VP Wallace in 1944 on American Fascists

[CrusaderFrank]

The Ghost of Vice President Wallace Warns: "It Can Happen Here"
<excerpt>
In early 1944, the New York Times asked Vice President Henry Wallace to, as Wallace noted, "write a piece answering the following questions: What is a fascist? How many fascists have we? How dangerous are they?"

Vice President Wallace's answer to those questions was published in The New York Times on April 9, 1944, at the height of the war against the Axis powers of Germany and Japan.

"The really dangerous American fascists," Wallace wrote, "are not those who are hooked up directly or indirectly with the Axis. The FBI has its finger on those. The dangerous American fascist is the man who wants to do in the United States in an American way what Hitler did in Germany in a Prussian way. The American fascist would prefer not to use violence. His method is to poison the channels of public information. With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money or more power."

In this, Wallace was using the classic definition of the word "fascist" - the definition Mussolini had in mind when he claimed to have invented the word. (It was actually Italian philosopher Giovanni Gentile who wrote the entry in the Encyclopedia Italiana that said: "Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power." Mussolini, however, affixed his name to the entry, and claimed credit for it.)

As the 1983 American Heritage Dictionary noted, fascism is: "A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism."
>
Wallace seems to describe a Fox news, who poisons the channels of public information today.

Oh, you almost got it right, but you missed it at the end!!!!!

Fox News represents a very tiny bit of the 'channel of public information'. The MSM represents the majority and they are clearly biased to the Left. Just look at the way the MSM is handling the Global Warming email leaks (a.k.a., Climate-Gate). So Fox is a very, very minor problem, yet you focus on them. Unfortunately, you accept liberal fascism and you don't even know it! How sad for you.

Zen Koan: If a Librul is never taught that they are a Fascist and they fall in the forest, do they still make a sound?

 

[American Horse]

A

s the 1983 American Heritage Dictionary noted, fascism is: "A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism."

Obama is of the extreme right?

No and neither was Hitler, he was a Leftist like Mao, Stalin, FDR and Obama

And all these people were STATISTS.

 

[noose4]

A

s the 1983 American Heritage Dictionary noted, fascism is: "A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism."

Obama is of the extreme right?

No and neither was Hitler, he was a Leftist like Mao, Stalin, FDR and Obama

And the communist Chinese are republican because they call it the People's Republic of China.

 

[editec]

Did Mossolini nationalize Fiat?

Did Hitler nationalize Krupt?

No and no?

Then their adherence to the principles of socialism is little more than a semantic delusion that some of you suffer from.

They were fascists....not capitists, not socialists, not communists, either.

They were a different political animal entirely.

 

[amrchaos]

In this, Wallace was using the classic definition of the word "fascist" - the definition Mussolini had in mind when he claimed to have invented the word. (It was actually Italian philosopher Giovanni Gentile who wrote the entry in the Encyclopedia Italiana that said: "Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power." Mussolini, however, affixed his name to the entry, and claimed credit for it.)

So let me undersand this correctly---The merger of state and corporate power is corporatism.

And fascism is: "A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism."

So the difference between corporatism and fascism is the presence of a dictatorship, extreme right wing politics, and belligerant nationalism.



I think government and different types of organizations, including business, must come together in order to resolve both social and economic problems facing the nation in general. If this makes me a corporatists, then I am a proud corporatists. But in no way am I a fascists. I believe in obtaining as many different perspectives as possible when it comes to resolving issues. I do not understand how a singular perspective is capable of resolving a multitude of problems.

 

[Murf76]

In this, Wallace was using the classic definition of the word "fascist" - the definition Mussolini had in mind when he claimed to have invented the word. (It was actually Italian philosopher Giovanni Gentile who wrote the entry in the Encyclopedia Italiana that said: "Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power." Mussolini, however, affixed his name to the entry, and claimed credit for it.)

So let me undersand this correctly---The merger of state and corporate power is corporatism.

And fascism is: "A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism."

So the difference between corporatism and fascism is the presence of a dictatorship, extreme right wing politics, and belligerant nationalism.



I think government and different types of organizations, including business, must come together in order to resolve both social and economic problems facing the nation in general. If this makes me a corporatists, then I am a proud corporatists. But in no way am I a fascists. I believe in obtaining as many different perspectives as possible when it comes to resolving issues. I do not understand how a singular perspective is capable of resolving a multitude of problems.

The definition you sited is flawed. Do you honestly believe that Mussolini would have had any success in propagating Fascism if THAT was the common definition of the word?
He was regaled as a hero in Europe and even here in America for his innovative approach to government.

No. Nobody in their right minds would have thought that the definition you offered was a good thing.

Fascism has more to do with the economics of a power-structure. It's more like a human body, with the parts being various aspects of nominally private industry and the brain (government) in complete control.

This isn't really a "marriage" of public and private. The government has control, thus it is NOT an equal partnership. Control of a thing is de facto ownership of it. Which means... that Fascism is a mere facade, designed to make a Socialist system more palatable to the public. Socialism, of course, being defined as government ownership of the means of production. Same thing with Communism, defined as public ownership of the means of production, but in actuality, completely controlled by government.

Look at it like this... if I take your car, and you have no means whatsoever of making me return it... is it still YOUR car? And whether your answer is 'yes' or 'no', does it really matter if I am riding and you are walking???

ALL collectivist ideologies are the same when we get to the end result. They all become authoritarian because individual liberty, and thus meaningful equality, is suppressed for the so-called "greater good". Hair-splitting and semantics don't change that.

Rabid Nationalism is just the sauce when it comes to Fascism. It's just the propaganda that's used to sell the product, a product that in it's heyday was lauded by progressives around the world.
The underlying economic system is the meat and potatoes, because... THAT's where the power comes from. There's no power unless you control the wealth.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

It's the Left, which is Fascist. It's the Left, which seeks to expand the power of central government through the guise of "Community Organizing" and unprecedented intervention in Commerce via onerous regulation and control of banking. It's the Left which empowers central government and authoritarianism through collectivism... all in the name of "The Common Good". It's the Left which rejects of our founding premise of Individual Liberty and thus true freedom.

You are wrong. You've got it backwards. Fascism is definitely an extreme of the "right". Corporatism is also within the righie realm but more toward libertarianism. There are no true "libertarian" examples just as there are no true "socialist" states.

http://humanknowledge.net/PoliticalSpace.jpg

 

[Murf76]

You are wrong. You've got it backwards. Fascism is definitely an extreme of the "right". Corporatism is also within the righie realm but more toward libertarianism. There are no true "libertarian" examples just as there are no true "socialist" states.

http://humanknowledge.net/PoliticalSpace.jpg

Sorry, but the chart you sited is utter bull.

If we look at on a sliding scale ... and you have "All Government" at the far left, and No Government at the far right, this country was founded somewhere to the mid-center right with central government limited to just the enumerated powers defined by the U.S Constitution.

Collectivist ideologies are leftist when administered by government. As opposed to the voluntary participation one might find in charitable organizations, collectivist government policies cannot exist without the application of force. All government is essentially force. All collectivist policy is essentially authoritarian. Consider, for example, the individual mandate of Obamacare, that would JAIL you for failure to participate.


Freedom (Individual Liberty) isn't something you can divide into classifications as your chart suggested. It's more of an 'either/or' proposition. You either believe that we have certain unalienable rights... or you don't. That's something that can't be qualified.
You have Individual Liberty on the right, where people are free to the point on anarchy. And Big Government Collectivism on the left, where liberty is suppressed for the so-called "greater good".

 

[Political Junky]

Quote: Originally Posted by CrusaderFrank
Wow! Like he saw Obama in his crystal ball!

I realize it would be difficult for you to respond to the original post, and you didn't
You DO know that Hitler would have hated Obama, along with all minorities, don't you?

Librul are never taught that National Socialism means Socialism. It seems so obvious, but then again Libruls believe that cow farts are dangerous and exhaling CO2 is a deadly poison

And the Democratic Republic of Germany (East Germany) was Democratic.


BTW...everyone should get ahold of a book by Rex Stout called "Magnificent Dunderheads"...a collection of speechs and essays by pre-WWII REPUBLICANS complimenting how Hitler and Mussolini were running things in Europe.

Yes, those cons even attempted a coup to remove FDR from office.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

Sorry, but the chart you sited is utter bull.

No, actually, it isn't.

Collectivist ideologies are leftist when administered by government. As opposed to the voluntary participation one might find in charitable organizations, collectivist government policies cannot exist without the application of force. All government is essentially force. All collectivist policy is essentially authoritarian. Consider, for example, the individual mandate of Obamacare, that would JAIL you for failure to participate.

Are you kidding me? A collectivism is the will of the majority or the will of most, if a true democracy. Authoritarian rule is one person or one small group of people imposing their agenda on the masses through oppression or violence - be they in the majority or the minority. A dictator or a theocracy is authoritarian. A democratic government or a "collective" is not one entity with an agenda. It is the voice of the collective. My chart is dead-on. There are other versions if you don't believe me. If you can see through your partisanism, that is.

Freedom (Individual Liberty) isn't something you can divide into classifications as your chart suggested. It's more of an 'either/or' proposition. You either believe that we have certain unalienable rights... or you don't. That's something that can't be qualified.
You have Individual Liberty on the right, where people are free to the point on anarchy. And Big Government Collectivism on the left, where liberty is suppressed for the so-called "greater good".

Again, you are showing your ignorance. Liberty is not an all or nothing, otherwise you would have communists and anarchists and nothing in the middle, as I assume you are saying above. You just described the other axis of the chart, bonehead. You cross the two - x = government influence and y= liberty, and everyone falls somewhere in between. You are saying that everyone is either a communist or an anarchist with nothing in the middle? Everyone has their own idea of what an inalienable right is, you know. There is no either/or - black/white.

 

[Political Junky]

The Ghost of Vice President Wallace Warns: "It Can Happen Here"
<excerpt>
In early 1944, the New York Times asked Vice President Henry Wallace to, as Wallace noted, "write a piece answering the following questions: What is a fascist? How many fascists have we? How dangerous are they?"

Vice President Wallace's answer to those questions was published in The New York Times on April 9, 1944, at the height of the war against the Axis powers of Germany and Japan.

"The really dangerous American fascists," Wallace wrote, "are not those who are hooked up directly or indirectly with the Axis. The FBI has its finger on those. The dangerous American fascist is the man who wants to do in the United States in an American way what Hitler did in Germany in a Prussian way. The American fascist would prefer not to use violence. His method is to poison the channels of public information. With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money or more power."

In this, Wallace was using the classic definition of the word "fascist" - the definition Mussolini had in mind when he claimed to have invented the word. (It was actually Italian philosopher Giovanni Gentile who wrote the entry in the Encyclopedia Italiana that said: "Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power." Mussolini, however, affixed his name to the entry, and claimed credit for it.)

As the 1983 American Heritage Dictionary noted, fascism is: "A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism."
>
Wallace seems to describe a Fox news, who poisons the channels of public information today.

Oh, you almost got it right, but you missed it at the end!!!!!

Fox News represents a very tiny bit of the 'channel of public information'. The MSM represents the majority and they are clearly biased to the Left. Just look at the way the MSM is handling the Global Warming email leaks (a.k.a., Climate-Gate). So Fox is a very, very minor problem, yet you focus on them. Unfortunately, you accept liberal fascism and you don't even know it! How sad for you.

How sweet it is to see a con tell us that Fox is unimportant.

 

[Political Junky]

A

Obama is of the extreme right?

No and neither was Hitler, he was a Leftist like Mao, Stalin, FDR and Obama

And the communist Chinese are republican because they call it the People's Republic of China.

Following the con's logic, you're right.

 

[xsited1]

The Ghost of Vice President Wallace Warns: "It Can Happen Here"
<excerpt>
In early 1944, the New York Times asked Vice President Henry Wallace to, as Wallace noted, "write a piece answering the following questions: What is a fascist? How many fascists have we? How dangerous are they?"

Vice President Wallace's answer to those questions was published in The New York Times on April 9, 1944, at the height of the war against the Axis powers of Germany and Japan.

"The really dangerous American fascists," Wallace wrote, "are not those who are hooked up directly or indirectly with the Axis. The FBI has its finger on those. The dangerous American fascist is the man who wants to do in the United States in an American way what Hitler did in Germany in a Prussian way. The American fascist would prefer not to use violence. His method is to poison the channels of public information. With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money or more power."

In this, Wallace was using the classic definition of the word "fascist" - the definition Mussolini had in mind when he claimed to have invented the word. (It was actually Italian philosopher Giovanni Gentile who wrote the entry in the Encyclopedia Italiana that said: "Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power." Mussolini, however, affixed his name to the entry, and claimed credit for it.)

As the 1983 American Heritage Dictionary noted, fascism is: "A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism."
>
Wallace seems to describe a Fox news, who poisons the channels of public information today.

Oh, you almost got it right, but you missed it at the end!!!!!

Fox News represents a very tiny bit of the 'channel of public information'. The MSM represents the majority and they are clearly biased to the Left. Just look at the way the MSM is handling the Global Warming email leaks (a.k.a., Climate-Gate). So Fox is a very, very minor problem, yet you focus on them. Unfortunately, you accept liberal fascism and you don't even know it! How sad for you.

How sweet it is to see a con tell us that Fox is unimportant.

That would be funny if I were a conservative, but alas I am not.

You got it wrong. Deal with it.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

American Leftists=Statists= State control i.e. Hilter's Germany, Stalins USSR, Mao's China, Pol Pot's Camdobia, Chavez Venezuela and Castro's Cuba

 

[del]

The Ghost of Vice President Wallace Warns: "It Can Happen Here"
<excerpt>
In early 1944, the New York Times asked Vice President Henry Wallace to, as Wallace noted, "write a piece answering the following questions: What is a fascist? How many fascists have we? How dangerous are they?"

Vice President Wallace's answer to those questions was published in The New York Times on April 9, 1944, at the height of the war against the Axis powers of Germany and Japan.

"The really dangerous American fascists," Wallace wrote, "are not those who are hooked up directly or indirectly with the Axis. The FBI has its finger on those. The dangerous American fascist is the man who wants to do in the United States in an American way what Hitler did in Germany in a Prussian way. The American fascist would prefer not to use violence. His method is to poison the channels of public information. With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money or more power."

In this, Wallace was using the classic definition of the word "fascist" - the definition Mussolini had in mind when he claimed to have invented the word. (It was actually Italian philosopher Giovanni Gentile who wrote the entry in the Encyclopedia Italiana that said: "Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power." Mussolini, however, affixed his name to the entry, and claimed credit for it.)

As the 1983 American Heritage Dictionary noted, fascism is: "A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism."
>
Wallace seems to describe a Fox news, who poisons the channels of public information today.

Oh, you almost got it right, but you missed it at the end!!!!!

Fox News represents a very tiny bit of the 'channel of public information'. The MSM represents the majority and they are clearly biased to the Left. Just look at the way the MSM is handling the Global Warming email leaks (a.k.a., Climate-Gate). So Fox is a very, very minor problem, yet you focus on them. Unfortunately, you accept liberal fascism and you don't even know it! How sad for you.

How sweet it is to see a con tell us that Fox is unimportant.

you're the one who insists it is, jackass.

 

[Murf76]

Are you kidding me? A collectivism is the will of the majority or the will of most, if a true democracy. Authoritarian rule is one person or one small group of people imposing their agenda on the masses through oppression or violence - be they in the majority or the minority. A dictator or a theocracy is authoritarian. A democratic government or a "collective" is not one entity with an agenda. It is the voice of the collective. My chart is dead-on. There are other versions if you don't believe me. If you can see through your partisanism, that is.

"Democracy is just two wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for lunch". The framers knew that. That's WHY gave us a REPUBLIC... "bonehead".
Read a book sometime.

Tyranny over the minority is still.... tyranny.

Again, you are showing your ignorance. Liberty is not an all or nothing, otherwise you would have communists and anarchists and nothing in the middle, as I assume you are saying above. You just described the other axis of the chart, bonehead.

By your math, Liberty is dependent upon how lightly your chains rest upon you? Is THAT your version?

You cross the two - x = government influence and y= liberty, and everyone falls somewhere in between.

Nope. Governments "fall somewhere in between". Not people. And this is an acceptable state of affairs depending on the amount of Force a given government applies. Even Benjamin Franklin believed that a man who wouldn't pay his taxes didn't deserve to live among civilized men. But he also believed that men shouldn't be comfortable in their poverty.

Our birthright as human beings is FREEDOM. In accordance with our U.S. Constitution, however, 'We the People' give our Consent to governance with central government's power limited to that which is enumerated.

You are saying that everyone is either a communist or an anarchist with nothing in the middle?

Try not to be obtuse.

Everyone has their own idea of what an inalienable right is, you know.

They're welcome to have their own idea of whatever they like. Opinions vary. The Constitution does not. Our UNalienable rights are all about what the government cannot do TO us. Not what it ought to do FOR us. Read your John Locke. Unalienable rights are based on Natural Law. ie. We have the unalienable right to free speech because, as human animals, we are capable of verbal communication.

There is no either/or - black/white.

You're one of those dumbass "everything-is-a-shade-of-gray" people, aren't you?
No wonder you can't tell your ass from your elbow. You've got no compass.

 

[Contessa_Sharra]

You mean the VP of teh Imperial Potus, FDR?

The guy that ran for FOUR TERMS breaking the tradition of George Washington, and forcing the country to make it law that no man can keep dictating ..er 'governing?'

BTW, Benito, like Hitler, was a Socialist.

They only teamed up with business later when it suited them for power.

There is a DVD, starring Antonio Banderas, BENITO, that does it well enough so one can follow the history!

It is available used on amazon for $3.00+ including shipping..... to maybe 4

 

[Contessa_Sharra]

The Ghost of Vice President Wallace Warns: "It Can Happen Here"
<excerpt>
In early 1944, the New York Times asked Vice President Henry Wallace to, as Wallace noted, "write a piece answering the following questions: What is a fascist? How many fascists have we? How dangerous are they?"

Vice President Wallace's answer to those questions was published in The New York Times on April 9, 1944, at the height of the war against the Axis powers of Germany and Japan.

"The really dangerous American fascists," Wallace wrote, "are not those who are hooked up directly or indirectly with the Axis. The FBI has its finger on those. The dangerous American fascist is the man who wants to do in the United States in an American way what Hitler did in Germany in a Prussian way. The American fascist would prefer not to use violence. His method is to poison the channels of public information. With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money or more power."

In this, Wallace was using the classic definition of the word "fascist" - the definition Mussolini had in mind when he claimed to have invented the word. (It was actually Italian philosopher Giovanni Gentile who wrote the entry in the Encyclopedia Italiana that said: "Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power." Mussolini, however, affixed his name to the entry, and claimed credit for it.)

As the 1983 American Heritage Dictionary noted, fascism is: "A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism."
>
Wallace seems to describe a Fox news, who poisons the channels of public information today.

The only problem with that is that no one can explain why the fascist were all at one time socialist who wanted to go in a new direction with their marxism. Hitler wrote about a "new philosophy of life" well what the heck was the old philosphy of life?

Mussilini was a former member of the Italian socialist party until he saw that the socialist winds were changing so he nixed it in favor of the fascist model.

My Kamp mentions the word Burguoise at least every tenth page as the enemy of the Arian people.

"My Kamp"??? You truly are one of the more informed conservatives; thank you for sharing this useful post.
Oh, and as noted and promised, ever notice how the conservative element all seem to agree with each other and give each other thanks?

From this day forward - at least until I get bored - I will post the "Talking Point of the Day", so all who choose to be informed and not willfully ignorant can enjoy the humor that is the 'Conservative Chic'.

Me, I liked "Burguoise" myself, LOL....

It's the little things that make it all "interesting."

 

[Political Junky]

The only problem with that is that no one can explain why the fascist were all at one time socialist who wanted to go in a new direction with their marxism. Hitler wrote about a "new philosophy of life" well what the heck was the old philosphy of life?

Mussilini was a former member of the Italian socialist party until he saw that the socialist winds were changing so he nixed it in favor of the fascist model.

My Kamp mentions the word Burguoise at least every tenth page as the enemy of the Arian people.

"My Kamp"??? You truly are one of the more informed conservatives; thank you for sharing this useful post.
Oh, and as noted and promised, ever notice how the conservative element all seem to agree with each other and give each other thanks?

From this day forward - at least until I get bored - I will post the "Talking Point of the Day", so all who choose to be informed and not willfully ignorant can enjoy the humor that is the 'Conservative Chic'.

Me, I liked "Burguoise" myself, LOL....

It's the little things that make it all "interesting."

Cons hate the bourgeoisie too. Interesting, another thing they have in common with Nazis.

 

[Xenophon]

Did Hitler nationalize Krupt?

He didn't have too, Gustav was a Gold party member and Alfried was in the SS.

And Krupps of essen was esentially nationalized, they handled all the factories in the occupied territories, Die Firma was 100% behind Hitler, and he made specail laws and rules for them, such as allowing alfried to 'inheret' Die firma without tax from Bertha Krupp (Gustav was only Krupp by marriage).