS talking points that make you look like an idiot.

Holy Christ, the top comment there triggered me so hard I'm gonna have to reply to it.

/u/elpresidente1776

>> https://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Fascism-American-Mussolini-Politics/dp/0767917189

This book is god awful, it is absolutely riddled with bullshit - if you want to see just how bad it is, here's an actual expert dismantling this guy:

http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/122231

>> Contrary to what most people think, the Nazis were ardent socialists (hence the term “National socialism”).

No, they were not. This is blatant bullshit, as Richard J. Evans in the third Reich trilogy writes:


>> Perhaps to emphasize this anti-capitalist focus, and to align itself with similar groups in Austria and Czechoslovakia, the party changed its name in February 1920 to the National Socialist German Workers’ Party; hostile commentators soon abbreviated this to the word ‘Nazi’, just as the enemies of the Social Democrats had abbreviated the name of that party earlier on to ‘Sozi’. Despite the change of name, however, it would be wrong to see Nazism as a form of, or an outgrowth from, socialism. True, as some have pointed out, its rhetoric was frequently egalitarian, it stressed the need to put common needs above the needs of the individual, and it often declared itself opposed to big business and international finance capital. Famously, too, antisemitism was once declared to be ‘the socialism of fools’. But from the very beginning, Hitler declared himself implacably opposed to Social Democracy and, initially to a much smaller extent, Communism: after all, the ‘November traitors’ who had signed the Armistice and later the Treaty of Versailles were not Communists at all, but the Social Democrats and their allies.

>> The ‘National Socialists’ wanted to unite the two political camps of left and right into which, they argued, the Jews had manipulated the German nation. The basis for this was to be the idea of race. This was light years removed from the class-based ideology of socialism. Nazism was in some ways an extreme counter-ideology to socialism, borrowing much of its rhetoric in the process, from its self-image as a movement rather than a party, to its much-vaunted contempt for bourgeois convention and conservative timidity. The idea of a ‘party’ suggested allegiance to parliamentary democracy, working steadily within a settled democratic polity. In speeches and propaganda, however, Hitler and his followers preferred on the whole to talk of the ‘National Socialist movement’, just as the Social Democrats had talked of the ‘workers’ movement’ or, come to that, the feminists of the ‘women’s movement’ and the apostles of prewar teenage rebellion of the ‘youth movement’. The term not only suggested dynamism and unceasing forward motion, it also more than hinted at an ultimate goal, an absolute object to work towards that was grander and more final than the endless compromises of conventional politics. By presenting itself as a ‘movement’, National Socialism, like the labour movement, advertised its opposition to conventional politics and its intention to subvert and ultimately overthrow the system within which it was initially forced to work.

>> By replacing class with race, and the dictatorship of the proletariat with the dictatorship of the leader, Nazism reversed the usual terms of socialist ideology. The synthesis of right and left was neatly symbolized in the Party’s official flag, personally chosen by Hitler in mid-1920: the field was bright red, the colour of socialism, with the swastika, the emblem of racist nationalism, outlined in black in the middle of a white circle at the centre of the flag, so that the whole ensemble made a combination of black, white and red, the colours of the official flag of the Bismarckian Empire. In the wake of the 1918 Revolution these came to symbolize rejection of the Weimar Republic and all it stood for; but by changing the design and adding the swastika, a symbol already used by a variety of far-right racist movements and Free Corps units in the postwar period, the Nazis also announced that what they wanted to replace it with was a new, Pan-German, racial state, not the old Wilhelmine status quo.

>> By the end of 1920, Hitler’s early emphasis on attacking Jewish capitalism had been modified to bring in ‘Marxism’, or in other words Social Democracy, and Bolshevism as well. The cruelties of the civil war and ‘red terror’ in Lenin’s Russia were making an impact, and Hitler could use them to lend emphasis to common far-right views of the supposedly Jewish inspiration behind the revolutionary upheavals of 1918-19 in Munich. Nazism would also have been possible, however, without the Communist threat; Hitler’s anti-Bolshevism was the product of his antisemitism and not the other way round.

Or even more:

>> A more alarmist note was sounded by the French ambassador, André François-Poncet. The perceptive diplomat noted that the conservatives were right to expect Hitler to agree to their programme of ‘the crushing of the left, the purging of the bureaucracy, the assimilation of Prussia and the Reich, the reorganization of the army, the re-establishment of military service’. They had put Hitler into the Chancellery in order to discredit him, he observed; ‘they have believed themselves to be very ingenious, ridding themselves of the wolf by introducing him into the sheepfold.’


Or we can can cite:

>> “As with other fascist ideologies and movements it subscribed to an ideology of national renewal, rebirth, and rejuvenation manifesting itself in extreme populist radical nationalism, militarism, and – in contradistinction to many other forms of fascism, extreme biological racism…the movement understood itself to be, and indeed was, a new form of political movement…the anti-Socialist, anti-liberal, and radical nationalist tenets of Nazi ideology applied particularly to the sentiments of a middle class disorientated by the domestic and international upheavals in the inter-war period.” (Neil Gregor, Nazism, Oxford, 2000 p 4-5.)

And again, from the trilogy:

>> The substantial overlap between the Nazis’ ideology and that of the conservatives, even, to a considerable extent, that of German liberals, was a third major factor in bringing Hitler into the Reich Chancellery on 30 January 1933. The ideas that were current among almost all German political parties right of the Social Democrats in the early 1930s had a great deal in common with those of the Nazis. These ideas certainly bore enough resemblance to the Nazis’ for the bulk of the liberal and conservative parties’ supporters in the Protestant electorate to desert them, at least temporarily, for what looked like a more effective alternative.

>> The Nazis declared that they would scrape away foreign and alien encrustations on the German body politic, ridding the country of Communism, Marxism, ‘Jewish’ liberalism, cultural Bolshevism, feminism, sexual libertinism, cosmopolitanism, the economic and power-political burdens imposed by Britain and France in 1919, ‘Western’ democracy and much else. They would lay bare the true Germany.

You have literally no idea what you're talking about, nazism, indeed, was an extremist form of anti-liberalism/socialism, and their allies in government were not the socialists, or the liberals - but the right wing nationalists and the conservatives.

Their primary enemy was in fact the socialists, and socialists were some of the first people to be thrown in camps.


You are easily one of the least informed people I have ever encountered on the Donald - in the future, avoid discussing topics you have not even a basic understanding of.

Or at the very least avoid reading garbage books written by historically illiterate hacks.

All of that shit you tried to cite, the smoking, the healthcare, the jobs? This was all because Hitler and the nazis were obsessed with a perfect Aryan race.

The nazis also rounded up and tossed the unemployed in camps and called them "workshy."

They believed modernism/liberalism had corrupted german culture - and this is most evident in the "degenerate art/music" events they held all over the place.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degenerate_Art_Exhibition

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degenerate_music

ITT: Conflating 'Make America Great Again' with Nazis.

Of course.

This book came out by an idiot:

https://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Fascism-American-Mussolini-Politics/dp/0767917189

Now millions of conservatives actually believe that national socialism = socialism.

When I tried to explain Fascists were historically considered the extreme right-wing, he actually sent me a link to Jonah Goldberg's book as proof that I didn't know what I was talking about.

Thanks Jonah, for making Americans even dumber than they were before you started writing.

Republicans have been pushing the idea that Nazi’s we’re liberals for over a decade now. https://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Fascism-American-Mussolini-Politics/dp/0767917189

The craziest part isn’t even that this book got written. It’s that the right wing in America today shuns the author for not supporting Trump enough. Its crazy how far removed they’ve become from reality, even in just the last decade.

Right (about world leaders' respect for Mussolini - don't know about Churchill arranging for his capture).

My amateur understanding is that prior to Hitler, fascism (like communism) was more acceptable in "respectable circles." Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism expands on the point, but one possibly-illuminating trivia point is that one version of the song "You're the Top" had the line "You're Mussolini" delivered as a compliment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You%27re_the_Top

People also make the argument that socialists are Nazi's. I think the book was Liberal Fascism.

Edit: Here it is. Don't read the reviews without a gas mask.

Quebec was an unstable person who needed psychiatric help. People are free to hear new ideas without being labeled fascists. Fascism requires actual force behind the ideas being consumed.

Your false equivalency no more justifies me reading Mein Kampf then blaming it for my heinous acts, after reading it. As purely an academic excercise, I am still well within my right to read or listen from a subjective standpoint so I may dissiminate truth from that medium. I'm required as an adult to operate within the framework of freedom of thought without inciting violence, something that goes over Felarca's head.

My guess is that most people will assume fascism has something to do with 'repressive conservatism,' or resembles more closely 'the right' by American standards.

Historically speaking and by definition, fascists were originally statist authoritarian leftists. The left has always been violent and historically fascist. Again, I know a lot of dictionaries may (improperly) have 'fascist' as being a 'right-wing' principle.


I think the definition of it should probably be researched by an academic, historian, or political scientist and not determined by what Meriem perceives it to be. I previously thought that also and would assume it is right-wing because we assume any system that wants to confine us is done by the right. Again, one would assume the definition is what the one you referenced is until you look at one of the primary fathers of fascism, Mussolini. He was a leftist, by the book.

This seems to be an interesting read. Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Change

Here's a link that includes a big chunk of the first chapter that includes the thesis of the author, Jonah Goldberg.

Jonah Goldberg wrote a book just like that, Liberal Fascism. It said that Hitler was vegetarian and an animal rights supporter, and also the NSDAP has 'Sozialistich' in the name of the party, ergo, the Nazis were pinko commie leftists.

It's not just the media. There's an entire industry of right-wing authors for example that write books that border on mental illness.

Historically illiterate drivel like: https://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Fascism-American-Mussolini-Politics/dp/0767917189

And here's an actual expert responding to this book:

http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/122231

And that book was a best seller, a book absolutely void of facts was a best seller.

https://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Fascism-American-Mussolini-Politics/dp/0767917189

They've been consistently lied to for a long, long time.

Jonah Goldburg (of Liberal Fascism note) used to ask people that threw around the word 'Fascist' as an all Purpose insult the following question (paraphrasing from memory);

Other than the war, bigotry and genocide, what don't you like about the Nazi party platform?

Not to say that the above 3 are something to ignore in historical analysis, but as important as they are in the retrospective of the Nazi's, my suspicion is relatively few lower middle class voters were casting ballots for a war in the East. At least, as opposed to universal employment, say, or the Nazi whole grain bread initiative.

The editor of the National Review wrote a book call Liberal Fascism. The comparison doesn't get more explicit than that.

Liberal Fascism

This is the entire basis for the worst book ever written.

I agree with your concerns for the future of the moderate left, especially when I see the likes of Sanders and Corbyn. But, honestly, the party’s are responding to the incentives given to them. The last generation of liberal politicians was the most moderate produced by either political system in a generation. And what did they have to show for it? Torn apart by both sides as out-of-touch elite technocrats, with the attack from the right feeling even more vicious for the party’s moderation.

A couple of decades of that also makes it pretty hard to muster the energy to say, “no, no, we should take the other side’s concerns seriously.”

Take Kevin Williamson. I honestly just don’t have much concern left for defending the author of this. Jonah Goldberg is another good example. I follow him on Twitter and like his dogs, but every time he says something about civility in discourse, this cover flashes through my head.

My grandparents emigrated from the bloodlands of Europe of world war 2. I was raised to be well aware of the horrors of totalitarianism from either side of the spectrum. Telling me that because I think government has a role in the solution to societal problems puts me on the slippery spectrum to Stalin and Hitler is both intellectually lazy and deeply personally infuriating. It’s better articulated and researched, but it strikes the same chord with me as old school John Birch Society crap. It’s exactly why the one point I reacted against in the first place was claiming that no one links liberalism and communism.

So what motivation do I have to come to the defense of thinkers who apparently are willing to lump my political preferences in the same camp as the 20th century’s worst monsters? Again, I understand that nothing I’m saying is particularly fair or constructive, and you could point to plenty of authors on the left guilty of similar rhetoric. But I also don’t see a groundswell of discussion insisting that those authors get a voice on Fox News or the National Review. I’m tired of being in the only camp (moderate liberals) apparently expected to take everyone’s views and preferences into account.

Roosevelt was one of the first major Progressives of his day and his activism brought about the war mindset many progressive liberals have. When in war, there's no room for basic human decency, rationality, etc. Hence the left's irrational "wars" on climate change, capitalism, healthy eating. There's a good book about this subject

https://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Fascism-American-Mussolini-Politics/dp/0767917189

Arguably they don't even recognize Nazis as fascists! It's incredible and insane. Many, many conservatives have been brainwashed to believe Nazis were in fact progressives/liberals, and that they built the groundwork for the current democratic party.

Here's a letter to the editor.

Here's a billionaire claiming that progressive attacks on the rich = nazis.

Or here go you, "Liberal Fascism"

Glenn Beck peddled the bullshit for years.

TO BE SURE, America has a troubled past, and it no doubt impacted Hitler and his rise to power. But to suggest that current-day democrats = socialists = Nazis, and that Nazis /=/ Fascists, is flat out ridiculous.

You don't even know what that term means.

www.amazon.com/Liberal-Fascism-American-Mussolini-Politics/dp/0767917189

We leterally are not hitler. http://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Fascism-American-Mussolini-Politics/dp/0767917189
See? fucking libtards.

But srsly tho. I love killing jews. I am hitler.

NRO was Fake News before it was cool.

Editor and Chief Johan Goldberg famously released Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning way back in 2008, when we were still debating whether Obama was a fake Muslim from Kenya and how long we have to wait for the Death Panels to kill our grandmothers.

That the article spends about eight paragraphs trying to explain how Erza Klein lied about Hillary's popular vote victory really doesn't help it along.

Archives for links in comments:

• By HAMMER_BT (redalertpolitics.com): http://archive.is/AAN3e
  
• By HAMMER_BT (aclu.org): http://archive.is/5eyzB
  
  
• By HAMMER_BT (amazon.com): http://archive.is/LRcep
  
• By HAMMER_BT (amazon.com): http://archive.is/1kgfQ
  
  
• By HAMMER_BT (newscientist.com): http://archive.is/gYbqf
  
• By HAMMER_BT (reddit.com): http://archive.is/UhE5Y
  
  ----
  I am Mnemosyne 2.0, Mass hysteria is only availible in the new DLC, $12.99 for the update^^^^/r/botsrights ^^^^Contribute ^^^^Website

I don't think that has anything to do with fascism. I think they word you are looking for is Authoritarian.

Technically speaking we already live in a de facto-fascist state.
Fascism is the combining of corporate (private business) and government entities to form one power that controls the state and Means of Production for the economy.

Fascism forming in the United States (and maybe the world) has not come over night, but slowly thru the passing of laws and restricting individual liberties.

Giving businesses the right to own property, have rights as People (including the right to vote) and the Citizens United case was a large turning point in my opinion.


---

Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg

I've been hooked on Jonah Goldberg since Liberal Fascism. I don't think i've ever found something to disagree about with him.

Liberal Fascism is also an excellent book. Well footnoted and referenced, written by Jonah Goldberg: https://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Fascism-American-Mussolini-Politics/dp/0767917189

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0767917189

Goldberg made the same argument you did a couple of years ago. Beck has said the same thing.

For a variety of reasons, there are better sources out there...

Great source you got there.

Fascism is not a right-wing ideology. Just because they hate communism it doesn't mean they are on the opposite side of the political spectrum.

Read this book and let me know what you think.

Kind of a theme of his

So it's a question of who started it, like a playground gang fight? Because conservatives and right-liberals definitely do call leftists "fascists" all the time. Link. Link.

> Is it just that liberals call people they don't like "Hitler"?

Oh yeah, liberals are the ones guilty of overusing the Hitler comparison. Gimme a break.

I can link to thing you think are wrong but that support my point too. Have at this one.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0767917189/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1502725612&sr=8-1&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_QL65&keywords=liberal+fascism

Feel free to educate yourself:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0767917189?cache=d0361808358d3a95b4615214a361fbce&pi=SY200_QL40&qid=1408707435&sr=8-1#ref=mp_s_a_1_1

>Actually, that is exactly what it is. The details vary a great deal because the concept of socialism is very broad... it is an entire side of the broad political-economic spectrum of private control vs. state control. That's all it means.

Actually, no it isn't. There are alternate forms of public control that don't involve state ownership. Read the first two sentences of the Wikipedia page on socialism. Or just go on /r/socialism and ask an actual socialist what they believe in.

> I don't know why you believe socialism is a narrowly defined concept...

Are you fucking kidding me? You're the one who thinks socialism has only one definition: state control of the economy.

>There can be fascist democracies... hell, that's what Europe is and America also is to a slightly lesser extent.
Seriously, what are you even talking about? The term fascism does not carry any connotation concerning the extent of a government's representativeness.

What kind of fucked up politics textbook did you learn the definitions of these terms from? Fascism is an authoritarian and anti-democratic movement by definition. You must have gotten these ideas from some idiotic right-wing piece of vitriol like this book and assumed that they're actually using the academic definitions of these terms. I'll give you a hint: they aren't. Whenever you see any radical conservative news source/book throwing around terms like socialism and fascism, 90% of the time they have no idea what the fuck they're talking about. Knowledge of the nuances and real meanings behind these terms is far beyond the intellectual level of most Republicans, unfortunately.

>Let me ask you this... are state-run social welfare programs a liberal concept to you?

Liberalism is an ideology originating in the enlightenment that believes in individual rights and private property. So no, social welfare programs aren't a liberal concept.

>Please describe to me how their economic model significantly differs from the NAZI model.

On a surface level, they both share economic beliefs in mixed capitalist economies. So does the Republican party. But to try and act like they're the same thing because they have similar economic views is ridiculous, because fascism is a movement mainly defined by its political values and ideas. Please describe to me how in any way American Liberals have ultranationalistic, ethnocentric, or militaristic views. Those are all far more relevant to drawing a comparison than the economic model.

Read a book on the philosophical foundations of the American left, FFS.

Here’s a good starting point: https://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Fascism-American-Mussolini-Politics/dp/0767917189

If we look at fascism in Italy instead of Germany we see a bit of a different picture. The fascists in Spain also didn’t seem to use race/ethnicity within their identity politics the same way Germans did.

Fascism requires a group identity to exist,
but this can be national identity, religious identity, cultural identity, political identity, class identity, age group(generational) identity, etc.
Ethnicity is only one of many possible divisions.

—
Modern usage of the term ‘fascism’ has become ethnocentric through connotation, which eventually solidified into definition. This is because we have separated the original ideology into three new main groups and relabeled them as progressivism, neoconservatism, and neofascism, but only associate “fascism” with the latter.

An interesting thing to note is that the original ‘progressive’ movement (which fought against ethnocentric fascism throughout its history) has nearly the same economic philosophy as fascism, and both were influenced by the same individuals.
Chomsky famously noted this phenomenon, and gave the rationale behind why the debate was limited to these bookends within fascist nationalism and fascist globalism. Excerpts from The Common Good

If we consider the work of Carl Schmitt, Edward Louis Bernays (check out the Philosophy section and also about his influence on Nazi propaganda chief Joseph Goebbels), and Giovanni Gentile as being the foundations of fascism, then FDRoosevelt was as much a fascist as Mussolini or Hitler.

Later on in the west (post WW2), we see politics show thinly veneered fascism through focus on the group “communists” as becoming the standard “other” rather than Jews or any racial group. The pre-Civil Rights era Democrat party attempted to use a black/white metric, and the post-Civil Rights era we see the Republicans and Democrats using a urban/rural metric. This idea of setting up political bookends of polarity within a confined ideological context and then polarizing the bookends is “the very meaning of life” according to Carl Schmitt, and should be expected in any fascist society. Carl Schmitt- The Concept of the Political, section 3

—
Through propaganda, we’ve attached the term “fascism” to a very limited and manipulated subsets and offshoots of German fascist ideology, even though most modern politics are directly influenced by or even founded upon the work of Carl Schmitt and EL Bernays. There’s a reason why everyone can compare everyone else to Hitler, and that’s because very few modern political viewpoints actually reject the basic tenets of fascism, but simply argue about the fringes, all while pretending they’re anti-fascist because they’ve reframed what they define as fascism to be exclusively authoritarian racism.

(To the credit of communist anarchists, they seem to have been influenced the least; but I don’t particularly sympathize with their views either)

—
Summary: when someone tells you that a problem is the responsibility of “society” rather than the responsibility of individuals, and then goes on to assume that government is a representative of/surrogate for society,
you are talking to a political fascist.

Well it's not my favorite thing. The bank bailouts... the benefits to insurance companies by Obamacare... I don't like corporate welfare, but I also don't want the opposite of corporate welfare. I think a business should succeed or fail on its own merits, not because of government handouts. But if it does succeed, I don't think the government gets to come demanding its "cut" either. Historically, governments getting too powerful does not work out for the governed. That is my primary concern. There are people who are pushing policies which would bring that about - government that is too powerful. It leads to the same, very predictable set of conditions every time.
https://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Fascism-American-Mussolini-Politics/dp/0767917189/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=liberal+fascism&qid=1555008439&s=gateway&sr=8-1

Peace to you as well, I have enjoyed talking with you. It's rare to find someone who will actually have a discussion, rather than just throwing out talking points without any concern at all for truth. I think you are interested in moving closer towards truth, which is my goal too. Good luck to us both. :)

Liberal Fascism is a good place to start.

https://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Fascism-American-Mussolini-Politics/dp/0767917189

Liberal Facism

This book sounds exactly like what you're looking for.

What type of evidence would you like to see of the word ‘fascist’ being used to describe someone who doesn’t fit the academic description;

“a form of radical, right-wing, authoritarian ultranationalism, characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and strong regimentation of society and of the economy”

“Fascists believe that liberal democracy is obsolete and regard the complete mobilization of society under a totalitarian one-party state as necessary to prepare a nation for armed conflict and to respond effectively to economic difficulties. Such a state is led by a strong leader—such as a dictator and a martial government composed of the members of the governing fascist party—to forge national unity and maintain a stable and orderly society. Fascism rejects assertions that violence is automatically negative in nature and views political violence, war, and imperialism as means that can achieve national rejuvenation.”

This?

https://www.globalresearch.ca/trumps-fascism-versus-obamas-fascism/5605130

This?

https://www.vvdailypress.com/news/20181205/antifa-is-fascist-exactly-opposite-of-what-it-claims-to-be

This?

https://theconversation.com/trumps-fascist-efforts-to-demolish-democracy-106247

This?

https://www.channel4.com/news/nigel-farage-ukip-letter-school-concerns-racism-fascism

This?

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/democrats-ramp-up-nazi-rhetoric-against-trump-this-is-how-fascists-talk

This?

https://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Fascism-American-Mussolini-Politics/dp/0767917189

This?

https://www.augustachronicle.com/opinion/20180702/letter-democrats-real-fascists

Remember when they call someone a Nazi or a fascist, throw this at them.


https://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Fascism-American-Mussolini-Politics/dp/0767917189

Contrary to what most people think, the Nazis were ardent socialists (hence the term “National socialism”). They believed in free health care and guaranteed jobs. They confiscated inherited wealth and spent vast sums on public education. They purged the church from public policy, promoted a new form of pagan spirituality, and inserted the authority of the state into every nook and cranny of daily life. The Nazis declared war on smoking, supported abortion, euthanasia, and gun control. They loathed the free market, provided generous pensions for the elderly, and maintained a strict racial quota system in their universities—where campus speech codes were all the rage. The Nazis led the world in organic farming and alternative medicine. Hitler was a strict vegetarian, and Himmler was an animal rights activist.

Do these striking parallels mean that today’s liberals are genocidal maniacs, intent on conquering the world and imposing a new racial order? Not at all. Yet it is hard to deny that modern progressivism and classical fascism shared the same intellectual roots. We often forget, for example, that Mussolini and Hitler had many admirers in the United States. W.E.B. Du Bois was inspired by Hitler's Germany, and Irving Berlin praised Mussolini in song. Many fascist tenets were espoused by American progressives like John Dewey and Woodrow Wilson, and FDR incorporated fascist policies in the New Deal.

You might enjoy this article written by Jonah Goldberg, author of Liberal Fascism. He is an opinion editor at the LA Time and constant target of SJW types.

Social Liberalism Is Not Libertarian Part 3,086,012

Here he is discussing the book on C-Span if you are interested.

Honestly, I tend to see things as pretty black/white, good/evil, and think that those who prefer a broader political spectrum and, who also, incidentally, refuse to be labelled on it, are serving to make a simple issue more complex.

If you have the time, this is a great listen and even better read. Goldberg laid all this out in 2008, long before anyone had ever heard of antifa.

You may be interested in this book.

Relevant: Liberals are the true heirs of the Nazi spirit


Read Liberal Fascism, folks. It's a pretty good book!

Don't let liberal morons tell you that conservatives or Trump supporters are fascists!

>NPR

Get ready to hear from moderate conservative Jonah Goldberg. https://www.amazon.com/dp/0767917189/ref=cm_sw_r_tw_apa_i_ecvBCb5BWP4SH

Just because someone publishes something doesnt mean it's true, therefore verifiability on previously published information is still subjective. Plenty of published books have been written on how liberals are closely related to nazis and could be linked on that page like:

Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Change https://www.amazon.com/dp/0767917189/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_uFDHDbZ6KJ4F4

It's something that can be backed up, as I've shown here liberal policies are related to that of nazi Germany.

And I mean if you're going to trust some liberal with a gender studies degree, over a quote directly from Hitler, then theres really no arguing here. You're wrong.

Lol really not a man of your word, said you were tired of engaging, what, 5 replies ago? And it's cute that you fail to see the only fascists around as of late are leftists and liberals attempting to silence opposing views, put an end to the so called "marketplace of ideas" and assaulting people for their political views :)

https://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Fascism-American-Mussolini-Politics/dp/0767917189

The fact of the matter is you will not prevent America from becoming great again, you can not stump Trump, and you are exactly the kind of impressionable individual who would be a cuck and a sheep. Not to mention you have literally nothing to support your views except feelings and regurgitated media talking points

Keep on digging that hole Mr. "I've got better things to do". Feel free to denounce your misguided ways at any time, these coats are warm and comfy, your next reply will be met with either factual evidence or feel-good, patriotic spicy memes

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/L8Yo9jFIgzY/maxresdefault.jpg

https://youtu.be/KvDMWN-5NAg

https://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Fascism-American-Mussolini-Politics/dp/0767917189

>Jonah Goldberg

Hi, I would like my unbrain washed dad back

Entire books have been written on what fascism is. It's funny that you think a google'd definition in one line sums it up. If you don't think the left has fascists, I suggest reading one of those many books

Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Change

https://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Fascism-American-Mussolini-Politics/dp/0767917189

I used to be similarly deluded on this issue. As a knee jerk progressive Democrat I blinded accepted the attacks on Jonah Goldberg and his horrible book, liberal fascism (even though I have come to accept his main thesis, that National Socialism was socialist, it's still a nasty little book).

>I'm so sick of you liberals calling conservatives nazis. It belittles the word and the terrible things they did. They literally rounded people up and killed them.

https://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Fascism-American-Mussolini-Politics/dp/0767917189

But this? That's okay, right?

>Oh boohoo Trump wants to investigate voter fraud in California. Close enough

Oh noes, our churches are gonna be investigated for tax fraud! Nazis, religious oppression! Christians will be rounded up! Yikes, our 501s are being investigated! Fascists!

Again, perfectly okay.

>So you don't agree with the guy that's fine but comparing every little tiny thing you disagree with as Nazism is just stupid.

Ever watch Glenn Beck?

It's been a long-standing meme for the reich-wingers, since conservative Jonah Goldberg published his thesis:

https://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Fascism-American-Mussolini-Politics/dp/0767917189

https://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Fascism-American-Mussolini-Politics/dp/0767917189

Also, you should consider whether your own attitude about how much influence you should have over others is good for anyone.
https://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Fascism-American-Mussolini-Politics/dp/0767917189

This post of yours has confirmed what I believed to be true. You are, in fact, a bigot. Set forth below is the definition of "bigotry":

>obstinate or intolerant devotion to one's own opinions and prejudices : the state of mind of a bigot

I did not define totalitarianism as "leftist" (though, in the American sense, it is), I said the left is totalitarian (and it is). Ever hear of Palmer Luckey or Brendan Eich? Their industry is dominated by the left. The right didn't come up with the concept of intersectionality, the right doesn't seem nearly as interested in taking over and dominating every institution they can get their hands on. The right doesn't demand that everyone agrees with one another, "or else".

For a pretty good, and not too long, primer on this I suggest you borrow this book from your library. Another worthwhile thing to do is to start listening to Dennis Prager's radio show with an open and critical mind.

> Still half, it’s not misinformation

Not misinformation, disinformation. The former is a mistake, the later is a deliberate attempt to mislead. And it worked. You would be hard pressed to find a conservative who knows that Clinton wasn't talking about all trump voters. I mean, YOU didn't even know and you are trying hard to portray yourself as not-a-conservative.

> the majority of actual competent conservatives don’t watch Fox News

The majority of "competent conservatives" are a tiny minority of conservative voters. Fox has the highest ratings of any news channel and it ain't because liberals are watching.

But its not just Fox. Take a look at The National Review, founded by the revered (and unrepentant McCarthyite) William F Buckley — arguably the most important journal for serious conservatives in the US. Senior editor, Jonah Goldberg, wrote and published the facially ridiculous book Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left and "liberals are fascists" is a regular trope in the magazine's articles. Furthermore, they retain convicted felon and hyper-partisan propagandist Dinesh D'Souza on their masthead. Disinformation and grievance are the lifeblood of the entire right-wing media system.

But you know what? Forget all that, what matters are results. What we have seen is 3000 american lives lost and a president who thinks talking about it is a personal insult. What we have seen is 2500 children taken from their parents and locked in cages. Of those, 400 had their parents deported with no plans to ever reunite them. And despite these atrocities, the overwhelming number of GOP voters see nothing wrong. The charitable explanation is that they've been misled by right-wing propaganda into forgetting that those people are human.

It's not anti-intellectualism.
If anything politicized labels are anti-intellectualism because they're derived from opinion.
Fascism is a loosely defined term that is often associated with the right wing but it really can characterize governments on both sides of the political spectrum.

If you ask google and the average joe the definition of fascism you'll get
"an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization."

If you ask Merriam Webster on the other hand you get

1.
a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition"

2
: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control

If you apply websters definition communism/liberalism can be classified as fascism when the criteria is met. Google's definition reserves the term fascism for right wing.

It's interpretation, not anti-intellectualism.

Also, here's a good read:

https://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Fascism-American-Mussolini-Politics/dp/0767917189

Don't have to. There's a whole book on the topic.

Your pretty myopic when it comed to defintions. Your definition of fascist is rooted in its original meaning from over 100 years ago. Word definition changes over time). Here is an update from TheFreeDictionary which I have annotated.

1. Fascism
   a. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, (all progressive love a big fat central goverment and would love to make unelected Hillary their president)
   
   a capitalist economy subject to stringent governmental controls (every liberal wants strict controls on the marketplace)
   
   violent suppression of the opposition (liberals like to take over the streets, riot, burn and loot whenever they don't get their way),
   
   and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism. (liberals hate white working people, evidenced by freely using pejorative racist terms like "redneck", hillbilly, "white privilege") along with being pro anti white goverment programs such as Affirmitive Action.
   
   Certainly there are thousands of sites defining Fascism thousands of ways. Keep in mind that I am talking about Liberal Fascism, not Right Wing Fascism. Here is a link to the definition above, and a book called Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg.
   
   Btw, you come across as a 12 year old when you start throwing the word STUPID around.
   
   http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Facist
   
   https://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Fascism-American-Mussolini-Politics/dp/0767917189

Then you should do some more research:
Liberal Fascism
>“Fascists,” “Brownshirts,” “jackbooted stormtroopers”—such are the insults typically hurled at conservatives by their liberal opponents. Calling someone a fascist is the fastest way to shut them up, defining their views as beyond the political pale. But who are the real fascists in our midst?

>Liberal Fascism offers a startling new perspective on the theories and practices that define fascist politics. Replacing conveniently manufactured myths with surprising and enlightening research, Jonah Goldberg reminds us that the original fascists were really on the left, and that liberals from Woodrow Wilson to FDR to Hillary Clinton have advocated policies and principles remarkably similar to those of Hitler's National Socialism and Mussolini's Fascism.

>Contrary to what most people think, the Nazis were ardent socialists (hence the term “National socialism”). They believed in free health care and guaranteed jobs. They confiscated inherited wealth and spent vast sums on public education. They purged the church from public policy, promoted a new form of pagan spirituality, and inserted the authority of the state into every nook and cranny of daily life. The Nazis declared war on smoking, supported abortion, euthanasia, and gun control. They loathed the free market, provided generous pensions for the elderly, and maintained a strict racial quota system in their universities—where campus speech codes were all the rage. The Nazis led the world in organic farming and alternative medicine. Hitler was a strict vegetarian, and Himmler was an animal rights activist.

>Do these striking parallels mean that today’s liberals are genocidal maniacs, intent on conquering the world and imposing a new racial order? Not at all. Yet it is hard to deny that modern progressivism and classical fascism shared the same intellectual roots. We often forget, for example, that Mussolini and Hitler had many admirers in the United States. W.E.B. Du Bois was inspired by Hitler's Germany, and Irving Berlin praised Mussolini in song. Many fascist tenets were espoused by American progressives like John Dewey and Woodrow Wilson, and FDR incorporated fascist policies in the New Deal.

>Fascism was an international movement that appeared in different forms in different countries, depending on the vagaries of national culture and temperament. In Germany, fascism appeared as genocidal racist nationalism. In America, it took a “friendlier,” more liberal form. The modern heirs of this “friendly fascist” tradition include the New York Times, the Democratic Party, the Ivy League professoriate, and the liberals of Hollywood. The quintessential Liberal Fascist isn't an SS storm trooper; it is a female grade school teacher with an education degree from Brown or Swarthmore.

>These assertions may sound strange to modern ears, but that is because we have forgotten what fascism is. In this angry, funny, smart, contentious book, Jonah Goldberg turns our preconceptions inside out and shows us the true meaning of Liberal Fascism

The Progressives were early admirers of the fascists. Why? Because they share similar intellectual roots. It shouldn't be hard to understand how two ideologies that advocate for extensive government involvement in all aspects of society have more in common with each other than an ideology that advocates individual rights and limited government.

Jeg har givet dig ret længere oppe når jeg sagde det primært udspringer i højrefløjs ideologi historirsk. Du må dog også give mig ret i, at det ikke er udelukkende og sagtens kan udspringe på venstrefløjen også.

Liberal fascisme og venstreorienteret fascisme er udtryk der gør sig gældende i dag, det er vel det mest aktuelle form for fascisme i vesten. Mange snakker om den, uanset om det en konspirationsteori eller ej, om 20-30 år er det nok lidt mere materiale omkring det.

https://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Fascism-American-Mussolini-Politics/dp/0767917189

To balance your view also look at "Liberal Fascism" by Jonah Goldberg:

https://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Fascism-American-Mussolini-Politics/dp/0767917189

>How are they fighting fascism? Fascism in technical terms is a right-wing phenomenon, first of all.

Not really

> And if anyone should be called fascist, it would definitely have to be Trump and his current party. He worships people like Putin and Duterte

No, he doesn't, and they don't qualify as fascists anyway, they're just authoritarians.

>literally wanted a military parade with vehicles (like tanks) for his inauguration.

...and? What if he just thought tanks looked cool? This is really stretching it.

>Who on Earth is going to take their "values" seriously in the future when they elected a man like Donald Trump? Who cares what they think of the morality of gay marriage now? I mean, I never put that much stock in it myself, but in the future I'm not even going to listen to these people go on about their morals. I'm certainly not going to listen when they criticize a Democratic president either. I'm going to dismiss them out of hand with utter contempt. They've proven to be completely hypocritical.

Well ftr I'm an agnostic so I can't really comment on that angle, I've always cared more about what the president does in terms of policy than how he is as a person, because the first one effects me. I wouldn't have cared about Clinton screwing his interns if he hadn't been lying about it.

You should read this book, it's pretty enlightening about the origination and fascist history of the left.

I think you're confusing being triggered with laughing at how ridiculous your accusations are.

Read some history books to find out what fascism is. Or political science books like https://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Fascism-American-Mussolini-Politics/dp/0767917189

Boy have I got the shitty book for you

wow are you confused! Fascism is and always has been associated with liberalism.

If you wish to educate yourself, here is the definitive scholarly work on the subject:

https://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Fascism-American-Mussolini-Politics/dp/0767917189

https://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Fascism-American-Mussolini-Politics/dp/0767917189


Liberals are the real Fascists... checkm8 liebruls.

Typical SJW: "tolerance for everyone...except my ideological opponents, who should be gruesomely killed!"

Here's some recommended reading to get you up to speed

Who Is “Fascist”? by Thomas Sowell

Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Change by Jonah Goldberg

Liberal Fascism blog by Jonah Goldberg in case you think you'll get away with criticisng it, he owned. every liberal on that blog who tried to debunk him

----

> For instance, when I was writing the book, I thought there’s no way all of this horrible stuff I was reading by and about Woodrow Wilson and Herbert Croly could be right. I checked the sources over and over again, and for the most part restricted myself to credible, mainstream historians or primary sources. Still, I was waiting for someone to say, for example, “No, no, no: Goldberg gets Wilson all wrong!” But to date, I don’t think anyone has written a detailed, fact-driven defense of the guy. One left-wing blogger rolled his eyes and simply said it was silly for me to call Wilson a liberal, which seemed idiotic and a huge concession at the same time. When the New York Times reviewed the book, the reviewer didn’t even object to a single accusation against Wilson. In fact, he didn’t disagree with anything in the book until I got to FDR. Well, by the time I got to FDR, I’d said that Fascism was left-wing, that Hitler was a man of the Left, and that Wilson was a would-be fascist dictator. That seemed like a pretty big concession to me. I think the larger significance of this is that liberals are either unwilling or unable to defend the roots of what we call liberalism, and that speaks volumes and lays down an important marker.

----

> Well, first of all I think I have to thank Barack Obama. Here I wrote a book, working on the assumption that Hillary Clinton would be the nominee (hardly a harebrained assumption at the time), about how contemporary progressivism is a political religion with its roots in German state theory, sharing a close family resemblance to fascism. Among the anatomical and genetic similarities: cult of unity, sacralization of politics, philosophical pragmatism, corporatism, relativism, Romanticism, hero-worship, collectivism, and so on. And out of nowhere comes a guy who campaigns as a secular messiah, spouting deeply spiritualized political rhetoric, claims the Progressives as his inspiration, and proudly sees himself as carrying out FDR’s mission. I haven’t counted them, but I’d guess I’ve received a couple hundred e-mails from readers telling me how they thought the whole book was written with Obama in mind, even though I finished it before he was even ahead in the Democratic primaries. After the election, sales of the book spiked through the roof for a reason. I used to joke that the same people loading up on bottled water and handguns were buying extra copies of the book as a field guide or something

----

> You know, when I first started pondering the book, I thought it might be all about economics. About ten years ago I went on a junket to Switzerland and attended a talk with the CEO of Nestlé. Listening to him, it became very clear to me that he had little to no interest in free markets or capitalism properly understood. He saw his corporation as a “partner” with governments, NGOs, the U.N., and other massive multinationals. The profit motive was good for efficiency and rewarding talent, but beyond that, he wanted order and predictability and as much planning as he could get. I think that mindset informs the entire class of transnational progressives, the shock troops of what H. G. Wells hoped would lead to his liberal-fascist “world brain.”

> If you look at how most liberals think about economics, they want big corporations and big government working in tandem with labor, universities (think industrial policy), and progressive organizations to come up with “inclusive” policies set at the national or international level. That’s not necessarily socialism — it’s corporatism. When you listen to how Obama is making economic policy with “everyone at the table,” he’s describing corporatism, the economic philosophy of fascism. Government is the senior partner, but all of the other institutions are on board — so long as they agree with the government’s agenda. The people left out of this coordinated effort — the Nazis called it the Gleichschaltung — are the small businessmen, the entrepreneurs, the ideological, social, or economic mavericks who don’t want to play along. When you listen to Obama demonize Chrysler’s bondholders simply because they want their contracts enforced and the rule of law sustained, you get a sense of what I’m talking about.

> I don’t think Obama wants a brutal tyranny any more than Hillary Clinton does (which is to say I don’t think he wants anything of the sort). But I do think they honestly believe that progress is best served if everyone falls in line with a national agenda, a unifying purpose, a “village” mentality expanded to include all of society. That sentiment drips from almost every liberal exhortation about everything from global warming to national service. But to point it out earns you the label of crank. As I said a minute ago about that “We’re All Fascists Now” chapter, I think people fail to understand that tyrannies — including soft, Huxleyan tyrannies — aren’t born from criminal conspiracies by evil men; they’re born by progressive groupthink. I have an abiding faith in the liberty-loving nature of the American people. But I think we are laying down the foundation for a challenge to that nature the likes of which we haven’t seen since Wilson was in office.

"If fascism ever comes to America, it will come in the name of liberalism."--Ronald Reagan

“If you think shrinking government and getting it less involved in your life is a hallmark of tyranny it is only because you are either grotesquely ignorant or because you subscribe to a statist ideology that believes the expansion of the state is the expansion of liberty.”
― Jonah Goldberg

https://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Fascism-American-Mussolini-Politics/dp/0767917189

https://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Fascism-American-Mussolini-Politics/dp/0767917189

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Fascism

https://www.amazon.com/Friendly-Fascism-Face-Power-America/dp/0896081494

Ohoh ..salt ! And hurt butts ! So, mental midgets.. Sorry, I mean, fascists , not happy when exposed to opposing opinions? lol Can't blame you, that's how fascists behave.

Keep'em raining, they're medals to me !