NeoConservatism vs Fascism

[Ravi]

That's not true in the least, Manifold. If you haven't read the book I suppose its hard to comment on it. You can check here for a bit of a blurb:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MzNjM2E2YzgzOWVmZjg0ZDNkZjYyMTMwNTVlNjg4ODc=

Goldberg makes some interesting historical points in the books, though I can't say I'm in agreement with him across the board by any means.

Very true. I was amazed to learn that Hitler was a vegetarian and many liberals are vegetarians. This guy is a brilliant writer with a brilliant mind.

 

[manifold]

I beg to differ.. lefty pink lunger bastards who think they know better than you do regarding restricting choice is firmly planted in liberal politics. Tipper Gore and the PMRC. Berkeley reactions to marine recruiting. Peta. ALL lefty Fascists.

I see your point, but I don't consider those policies liberal even though they've been labeled as such.

I know my definition of liberal is a bit anachronistic to say the least, but hey, I'm entitled to my opinion.

 

[Ravi]

I beg to differ.. lefty pink lunger bastards who think they know better than you do regarding restricting choice is firmly planted in liberal politics. Tipper Gore and the PMRC. Berkeley reactions to marine recruiting. Peta. ALL lefty Fascists.

Ah, but now you are describing Progressives. They are very similar to neocons but they only relate to liberals loosely, like conservatives only relate to neocons loosely.

 

[Diuretic]

I suppose it depends on whose dictionary you are using. Or are the 'liberals' of today not liberals in the true sense? I suppose they aren't in the true, historic European sense, which did place the autonomy of the individual over all else. But in the American sense, in which "liberal" is used in conjunction with large government, wealth redistribution, social engineering, etc. your definition of liberal certainly doesn't apply.

That's the problem with labels and the Newspeak advocates who twist them. I've noticed though that label-users and label-twisters won't discuss details, such as policy, they simply smear using their Newspeak tactics.

 

[Diuretic]

I don't think his thesis is that the definition of fascism has changed; I think his thesis is that American liberalism (as opposed to historical European liberalism) has roots in early 20th century fascism.

Then he would have to be wrong about that.

 

[Diuretic]

I beg to differ.. lefty pink lunger bastards who think they know better than you do regarding restricting choice is firmly planted in liberal politics. Tipper Gore and the PMRC. Berkeley reactions to marine recruiting. Peta. ALL lefty Fascists.

How about using a more appropriate term than "fascist" which has a particular meaning? What about "authoritarian"? Yes, there is a huge streak of authoritarianism in the Left, it has a tendency towards authoritarianism the further left it goes. And so on the right, exactly the same.

 

[AllieBaba]

Very true. I was amazed to learn that Hitler was a vegetarian and many liberals are vegetarians. This guy is a brilliant writer with a brilliant mind.

Hitler was the head of the Nazi socialist party. That should be enough to give any lib nightmares. But it doesn't.

Fascism is when the government is given complete control over the people, who are powerless against it. They are powerless because they have given up their rights..or had them taken from them. In other words, the "government" becomes an exclusive few who abuse their power, and because the rights of the people have been eroded away, they are at the mercy of their "leaders".

That's what happens when you allow the government to become stronger than the people.

 

[Steerpike]

Then he would have to be wrong about that.

That's easy to say not having read the work, nor the citations to authority. It's interesting to discuss, but if you dismiss the thesis out of hand because "it can't be right," when you haven't seen the presentation of evidence or formulation of the argument, then I don't think your disagreement can be taken seriously. Or at least not responded to seriously because there is no substance to respond to.

 

[Diuretic]

Very true. I was amazed to learn that Hitler was a vegetarian and many liberals are vegetarians. This guy is a brilliant writer with a brilliant mind.

I strongly disagree.

http://firedoglake.com/2008/01/17/calling-out-jonah-goldberg/

He's a gutless wimp.

 

[Diuretic]

I see your point, but I don't consider those policies liberal even though they've been labeled as such.

I know my definition of liberal is a bit anachronistic to say the least, but hey, I'm entitled to my opinion.

Please tell me at least one poster is immune to Newspeak propaganda

 

[Diuretic]

That's easy to say not having read the work, nor the citations to authority. It's interesting to discuss, but if you dismiss the thesis out of hand because "it can't be right," when you haven't seen the presentation of evidence or formulation of the argument, then I don't think your disagreement can be taken seriously. Or at least not responded to seriously because there is no substance to respond to.

I don't have to, I'll let someone else do that.

http://firedoglake.com/2008/01/17/calling-out-jonah-goldberg/

 

[Ravi]

Hitler was the head of the Nazi socialist party. That should be enough to give any lib nightmares. But it doesn't.

Fascism is when the government is given complete control over the people, who are powerless against it. They are powerless because they have given up their rights..or had them taken from them. In other words, the "government" becomes an exclusive few who abuse their power, and because the rights of the people have been eroded away, they are at the mercy of their "leaders".

That's what happens when you allow the government to become stronger than the people.

Wow! It sounds exactly like what the Bush administration has been up to...is Bush a vegetarian, also?

The entire idea that liberal has any ties to nazism is insulting to America. The founders were the biggest liberals of all time. Are you claiming we were founded on nazi pricinples?

I imagine you loved this nimrods book.

 

[Ravi]

I strongly disagree.

http://firedoglake.com/2008/01/17/calling-out-jonah-goldberg/

He's a gutless wimp.

I was being sarcastic.

 

[AllieBaba]

Individual liberty. I haven't seen an erosion of my individual liberty or my ability to freely pursue happiness in the past 8 years.

However, banning guns would be an erosion of my individual liberty.

 

[Shogun]

I see your point, but I don't consider those policies liberal even though they've been labeled as such.

I know my definition of liberal is a bit anachronistic to say the least, but hey, I'm entitled to my opinion.

You are free to hold your opinion BUT i don't know many people who would confuse which side of the spectrum each reside. solid lefties every one. Fascists who think they know better than you regarding your own life. Somehow, this validates acting just like a fascist and limiting options and liberty "for your own good". It's one of the reasons why I hate the far end of my side of the spectrum more than the far side of the right.

 

[Steerpike]

I don't have to, I'll let someone else do that.

http://firedoglake.com/2008/01/17/calling-out-jonah-goldberg/

I've seen that link before, and read through it. It doesn't provide the information I said you didn't provide, namely the information that documents where Goldberg is wrong. Instead, the author simply asserts that Goldberg should have included many other groups (right-wing) groups in his work. I don't know that it was the purpose of his work to talk about right-wing fascism, but I certainly can't disagree that the groups mentioned in your link have fascist characteristics. Nothing in the link, however, demonstrates that Goldberg was wrong. At best, one could argue his book was incomplete (at least if it was to be a treatise on fascism generally, which it wasn't).

 

[Shogun]

Ah, but now you are describing Progressives. They are very similar to neocons but they only relate to liberals loosely, like conservatives only relate to neocons loosely.

I wouldn't say that. loosely didnt mean much for a neocon in 04 and loosely wont mean much to the far left in 08 who thinks that apathy towards republican leadership gives that bitch nancy pelosi's ilk free reign to implement whatever they deem necessary to save you from yourself. pink lunger support? check. rabid veganism? check.


We don't all want to survive on wheat grass, easy rock, and "healthy" vices and the far left is just as dangerous in implementing fascist-like role as the far right.

 

[AllieBaba]

More dangerous, because they're actually dishonest about their motives. They lie to the public about how they'll be "taken care of" but really what they mean is "taken care of" like the mob "takes care of" ppl.

At least conservatives are fairly upfront about what they're doing, and don't try to bamboozle the public into thinking that really it's a GOOD thing for everyone to be poor, and unarmed, and at the mercy of the government.

 

[Shogun]

How about using a more appropriate term than "fascist" which has a particular meaning? What about "authoritarian"? Yes, there is a huge streak of authoritarianism in the Left, it has a tendency towards authoritarianism the further left it goes. And so on the right, exactly the same.

Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that considers the individual subordinate to the interests of the state, party or society as a whole. Fascists seek to forge a type of national unity, usually based on (but not limited to) ethnic, cultural, racial, and/or religious attributes. Various scholars attribute different characteristics to fascism, but the following elements are usually seen as its integral parts: patriotism, nationalism, statism, militarism, totalitarianism, anti-communism, corporatism, populism, collectivism, autocracy and opposition to political and economic liberalism.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism


the word works for me.

 

[Ravi]

I wouldn't say that. loosely didnt mean much for a neocon in 04 and loosely wont mean much to the far left in 08 who thinks that apathy towards republican leadership gives that bitch nancy pelosi's ilk free reign to implement whatever they deem necessary to save you from yourself. pink lunger support? check. rabid veganism? check.


We don't all want to survive on wheat grass, easy rock, and "healthy" vices and the far left is just as dangerous in implementing fascist-like role as the far right.

I don't disagree with you, though I'm not sure about Pelosi. I just don't think people that hold those views are actually liberals.