Welcome To The Cultural Revolution

[alang1216]

Subtle though it may be, one difference between the Left and reality is that they reverse the meaning of words.
You saw Orwell comment on that exact issue.

Take the current war cry of the Leftists...."Black Lives Matter"
The truth is that, for Leftists, whether they be Democrats, Liberals, Progressives, or simply run of the mill morons, no lives or life matters.
Their hallmark institution, Planned Slaughterhood, murders 40% of the black population.


We learned it early on: "We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life." Leon Trotsky
There is a straight line from that to this:
None of the totalitarian forms of political plague have the slightest concern for human life: not communism (gulags), not Nazism (concentration camps), not Liberalism (abortion), not Progressivism (eugenics), not socialism (theft), not fascism (murder).
They only differ in the final outcome: slavery, serfdom, or death.


Even earlier, at the model for the Russian Revolution, for Nazism, for Mao, for the Democrat Party, death was the coin of the realm.
"If the French revolution was the end of monarchy and aristocratic privilege and the emergence of the common man and democratic rights, it was also the beginnings of modern totalitarian government and large-scale executions of "enemies of the People" by impersonal government entities (Robespierre's "Committee of Public Safety"). This legacy would not reach its fullest bloom until the tragic arrival of the German Nazis and Soviet and Chinese communists of the 20th century.

In fact, Rousseau has been called the precursor of the modern pseudo-democrats such as Stalin and Hitler and the "people's democracies."French Revolution - Robespierre, and the Legacy of the Reign of Terror


Vote Democrat, and you vote for death.

So, what ideology did the East India Company follow?

Great Bengal famine of 1770 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Why?

You're considering voting for them?


Must be some painful truths in the OP as it brought these two, flotsam and jetsam, in to change the subject.

Not painful to me. I don't support any form of totalitarianism. Now how about you explain to us all how the East India Company was communist, oh great learned one of the copying and pasting?

I asked you a question.

Answer it.


Why?

You're considering voting for them?


Must be some painful truths in the OP as it brought these two, flotsam and jetsam, in to change the subject.

Voting for who? The corporatists? I'm not

So you won't answer why you attempted to insert that abstruse and unrelated reference?

So I am correct as usual: you wanted to alter the point of the post.

And I didn't allow it.

Wanna try two out of three?

It is precisely on point. You are talking about the devaluation of human life. And I was as well.

You, however want to pretend that leftism is what causes the devaluation of life, when in fact, the causation works in the opposite direction. Leftism has always been a reaction to the devaluation of life that preceded it.

Take the Viet Cong for instance. They would have never existed had the rubber planters not enslaved people and worked them to death.

The French Revolution (no single ideology defined that, btw), was in response to the nobility hoarding the resources and leaving the common people to starve.

If you want to turn back Leftism, don't contribute to what leads to it. It is not that hard to understand!

"You, however want to pretend that leftism is what causes the devaluation of life, "

Pretend????

It is the lesson of history.

Either you are a liar, or ignorant.


Which is it?


Stalin....42,672,000

Mao.....37,828,000

Hitler....20,946,000

Lenin....4,017,000

Pol Pot...2,397,000

Tojo.....3,990,000

Total......111,850,000

You're right about most of these animals but Hitler and Tojo were not leftists, quite the contrary.re

Remember the last time you were right about anything?


Me neither.

Hitler and Stalin both followed Marx......
A year after Lenin's death, 1924, the NYTimes published a small article about a newly established party in Germany, the National Socialist Labor Party, which "...persists in believing that Lenin and Hitler can be compared or contrasted...Dr. Goebell's....assertion that Lenin was the greatest man second only to Hitler....and that the difference between communism and the Hitler faith was very slight...." November 27, 1925

Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian | George Reisman

Contrary to myth, Germany was a socialist state, not a capitalist one, writes George Reisman.

mises.org

".... Nazi Germany was a socialist state, not a capitalist one. And ... socialism, understood as an economic system based on government ownership of the means of production, positively requires a totalitarian dictatorship.

... the word "Nazi" was an abbreviation for "der Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiters Partei — in English translation: the National Socialist German Workers' Party ... what should one expect the economic system of a country ruled by a party with "socialist" in its name to be but socialism?

One of the great left wing magic tricks....convincing people that hitler wasn't a socialist. His socialist mass murder of 12 million people was in the open for everyone to see after the war....and the left wing socialists were desparate to protect the Soviet Union and their greater mass murder...so they got their allies in the U.S. and Europe to lie on a massive scale........

"American progressives, for the most part, did not disavow fascism until the horrors of the Nazi Holocaust became manifest during World War II. After the war, those progressives who had praised Mussolini and Hitler in the 1920s and 1930s had no choice but to dissociate themselves from fascism. “Accordingly,” writes Jonah Goldberg, “leftist intellectuals redefined fascism as 'right-wing' and projected their own sins onto conservatives, even as they continued to borrow heavily from fascist and pre-fascist thought.” This progressive campaign to recast fascism as the "right-wing" antithesis of communism was aided by Joseph Stalin,..."

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1223

Goldberg, Liberal Fascism

WOW!!! You found someone who agrees with you! So what, I ask, there are plenty of people who don't agree with either of you. Maybe you should try and think for yourself or, as I'm sure your Ivy League Professors told you, "Show your work".

Negative reviews

Philip Coupland, whose paper "H.G. Wells's 'Liberal Fascism'" was used as a source for Liberal Fascism, criticized Goldberg's understanding of the term:

Wells did not label his 'entire [...] philosophy' liberal fascism, not in fact and not by implication. Liberal fascism was the name which he (and I) gave to his theory of praxis, that is his method of achieving his utopian goal, not the goal itself. [...] Wells hoped for activists who would use what he considered to be 'fascist' means (technocratic authoritarianism and force) to achieve a liberal social end. In contrast, a 'liberal fascist' would pursue fascist ends but in a 'liberal' or at least more 'liberal' way.[21]

Austin W. Bramwell wrote in The American Conservative:

Repeatedly, Goldberg fails to recognize a reductio ad absurdum. [...] In no case does Goldberg uncover anything more ominous than a coincidence. [...] In elaborating liberalism's similarities to fascism, Goldberg shows a near superstitious belief in the power of taxonomy. [...] Goldberg falsely saddles liberalism not just with relativism but with all manner of alleged errors having nothing to do with liberalism. [...] Not only does Goldberg misunderstand liberalism, but he refuses to see it simply as liberalism [...]. Liberal Fascism reads less like an extended argument than as a catalogue of conservative intellectual clichés, often irrelevant to the supposed point of the book. [...] Liberal Fascism completes Goldberg's transformation from chipper humorist into humorless ideologue.[22]

Curtis Yarvin wrote about the book:

One reason the Jonah Goldbergs of the world have such trouble telling their right from their left is that they expect some morphological feature of the State to answer the question for them. For anyone other than Goldberg, Stalin was on the left and Hitler was on the right. The difference is not a function of discrepancies in administrative procedure between the KZs and the Gulag. It's a function of social networks. Stalin was a real socialist, Hitler was a fake one. Stalin was part of the international socialist movement, and Hitler wasn't.[23]

In The Nation, Eric Alterman wrote:

The book reads like a Google search gone gaga. Some Fascists were vegetarians; some liberals are vegetarians; ergo [...] ome Fascists were gay; some liberals are gay [...]. Fascists cared about educating children; Hillary Clinton cares about educating children. Aha! [...] Like Coulter, he's got a bunch of footnotes. And for all I know, they check out. But they are put in the service of an argument that no one with any knowledge of the topic would take seriously.[24]

In The American Prospect, journalist David Neiwert wrote:

In his new book, Goldberg has drawn a kind of history in absurdly broad and comically wrongheaded strokes. It is not just history done badly, or mere revisionism. It's a caricature of reality, like something from a comic-book alternative universe: Bizarro history. [...] Goldberg isn't content to simply create an oxymoron; this entire enterprise, in fact, is classic Newspeak. [...] Along the way, he grotesquely misrepresents the state of academia regarding the study of fascism [...].[25]

David Oshinsky of The New York Times wrote:

Liberal Fascism is less an exposé of left-wing hypocrisy than a chance to exact political revenge. Yet the title of his book aside, what distinguishes Goldberg from the Sean Hannitys and Michael Savages is a witty intelligence that deals in ideas as well as insults—no mean feat in the nasty world of the culture wars.[26]

Michael Tomasky wrote in The New Republic:

So I can report with a clear conscience that Liberal Fascism is one of the most tedious and inane—and ultimately self-negating—books that I have ever read. [...] Liberal Fascism is a document of a deeply frivolous culture, or sub-culture. [...] However much or little Goldberg knows about fascism, he knows next to nothing about liberalism.[27]

In his book Idiot America: How Stupidity Became a Virtue in the Land of the Free, Charles P. Pierce describes Goldberg's book as "[a]pparently written with a paint roller" and "a richly footnoted loogie hawked by Goldberg at every liberal who ever loosely called him a fascist". Pierce also claims that Goldberg ignored historical facts relating to his accusations against Woodrow Wilson, arguing:

It seems that Wilson was a Progressive, and Goldberg sees in the Progressive movement the seedbed of American fascism which, he argues, differs from European fascism, especially on those occasions when he needs it to differ because he has backed up the argument over his own feet. Anyway, Wilson brought the country into World War I. Therefore, Progressives love war.

In January 2010, the History News Network published essays by David Neiwert, Robert Paxton, Roger Griffin, Matthew Feldman, Chip Berlet and Michael Ledeen criticizing Liberal Fascism. They also published Goldberg's response which several authors responded to.[28]

 

[PoliticalChic]

Subtle though it may be, one difference between the Left and reality is that they reverse the meaning of words.
You saw Orwell comment on that exact issue.

Take the current war cry of the Leftists...."Black Lives Matter"
The truth is that, for Leftists, whether they be Democrats, Liberals, Progressives, or simply run of the mill morons, no lives or life matters.
Their hallmark institution, Planned Slaughterhood, murders 40% of the black population.


We learned it early on: "We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life." Leon Trotsky
There is a straight line from that to this:
None of the totalitarian forms of political plague have the slightest concern for human life: not communism (gulags), not Nazism (concentration camps), not Liberalism (abortion), not Progressivism (eugenics), not socialism (theft), not fascism (murder).
They only differ in the final outcome: slavery, serfdom, or death.


Even earlier, at the model for the Russian Revolution, for Nazism, for Mao, for the Democrat Party, death was the coin of the realm.
"If the French revolution was the end of monarchy and aristocratic privilege and the emergence of the common man and democratic rights, it was also the beginnings of modern totalitarian government and large-scale executions of "enemies of the People" by impersonal government entities (Robespierre's "Committee of Public Safety"). This legacy would not reach its fullest bloom until the tragic arrival of the German Nazis and Soviet and Chinese communists of the 20th century.

In fact, Rousseau has been called the precursor of the modern pseudo-democrats such as Stalin and Hitler and the "people's democracies."French Revolution - Robespierre, and the Legacy of the Reign of Terror


Vote Democrat, and you vote for death.

So, what ideology did the East India Company follow?

Great Bengal famine of 1770 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Why?

You're considering voting for them?


Must be some painful truths in the OP as it brought these two, flotsam and jetsam, in to change the subject.

Not painful to me. I don't support any form of totalitarianism. Now how about you explain to us all how the East India Company was communist, oh great learned one of the copying and pasting?

I asked you a question.

Answer it.


Why?

You're considering voting for them?


Must be some painful truths in the OP as it brought these two, flotsam and jetsam, in to change the subject.

Voting for who? The corporatists? I'm not

So you won't answer why you attempted to insert that abstruse and unrelated reference?

So I am correct as usual: you wanted to alter the point of the post.

And I didn't allow it.

Wanna try two out of three?

It is precisely on point. You are talking about the devaluation of human life. And I was as well.

You, however want to pretend that leftism is what causes the devaluation of life, when in fact, the causation works in the opposite direction. Leftism has always been a reaction to the devaluation of life that preceded it.

Take the Viet Cong for instance. They would have never existed had the rubber planters not enslaved people and worked them to death.

The French Revolution (no single ideology defined that, btw), was in response to the nobility hoarding the resources and leaving the common people to starve.

If you want to turn back Leftism, don't contribute to what leads to it. It is not that hard to understand!

"You, however want to pretend that leftism is what causes the devaluation of life, "

Pretend????

It is the lesson of history.

Either you are a liar, or ignorant.


Which is it?


Stalin....42,672,000

Mao.....37,828,000

Hitler....20,946,000

Lenin....4,017,000

Pol Pot...2,397,000

Tojo.....3,990,000

Total......111,850,000

You're right about most of these animals but Hitler and Tojo were not leftists, quite the contrary.re

Remember the last time you were right about anything?


Me neither.

Hitler and Stalin both followed Marx......
A year after Lenin's death, 1924, the NYTimes published a small article about a newly established party in Germany, the National Socialist Labor Party, which "...persists in believing that Lenin and Hitler can be compared or contrasted...Dr. Goebell's....assertion that Lenin was the greatest man second only to Hitler....and that the difference between communism and the Hitler faith was very slight...." November 27, 1925

Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian | George Reisman

Contrary to myth, Germany was a socialist state, not a capitalist one, writes George Reisman.

mises.org

".... Nazi Germany was a socialist state, not a capitalist one. And ... socialism, understood as an economic system based on government ownership of the means of production, positively requires a totalitarian dictatorship.

... the word "Nazi" was an abbreviation for "der Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiters Partei — in English translation: the National Socialist German Workers' Party ... what should one expect the economic system of a country ruled by a party with "socialist" in its name to be but socialism?

One of the great left wing magic tricks....convincing people that hitler wasn't a socialist. His socialist mass murder of 12 million people was in the open for everyone to see after the war....and the left wing socialists were desparate to protect the Soviet Union and their greater mass murder...so they got their allies in the U.S. and Europe to lie on a massive scale........

"American progressives, for the most part, did not disavow fascism until the horrors of the Nazi Holocaust became manifest during World War II. After the war, those progressives who had praised Mussolini and Hitler in the 1920s and 1930s had no choice but to dissociate themselves from fascism. “Accordingly,” writes Jonah Goldberg, “leftist intellectuals redefined fascism as 'right-wing' and projected their own sins onto conservatives, even as they continued to borrow heavily from fascist and pre-fascist thought.” This progressive campaign to recast fascism as the "right-wing" antithesis of communism was aided by Joseph Stalin,..."

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1223

Goldberg, Liberal Fascism

WOW!!! You found someone who agrees with you! So what, I ask, there are plenty of people who don't agree with either of you. Maybe you should try and think for yourself or, as I'm sure your Ivy League Professors told you, "Show your work".

Negative reviews

Philip Coupland, whose paper "H.G. Wells's 'Liberal Fascism'" was used as a source for Liberal Fascism, criticized Goldberg's understanding of the term:

Wells did not label his 'entire [...] philosophy' liberal fascism, not in fact and not by implication. Liberal fascism was the name which he (and I) gave to his theory of praxis, that is his method of achieving his utopian goal, not the goal itself. [...] Wells hoped for activists who would use what he considered to be 'fascist' means (technocratic authoritarianism and force) to achieve a liberal social end. In contrast, a 'liberal fascist' would pursue fascist ends but in a 'liberal' or at least more 'liberal' way.[21]

Austin W. Bramwell wrote in The American Conservative:

Repeatedly, Goldberg fails to recognize a reductio ad absurdum. [...] In no case does Goldberg uncover anything more ominous than a coincidence. [...] In elaborating liberalism's similarities to fascism, Goldberg shows a near superstitious belief in the power of taxonomy. [...] Goldberg falsely saddles liberalism not just with relativism but with all manner of alleged errors having nothing to do with liberalism. [...] Not only does Goldberg misunderstand liberalism, but he refuses to see it simply as liberalism [...]. Liberal Fascism reads less like an extended argument than as a catalogue of conservative intellectual clichés, often irrelevant to the supposed point of the book. [...] Liberal Fascism completes Goldberg's transformation from chipper humorist into humorless ideologue.[22]

Curtis Yarvin wrote about the book:

One reason the Jonah Goldbergs of the world have such trouble telling their right from their left is that they expect some morphological feature of the State to answer the question for them. For anyone other than Goldberg, Stalin was on the left and Hitler was on the right. The difference is not a function of discrepancies in administrative procedure between the KZs and the Gulag. It's a function of social networks. Stalin was a real socialist, Hitler was a fake one. Stalin was part of the international socialist movement, and Hitler wasn't.[23]

In The Nation, Eric Alterman wrote:

The book reads like a Google search gone gaga. Some Fascists were vegetarians; some liberals are vegetarians; ergo [...] ome Fascists were gay; some liberals are gay [...]. Fascists cared about educating children; Hillary Clinton cares about educating children. Aha! [...] Like Coulter, he's got a bunch of footnotes. And for all I know, they check out. But they are put in the service of an argument that no one with any knowledge of the topic would take seriously.[24]

In The American Prospect, journalist David Neiwert wrote:

In his new book, Goldberg has drawn a kind of history in absurdly broad and comically wrongheaded strokes. It is not just history done badly, or mere revisionism. It's a caricature of reality, like something from a comic-book alternative universe: Bizarro history. [...] Goldberg isn't content to simply create an oxymoron; this entire enterprise, in fact, is classic Newspeak. [...] Along the way, he grotesquely misrepresents the state of academia regarding the study of fascism [...].[25]

David Oshinsky of The New York Times wrote:

Liberal Fascism is less an exposé of left-wing hypocrisy than a chance to exact political revenge. Yet the title of his book aside, what distinguishes Goldberg from the Sean Hannitys and Michael Savages is a witty intelligence that deals in ideas as well as insults—no mean feat in the nasty world of the culture wars.[26]

Michael Tomasky wrote in The New Republic:

So I can report with a clear conscience that Liberal Fascism is one of the most tedious and inane—and ultimately self-negating—books that I have ever read. [...] Liberal Fascism is a document of a deeply frivolous culture, or sub-culture. [...] However much or little Goldberg knows about fascism, he knows next to nothing about liberalism.[27]

In his book Idiot America: How Stupidity Became a Virtue in the Land of the Free, Charles P. Pierce describes Goldberg's book as "[a]pparently written with a paint roller" and "a richly footnoted loogie hawked by Goldberg at every liberal who ever loosely called him a fascist". Pierce also claims that Goldberg ignored historical facts relating to his accusations against Woodrow Wilson, arguing:

It seems that Wilson was a Progressive, and Goldberg sees in the Progressive movement the seedbed of American fascism which, he argues, differs from European fascism, especially on those occasions when he needs it to differ because he has backed up the argument over his own feet. Anyway, Wilson brought the country into World War I. Therefore, Progressives love war.

In January 2010, the History News Network published essays by David Neiwert, Robert Paxton, Roger Griffin, Matthew Feldman, Chip Berlet and Michael Ledeen criticizing Liberal Fascism. They also published Goldberg's response which several authors responded to.[28]

You need to work on your ability to post correctly.


Put it on the list.

 

[alang1216]

Subtle though it may be, one difference between the Left and reality is that they reverse the meaning of words.
You saw Orwell comment on that exact issue.

Take the current war cry of the Leftists...."Black Lives Matter"
The truth is that, for Leftists, whether they be Democrats, Liberals, Progressives, or simply run of the mill morons, no lives or life matters.
Their hallmark institution, Planned Slaughterhood, murders 40% of the black population.


We learned it early on: "We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life." Leon Trotsky
There is a straight line from that to this:
None of the totalitarian forms of political plague have the slightest concern for human life: not communism (gulags), not Nazism (concentration camps), not Liberalism (abortion), not Progressivism (eugenics), not socialism (theft), not fascism (murder).
They only differ in the final outcome: slavery, serfdom, or death.


Even earlier, at the model for the Russian Revolution, for Nazism, for Mao, for the Democrat Party, death was the coin of the realm.
"If the French revolution was the end of monarchy and aristocratic privilege and the emergence of the common man and democratic rights, it was also the beginnings of modern totalitarian government and large-scale executions of "enemies of the People" by impersonal government entities (Robespierre's "Committee of Public Safety"). This legacy would not reach its fullest bloom until the tragic arrival of the German Nazis and Soviet and Chinese communists of the 20th century.

In fact, Rousseau has been called the precursor of the modern pseudo-democrats such as Stalin and Hitler and the "people's democracies."French Revolution - Robespierre, and the Legacy of the Reign of Terror


Vote Democrat, and you vote for death.

So, what ideology did the East India Company follow?

Great Bengal famine of 1770 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Why?

You're considering voting for them?


Must be some painful truths in the OP as it brought these two, flotsam and jetsam, in to change the subject.

Not painful to me. I don't support any form of totalitarianism. Now how about you explain to us all how the East India Company was communist, oh great learned one of the copying and pasting?

I asked you a question.

Answer it.


Why?

You're considering voting for them?


Must be some painful truths in the OP as it brought these two, flotsam and jetsam, in to change the subject.

Voting for who? The corporatists? I'm not

So you won't answer why you attempted to insert that abstruse and unrelated reference?

So I am correct as usual: you wanted to alter the point of the post.

And I didn't allow it.

Wanna try two out of three?

It is precisely on point. You are talking about the devaluation of human life. And I was as well.

You, however want to pretend that leftism is what causes the devaluation of life, when in fact, the causation works in the opposite direction. Leftism has always been a reaction to the devaluation of life that preceded it.

Take the Viet Cong for instance. They would have never existed had the rubber planters not enslaved people and worked them to death.

The French Revolution (no single ideology defined that, btw), was in response to the nobility hoarding the resources and leaving the common people to starve.

If you want to turn back Leftism, don't contribute to what leads to it. It is not that hard to understand!

"You, however want to pretend that leftism is what causes the devaluation of life, "

Pretend????

It is the lesson of history.

Either you are a liar, or ignorant.


Which is it?


Stalin....42,672,000

Mao.....37,828,000

Hitler....20,946,000

Lenin....4,017,000

Pol Pot...2,397,000

Tojo.....3,990,000

Total......111,850,000

You're right about most of these animals but Hitler and Tojo were not leftists, quite the contrary.re

Remember the last time you were right about anything?


Me neither.

Hitler and Stalin both followed Marx......
A year after Lenin's death, 1924, the NYTimes published a small article about a newly established party in Germany, the National Socialist Labor Party, which "...persists in believing that Lenin and Hitler can be compared or contrasted...Dr. Goebell's....assertion that Lenin was the greatest man second only to Hitler....and that the difference between communism and the Hitler faith was very slight...." November 27, 1925

Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian | George Reisman

Contrary to myth, Germany was a socialist state, not a capitalist one, writes George Reisman.

mises.org

".... Nazi Germany was a socialist state, not a capitalist one. And ... socialism, understood as an economic system based on government ownership of the means of production, positively requires a totalitarian dictatorship.

... the word "Nazi" was an abbreviation for "der Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiters Partei — in English translation: the National Socialist German Workers' Party ... what should one expect the economic system of a country ruled by a party with "socialist" in its name to be but socialism?

One of the great left wing magic tricks....convincing people that hitler wasn't a socialist. His socialist mass murder of 12 million people was in the open for everyone to see after the war....and the left wing socialists were desparate to protect the Soviet Union and their greater mass murder...so they got their allies in the U.S. and Europe to lie on a massive scale........

"American progressives, for the most part, did not disavow fascism until the horrors of the Nazi Holocaust became manifest during World War II. After the war, those progressives who had praised Mussolini and Hitler in the 1920s and 1930s had no choice but to dissociate themselves from fascism. “Accordingly,” writes Jonah Goldberg, “leftist intellectuals redefined fascism as 'right-wing' and projected their own sins onto conservatives, even as they continued to borrow heavily from fascist and pre-fascist thought.” This progressive campaign to recast fascism as the "right-wing" antithesis of communism was aided by Joseph Stalin,..."

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1223

Goldberg, Liberal Fascism

WOW!!! You found someone who agrees with you! So what, I ask, there are plenty of people who don't agree with either of you. Maybe you should try and think for yourself or, as I'm sure your Ivy League Professors told you, "Show your work".

Negative reviews

Philip Coupland, whose paper "H.G. Wells's 'Liberal Fascism'" was used as a source for Liberal Fascism, criticized Goldberg's understanding of the term:

Wells did not label his 'entire [...] philosophy' liberal fascism, not in fact and not by implication. Liberal fascism was the name which he (and I) gave to his theory of praxis, that is his method of achieving his utopian goal, not the goal itself. [...] Wells hoped for activists who would use what he considered to be 'fascist' means (technocratic authoritarianism and force) to achieve a liberal social end. In contrast, a 'liberal fascist' would pursue fascist ends but in a 'liberal' or at least more 'liberal' way.[21]

Austin W. Bramwell wrote in The American Conservative:

Repeatedly, Goldberg fails to recognize a reductio ad absurdum. [...] In no case does Goldberg uncover anything more ominous than a coincidence. [...] In elaborating liberalism's similarities to fascism, Goldberg shows a near superstitious belief in the power of taxonomy. [...] Goldberg falsely saddles liberalism not just with relativism but with all manner of alleged errors having nothing to do with liberalism. [...] Not only does Goldberg misunderstand liberalism, but he refuses to see it simply as liberalism [...]. Liberal Fascism reads less like an extended argument than as a catalogue of conservative intellectual clichés, often irrelevant to the supposed point of the book. [...] Liberal Fascism completes Goldberg's transformation from chipper humorist into humorless ideologue.[22]

Curtis Yarvin wrote about the book:

One reason the Jonah Goldbergs of the world have such trouble telling their right from their left is that they expect some morphological feature of the State to answer the question for them. For anyone other than Goldberg, Stalin was on the left and Hitler was on the right. The difference is not a function of discrepancies in administrative procedure between the KZs and the Gulag. It's a function of social networks. Stalin was a real socialist, Hitler was a fake one. Stalin was part of the international socialist movement, and Hitler wasn't.[23]

In The Nation, Eric Alterman wrote:

The book reads like a Google search gone gaga. Some Fascists were vegetarians; some liberals are vegetarians; ergo [...] ome Fascists were gay; some liberals are gay [...]. Fascists cared about educating children; Hillary Clinton cares about educating children. Aha! [...] Like Coulter, he's got a bunch of footnotes. And for all I know, they check out. But they are put in the service of an argument that no one with any knowledge of the topic would take seriously.[24]

In The American Prospect, journalist David Neiwert wrote:

In his new book, Goldberg has drawn a kind of history in absurdly broad and comically wrongheaded strokes. It is not just history done badly, or mere revisionism. It's a caricature of reality, like something from a comic-book alternative universe: Bizarro history. [...] Goldberg isn't content to simply create an oxymoron; this entire enterprise, in fact, is classic Newspeak. [...] Along the way, he grotesquely misrepresents the state of academia regarding the study of fascism [...].[25]

David Oshinsky of The New York Times wrote:

Liberal Fascism is less an exposé of left-wing hypocrisy than a chance to exact political revenge. Yet the title of his book aside, what distinguishes Goldberg from the Sean Hannitys and Michael Savages is a witty intelligence that deals in ideas as well as insults—no mean feat in the nasty world of the culture wars.[26]

Michael Tomasky wrote in The New Republic:

So I can report with a clear conscience that Liberal Fascism is one of the most tedious and inane—and ultimately self-negating—books that I have ever read. [...] Liberal Fascism is a document of a deeply frivolous culture, or sub-culture. [...] However much or little Goldberg knows about fascism, he knows next to nothing about liberalism.[27]

In his book Idiot America: How Stupidity Became a Virtue in the Land of the Free, Charles P. Pierce describes Goldberg's book as "[a]pparently written with a paint roller" and "a richly footnoted loogie hawked by Goldberg at every liberal who ever loosely called him a fascist". Pierce also claims that Goldberg ignored historical facts relating to his accusations against Woodrow Wilson, arguing:

It seems that Wilson was a Progressive, and Goldberg sees in the Progressive movement the seedbed of American fascism which, he argues, differs from European fascism, especially on those occasions when he needs it to differ because he has backed up the argument over his own feet. Anyway, Wilson brought the country into World War I. Therefore, Progressives love war.

In January 2010, the History News Network published essays by David Neiwert, Robert Paxton, Roger Griffin, Matthew Feldman, Chip Berlet and Michael Ledeen criticizing Liberal Fascism. They also published Goldberg's response which several authors responded to.[28]

You need to work on your ability to post correctly.


Put it on the list.

I'll never be the master of and paste that you are. Your pre-school teachers must be so proud of you.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Subtle though it may be, one difference between the Left and reality is that they reverse the meaning of words.
You saw Orwell comment on that exact issue.

Take the current war cry of the Leftists...."Black Lives Matter"
The truth is that, for Leftists, whether they be Democrats, Liberals, Progressives, or simply run of the mill morons, no lives or life matters.
Their hallmark institution, Planned Slaughterhood, murders 40% of the black population.


We learned it early on: "We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life." Leon Trotsky
There is a straight line from that to this:
None of the totalitarian forms of political plague have the slightest concern for human life: not communism (gulags), not Nazism (concentration camps), not Liberalism (abortion), not Progressivism (eugenics), not socialism (theft), not fascism (murder).
They only differ in the final outcome: slavery, serfdom, or death.


Even earlier, at the model for the Russian Revolution, for Nazism, for Mao, for the Democrat Party, death was the coin of the realm.
"If the French revolution was the end of monarchy and aristocratic privilege and the emergence of the common man and democratic rights, it was also the beginnings of modern totalitarian government and large-scale executions of "enemies of the People" by impersonal government entities (Robespierre's "Committee of Public Safety"). This legacy would not reach its fullest bloom until the tragic arrival of the German Nazis and Soviet and Chinese communists of the 20th century.

In fact, Rousseau has been called the precursor of the modern pseudo-democrats such as Stalin and Hitler and the "people's democracies."French Revolution - Robespierre, and the Legacy of the Reign of Terror


Vote Democrat, and you vote for death.

So, what ideology did the East India Company follow?

Great Bengal famine of 1770 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Why?

You're considering voting for them?


Must be some painful truths in the OP as it brought these two, flotsam and jetsam, in to change the subject.

Not painful to me. I don't support any form of totalitarianism. Now how about you explain to us all how the East India Company was communist, oh great learned one of the copying and pasting?

I asked you a question.

Answer it.


Why?

You're considering voting for them?


Must be some painful truths in the OP as it brought these two, flotsam and jetsam, in to change the subject.

Voting for who? The corporatists? I'm not

So you won't answer why you attempted to insert that abstruse and unrelated reference?

So I am correct as usual: you wanted to alter the point of the post.

And I didn't allow it.

Wanna try two out of three?

It is precisely on point. You are talking about the devaluation of human life. And I was as well.

You, however want to pretend that leftism is what causes the devaluation of life, when in fact, the causation works in the opposite direction. Leftism has always been a reaction to the devaluation of life that preceded it.

Take the Viet Cong for instance. They would have never existed had the rubber planters not enslaved people and worked them to death.

The French Revolution (no single ideology defined that, btw), was in response to the nobility hoarding the resources and leaving the common people to starve.

If you want to turn back Leftism, don't contribute to what leads to it. It is not that hard to understand!

"You, however want to pretend that leftism is what causes the devaluation of life, "

Pretend????

It is the lesson of history.

Either you are a liar, or ignorant.


Which is it?


Stalin....42,672,000

Mao.....37,828,000

Hitler....20,946,000

Lenin....4,017,000

Pol Pot...2,397,000

Tojo.....3,990,000

Total......111,850,000

You're right about most of these animals but Hitler and Tojo were not leftists, quite the contrary.re

Remember the last time you were right about anything?


Me neither.

Hitler and Stalin both followed Marx......
A year after Lenin's death, 1924, the NYTimes published a small article about a newly established party in Germany, the National Socialist Labor Party, which "...persists in believing that Lenin and Hitler can be compared or contrasted...Dr. Goebell's....assertion that Lenin was the greatest man second only to Hitler....and that the difference between communism and the Hitler faith was very slight...." November 27, 1925

Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian | George Reisman

Contrary to myth, Germany was a socialist state, not a capitalist one, writes George Reisman.

mises.org

".... Nazi Germany was a socialist state, not a capitalist one. And ... socialism, understood as an economic system based on government ownership of the means of production, positively requires a totalitarian dictatorship.

... the word "Nazi" was an abbreviation for "der Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiters Partei — in English translation: the National Socialist German Workers' Party ... what should one expect the economic system of a country ruled by a party with "socialist" in its name to be but socialism?

One of the great left wing magic tricks....convincing people that hitler wasn't a socialist. His socialist mass murder of 12 million people was in the open for everyone to see after the war....and the left wing socialists were desparate to protect the Soviet Union and their greater mass murder...so they got their allies in the U.S. and Europe to lie on a massive scale........

"American progressives, for the most part, did not disavow fascism until the horrors of the Nazi Holocaust became manifest during World War II. After the war, those progressives who had praised Mussolini and Hitler in the 1920s and 1930s had no choice but to dissociate themselves from fascism. “Accordingly,” writes Jonah Goldberg, “leftist intellectuals redefined fascism as 'right-wing' and projected their own sins onto conservatives, even as they continued to borrow heavily from fascist and pre-fascist thought.” This progressive campaign to recast fascism as the "right-wing" antithesis of communism was aided by Joseph Stalin,..."

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1223

Goldberg, Liberal Fascism

WOW!!! You found someone who agrees with you! So what, I ask, there are plenty of people who don't agree with either of you. Maybe you should try and think for yourself or, as I'm sure your Ivy League Professors told you, "Show your work".

Negative reviews

Philip Coupland, whose paper "H.G. Wells's 'Liberal Fascism'" was used as a source for Liberal Fascism, criticized Goldberg's understanding of the term:

Wells did not label his 'entire [...] philosophy' liberal fascism, not in fact and not by implication. Liberal fascism was the name which he (and I) gave to his theory of praxis, that is his method of achieving his utopian goal, not the goal itself. [...] Wells hoped for activists who would use what he considered to be 'fascist' means (technocratic authoritarianism and force) to achieve a liberal social end. In contrast, a 'liberal fascist' would pursue fascist ends but in a 'liberal' or at least more 'liberal' way.[21]

Austin W. Bramwell wrote in The American Conservative:

Repeatedly, Goldberg fails to recognize a reductio ad absurdum. [...] In no case does Goldberg uncover anything more ominous than a coincidence. [...] In elaborating liberalism's similarities to fascism, Goldberg shows a near superstitious belief in the power of taxonomy. [...] Goldberg falsely saddles liberalism not just with relativism but with all manner of alleged errors having nothing to do with liberalism. [...] Not only does Goldberg misunderstand liberalism, but he refuses to see it simply as liberalism [...]. Liberal Fascism reads less like an extended argument than as a catalogue of conservative intellectual clichés, often irrelevant to the supposed point of the book. [...] Liberal Fascism completes Goldberg's transformation from chipper humorist into humorless ideologue.[22]

Curtis Yarvin wrote about the book:

One reason the Jonah Goldbergs of the world have such trouble telling their right from their left is that they expect some morphological feature of the State to answer the question for them. For anyone other than Goldberg, Stalin was on the left and Hitler was on the right. The difference is not a function of discrepancies in administrative procedure between the KZs and the Gulag. It's a function of social networks. Stalin was a real socialist, Hitler was a fake one. Stalin was part of the international socialist movement, and Hitler wasn't.[23]

In The Nation, Eric Alterman wrote:

The book reads like a Google search gone gaga. Some Fascists were vegetarians; some liberals are vegetarians; ergo [...] ome Fascists were gay; some liberals are gay [...]. Fascists cared about educating children; Hillary Clinton cares about educating children. Aha! [...] Like Coulter, he's got a bunch of footnotes. And for all I know, they check out. But they are put in the service of an argument that no one with any knowledge of the topic would take seriously.[24]

In The American Prospect, journalist David Neiwert wrote:

In his new book, Goldberg has drawn a kind of history in absurdly broad and comically wrongheaded strokes. It is not just history done badly, or mere revisionism. It's a caricature of reality, like something from a comic-book alternative universe: Bizarro history. [...] Goldberg isn't content to simply create an oxymoron; this entire enterprise, in fact, is classic Newspeak. [...] Along the way, he grotesquely misrepresents the state of academia regarding the study of fascism [...].[25]

David Oshinsky of The New York Times wrote:

Liberal Fascism is less an exposé of left-wing hypocrisy than a chance to exact political revenge. Yet the title of his book aside, what distinguishes Goldberg from the Sean Hannitys and Michael Savages is a witty intelligence that deals in ideas as well as insults—no mean feat in the nasty world of the culture wars.[26]

Michael Tomasky wrote in The New Republic:

So I can report with a clear conscience that Liberal Fascism is one of the most tedious and inane—and ultimately self-negating—books that I have ever read. [...] Liberal Fascism is a document of a deeply frivolous culture, or sub-culture. [...] However much or little Goldberg knows about fascism, he knows next to nothing about liberalism.[27]

In his book Idiot America: How Stupidity Became a Virtue in the Land of the Free, Charles P. Pierce describes Goldberg's book as "[a]pparently written with a paint roller" and "a richly footnoted loogie hawked by Goldberg at every liberal who ever loosely called him a fascist". Pierce also claims that Goldberg ignored historical facts relating to his accusations against Woodrow Wilson, arguing:

It seems that Wilson was a Progressive, and Goldberg sees in the Progressive movement the seedbed of American fascism which, he argues, differs from European fascism, especially on those occasions when he needs it to differ because he has backed up the argument over his own feet. Anyway, Wilson brought the country into World War I. Therefore, Progressives love war.

In January 2010, the History News Network published essays by David Neiwert, Robert Paxton, Roger Griffin, Matthew Feldman, Chip Berlet and Michael Ledeen criticizing Liberal Fascism. They also published Goldberg's response which several authors responded to.[28]

You need to work on your ability to post correctly.


Put it on the list.

I'll never be the master of ✂ and paste that you are. Your pre-school teachers must be so proud of you.

It's exhilarating to see how deeply my posts wound you.

More where that came from.

 

[2aguy]

Subtle though it may be, one difference between the Left and reality is that they reverse the meaning of words.
You saw Orwell comment on that exact issue.

Take the current war cry of the Leftists...."Black Lives Matter"
The truth is that, for Leftists, whether they be Democrats, Liberals, Progressives, or simply run of the mill morons, no lives or life matters.
Their hallmark institution, Planned Slaughterhood, murders 40% of the black population.


We learned it early on: "We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life." Leon Trotsky
There is a straight line from that to this:
None of the totalitarian forms of political plague have the slightest concern for human life: not communism (gulags), not Nazism (concentration camps), not Liberalism (abortion), not Progressivism (eugenics), not socialism (theft), not fascism (murder).
They only differ in the final outcome: slavery, serfdom, or death.


Even earlier, at the model for the Russian Revolution, for Nazism, for Mao, for the Democrat Party, death was the coin of the realm.
"If the French revolution was the end of monarchy and aristocratic privilege and the emergence of the common man and democratic rights, it was also the beginnings of modern totalitarian government and large-scale executions of "enemies of the People" by impersonal government entities (Robespierre's "Committee of Public Safety"). This legacy would not reach its fullest bloom until the tragic arrival of the German Nazis and Soviet and Chinese communists of the 20th century.

In fact, Rousseau has been called the precursor of the modern pseudo-democrats such as Stalin and Hitler and the "people's democracies."French Revolution - Robespierre, and the Legacy of the Reign of Terror


Vote Democrat, and you vote for death.

So, what ideology did the East India Company follow?

Great Bengal famine of 1770 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Why?

You're considering voting for them?


Must be some painful truths in the OP as it brought these two, flotsam and jetsam, in to change the subject.

Not painful to me. I don't support any form of totalitarianism. Now how about you explain to us all how the East India Company was communist, oh great learned one of the copying and pasting?

I asked you a question.

Answer it.


Why?

You're considering voting for them?


Must be some painful truths in the OP as it brought these two, flotsam and jetsam, in to change the subject.

Voting for who? The corporatists? I'm not

So you won't answer why you attempted to insert that abstruse and unrelated reference?

So I am correct as usual: you wanted to alter the point of the post.

And I didn't allow it.

Wanna try two out of three?

It is precisely on point. You are talking about the devaluation of human life. And I was as well.

You, however want to pretend that leftism is what causes the devaluation of life, when in fact, the causation works in the opposite direction. Leftism has always been a reaction to the devaluation of life that preceded it.

Take the Viet Cong for instance. They would have never existed had the rubber planters not enslaved people and worked them to death.

The French Revolution (no single ideology defined that, btw), was in response to the nobility hoarding the resources and leaving the common people to starve.

If you want to turn back Leftism, don't contribute to what leads to it. It is not that hard to understand!

"You, however want to pretend that leftism is what causes the devaluation of life, "

Pretend????

It is the lesson of history.

Either you are a liar, or ignorant.


Which is it?


Stalin....42,672,000

Mao.....37,828,000

Hitler....20,946,000

Lenin....4,017,000

Pol Pot...2,397,000

Tojo.....3,990,000

Total......111,850,000

You're right about most of these animals but Hitler and Tojo were not leftists, quite the contrary.re

Remember the last time you were right about anything?


Me neither.

Hitler and Stalin both followed Marx......
A year after Lenin's death, 1924, the NYTimes published a small article about a newly established party in Germany, the National Socialist Labor Party, which "...persists in believing that Lenin and Hitler can be compared or contrasted...Dr. Goebell's....assertion that Lenin was the greatest man second only to Hitler....and that the difference between communism and the Hitler faith was very slight...." November 27, 1925

Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian | George Reisman

Contrary to myth, Germany was a socialist state, not a capitalist one, writes George Reisman.

mises.org

".... Nazi Germany was a socialist state, not a capitalist one. And ... socialism, understood as an economic system based on government ownership of the means of production, positively requires a totalitarian dictatorship.

... the word "Nazi" was an abbreviation for "der Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiters Partei — in English translation: the National Socialist German Workers' Party ... what should one expect the economic system of a country ruled by a party with "socialist" in its name to be but socialism?

One of the great left wing magic tricks....convincing people that hitler wasn't a socialist. His socialist mass murder of 12 million people was in the open for everyone to see after the war....and the left wing socialists were desparate to protect the Soviet Union and their greater mass murder...so they got their allies in the U.S. and Europe to lie on a massive scale........

"American progressives, for the most part, did not disavow fascism until the horrors of the Nazi Holocaust became manifest during World War II. After the war, those progressives who had praised Mussolini and Hitler in the 1920s and 1930s had no choice but to dissociate themselves from fascism. “Accordingly,” writes Jonah Goldberg, “leftist intellectuals redefined fascism as 'right-wing' and projected their own sins onto conservatives, even as they continued to borrow heavily from fascist and pre-fascist thought.” This progressive campaign to recast fascism as the "right-wing" antithesis of communism was aided by Joseph Stalin,..."

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1223

Goldberg, Liberal Fascism

WOW!!! You found someone who agrees with you! So what, I ask, there are plenty of people who don't agree with either of you. Maybe you should try and think for yourself or, as I'm sure your Ivy League Professors told you, "Show your work".

Negative reviews

Philip Coupland, whose paper "H.G. Wells's 'Liberal Fascism'" was used as a source for Liberal Fascism, criticized Goldberg's understanding of the term:

Wells did not label his 'entire [...] philosophy' liberal fascism, not in fact and not by implication. Liberal fascism was the name which he (and I) gave to his theory of praxis, that is his method of achieving his utopian goal, not the goal itself. [...] Wells hoped for activists who would use what he considered to be 'fascist' means (technocratic authoritarianism and force) to achieve a liberal social end. In contrast, a 'liberal fascist' would pursue fascist ends but in a 'liberal' or at least more 'liberal' way.[21]

Austin W. Bramwell wrote in The American Conservative:

Repeatedly, Goldberg fails to recognize a reductio ad absurdum. [...] In no case does Goldberg uncover anything more ominous than a coincidence. [...] In elaborating liberalism's similarities to fascism, Goldberg shows a near superstitious belief in the power of taxonomy. [...] Goldberg falsely saddles liberalism not just with relativism but with all manner of alleged errors having nothing to do with liberalism. [...] Not only does Goldberg misunderstand liberalism, but he refuses to see it simply as liberalism [...]. Liberal Fascism reads less like an extended argument than as a catalogue of conservative intellectual clichés, often irrelevant to the supposed point of the book. [...] Liberal Fascism completes Goldberg's transformation from chipper humorist into humorless ideologue.[22]

Curtis Yarvin wrote about the book:

One reason the Jonah Goldbergs of the world have such trouble telling their right from their left is that they expect some morphological feature of the State to answer the question for them. For anyone other than Goldberg, Stalin was on the left and Hitler was on the right. The difference is not a function of discrepancies in administrative procedure between the KZs and the Gulag. It's a function of social networks. Stalin was a real socialist, Hitler was a fake one. Stalin was part of the international socialist movement, and Hitler wasn't.[23]

In The Nation, Eric Alterman wrote:

The book reads like a Google search gone gaga. Some Fascists were vegetarians; some liberals are vegetarians; ergo [...] ome Fascists were gay; some liberals are gay [...]. Fascists cared about educating children; Hillary Clinton cares about educating children. Aha! [...] Like Coulter, he's got a bunch of footnotes. And for all I know, they check out. But they are put in the service of an argument that no one with any knowledge of the topic would take seriously.[24]

In The American Prospect, journalist David Neiwert wrote:

In his new book, Goldberg has drawn a kind of history in absurdly broad and comically wrongheaded strokes. It is not just history done badly, or mere revisionism. It's a caricature of reality, like something from a comic-book alternative universe: Bizarro history. [...] Goldberg isn't content to simply create an oxymoron; this entire enterprise, in fact, is classic Newspeak. [...] Along the way, he grotesquely misrepresents the state of academia regarding the study of fascism [...].[25]

David Oshinsky of The New York Times wrote:

Liberal Fascism is less an exposé of left-wing hypocrisy than a chance to exact political revenge. Yet the title of his book aside, what distinguishes Goldberg from the Sean Hannitys and Michael Savages is a witty intelligence that deals in ideas as well as insults—no mean feat in the nasty world of the culture wars.[26]

Michael Tomasky wrote in The New Republic:

So I can report with a clear conscience that Liberal Fascism is one of the most tedious and inane—and ultimately self-negating—books that I have ever read. [...] Liberal Fascism is a document of a deeply frivolous culture, or sub-culture. [...] However much or little Goldberg knows about fascism, he knows next to nothing about liberalism.[27]

In his book Idiot America: How Stupidity Became a Virtue in the Land of the Free, Charles P. Pierce describes Goldberg's book as "[a]pparently written with a paint roller" and "a richly footnoted loogie hawked by Goldberg at every liberal who ever loosely called him a fascist". Pierce also claims that Goldberg ignored historical facts relating to his accusations against Woodrow Wilson, arguing:

It seems that Wilson was a Progressive, and Goldberg sees in the Progressive movement the seedbed of American fascism which, he argues, differs from European fascism, especially on those occasions when he needs it to differ because he has backed up the argument over his own feet. Anyway, Wilson brought the country into World War I. Therefore, Progressives love war.

In January 2010, the History News Network published essays by David Neiwert, Robert Paxton, Roger Griffin, Matthew Feldman, Chip Berlet and Michael Ledeen criticizing Liberal Fascism. They also published Goldberg's response which several authors responded to.[28]

You need to work on your ability to post correctly.


Put it on the list.

I'll never be the master of ✂ and paste that you are. Your pre-school teachers must be so proud of you.

Yes.......the old, where's your link...then you give the link and quotes and then it's ...oh, you just cut and paste....

The left wing goal post dance....

 

[2aguy]

Subtle though it may be, one difference between the Left and reality is that they reverse the meaning of words.
You saw Orwell comment on that exact issue.

Take the current war cry of the Leftists...."Black Lives Matter"
The truth is that, for Leftists, whether they be Democrats, Liberals, Progressives, or simply run of the mill morons, no lives or life matters.
Their hallmark institution, Planned Slaughterhood, murders 40% of the black population.


We learned it early on: "We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life." Leon Trotsky
There is a straight line from that to this:
None of the totalitarian forms of political plague have the slightest concern for human life: not communism (gulags), not Nazism (concentration camps), not Liberalism (abortion), not Progressivism (eugenics), not socialism (theft), not fascism (murder).
They only differ in the final outcome: slavery, serfdom, or death.


Even earlier, at the model for the Russian Revolution, for Nazism, for Mao, for the Democrat Party, death was the coin of the realm.
"If the French revolution was the end of monarchy and aristocratic privilege and the emergence of the common man and democratic rights, it was also the beginnings of modern totalitarian government and large-scale executions of "enemies of the People" by impersonal government entities (Robespierre's "Committee of Public Safety"). This legacy would not reach its fullest bloom until the tragic arrival of the German Nazis and Soviet and Chinese communists of the 20th century.

In fact, Rousseau has been called the precursor of the modern pseudo-democrats such as Stalin and Hitler and the "people's democracies."French Revolution - Robespierre, and the Legacy of the Reign of Terror


Vote Democrat, and you vote for death.

So, what ideology did the East India Company follow?

Great Bengal famine of 1770 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Why?

You're considering voting for them?


Must be some painful truths in the OP as it brought these two, flotsam and jetsam, in to change the subject.

Not painful to me. I don't support any form of totalitarianism. Now how about you explain to us all how the East India Company was communist, oh great learned one of the copying and pasting?

I asked you a question.

Answer it.


Why?

You're considering voting for them?


Must be some painful truths in the OP as it brought these two, flotsam and jetsam, in to change the subject.

Voting for who? The corporatists? I'm not

So you won't answer why you attempted to insert that abstruse and unrelated reference?

So I am correct as usual: you wanted to alter the point of the post.

And I didn't allow it.

Wanna try two out of three?

It is precisely on point. You are talking about the devaluation of human life. And I was as well.

You, however want to pretend that leftism is what causes the devaluation of life, when in fact, the causation works in the opposite direction. Leftism has always been a reaction to the devaluation of life that preceded it.

Take the Viet Cong for instance. They would have never existed had the rubber planters not enslaved people and worked them to death.

The French Revolution (no single ideology defined that, btw), was in response to the nobility hoarding the resources and leaving the common people to starve.

If you want to turn back Leftism, don't contribute to what leads to it. It is not that hard to understand!

"You, however want to pretend that leftism is what causes the devaluation of life, "

Pretend????

It is the lesson of history.

Either you are a liar, or ignorant.


Which is it?


Stalin....42,672,000

Mao.....37,828,000

Hitler....20,946,000

Lenin....4,017,000

Pol Pot...2,397,000

Tojo.....3,990,000

Total......111,850,000

You're right about most of these animals but Hitler and Tojo were not leftists, quite the contrary.re

Remember the last time you were right about anything?


Me neither.

Hitler and Stalin both followed Marx......
A year after Lenin's death, 1924, the NYTimes published a small article about a newly established party in Germany, the National Socialist Labor Party, which "...persists in believing that Lenin and Hitler can be compared or contrasted...Dr. Goebell's....assertion that Lenin was the greatest man second only to Hitler....and that the difference between communism and the Hitler faith was very slight...." November 27, 1925

Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian | George Reisman

Contrary to myth, Germany was a socialist state, not a capitalist one, writes George Reisman.

mises.org

".... Nazi Germany was a socialist state, not a capitalist one. And ... socialism, understood as an economic system based on government ownership of the means of production, positively requires a totalitarian dictatorship.

... the word "Nazi" was an abbreviation for "der Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiters Partei — in English translation: the National Socialist German Workers' Party ... what should one expect the economic system of a country ruled by a party with "socialist" in its name to be but socialism?

One of the great left wing magic tricks....convincing people that hitler wasn't a socialist. His socialist mass murder of 12 million people was in the open for everyone to see after the war....and the left wing socialists were desparate to protect the Soviet Union and their greater mass murder...so they got their allies in the U.S. and Europe to lie on a massive scale........

"American progressives, for the most part, did not disavow fascism until the horrors of the Nazi Holocaust became manifest during World War II. After the war, those progressives who had praised Mussolini and Hitler in the 1920s and 1930s had no choice but to dissociate themselves from fascism. “Accordingly,” writes Jonah Goldberg, “leftist intellectuals redefined fascism as 'right-wing' and projected their own sins onto conservatives, even as they continued to borrow heavily from fascist and pre-fascist thought.” This progressive campaign to recast fascism as the "right-wing" antithesis of communism was aided by Joseph Stalin,..."

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1223

Goldberg, Liberal Fascism

WOW!!! You found someone who agrees with you! So what, I ask, there are plenty of people who don't agree with either of you. Maybe you should try and think for yourself or, as I'm sure your Ivy League Professors told you, "Show your work".

Negative reviews

Philip Coupland, whose paper "H.G. Wells's 'Liberal Fascism'" was used as a source for Liberal Fascism, criticized Goldberg's understanding of the term:

Wells did not label his 'entire [...] philosophy' liberal fascism, not in fact and not by implication. Liberal fascism was the name which he (and I) gave to his theory of praxis, that is his method of achieving his utopian goal, not the goal itself. [...] Wells hoped for activists who would use what he considered to be 'fascist' means (technocratic authoritarianism and force) to achieve a liberal social end. In contrast, a 'liberal fascist' would pursue fascist ends but in a 'liberal' or at least more 'liberal' way.[21]

Austin W. Bramwell wrote in The American Conservative:

Repeatedly, Goldberg fails to recognize a reductio ad absurdum. [...] In no case does Goldberg uncover anything more ominous than a coincidence. [...] In elaborating liberalism's similarities to fascism, Goldberg shows a near superstitious belief in the power of taxonomy. [...] Goldberg falsely saddles liberalism not just with relativism but with all manner of alleged errors having nothing to do with liberalism. [...] Not only does Goldberg misunderstand liberalism, but he refuses to see it simply as liberalism [...]. Liberal Fascism reads less like an extended argument than as a catalogue of conservative intellectual clichés, often irrelevant to the supposed point of the book. [...] Liberal Fascism completes Goldberg's transformation from chipper humorist into humorless ideologue.[22]

Curtis Yarvin wrote about the book:

One reason the Jonah Goldbergs of the world have such trouble telling their right from their left is that they expect some morphological feature of the State to answer the question for them. For anyone other than Goldberg, Stalin was on the left and Hitler was on the right. The difference is not a function of discrepancies in administrative procedure between the KZs and the Gulag. It's a function of social networks. Stalin was a real socialist, Hitler was a fake one. Stalin was part of the international socialist movement, and Hitler wasn't.[23]

In The Nation, Eric Alterman wrote:

The book reads like a Google search gone gaga. Some Fascists were vegetarians; some liberals are vegetarians; ergo [...] ome Fascists were gay; some liberals are gay [...]. Fascists cared about educating children; Hillary Clinton cares about educating children. Aha! [...] Like Coulter, he's got a bunch of footnotes. And for all I know, they check out. But they are put in the service of an argument that no one with any knowledge of the topic would take seriously.[24]

In The American Prospect, journalist David Neiwert wrote:

In his new book, Goldberg has drawn a kind of history in absurdly broad and comically wrongheaded strokes. It is not just history done badly, or mere revisionism. It's a caricature of reality, like something from a comic-book alternative universe: Bizarro history. [...] Goldberg isn't content to simply create an oxymoron; this entire enterprise, in fact, is classic Newspeak. [...] Along the way, he grotesquely misrepresents the state of academia regarding the study of fascism [...].[25]

David Oshinsky of The New York Times wrote:

Liberal Fascism is less an exposé of left-wing hypocrisy than a chance to exact political revenge. Yet the title of his book aside, what distinguishes Goldberg from the Sean Hannitys and Michael Savages is a witty intelligence that deals in ideas as well as insults—no mean feat in the nasty world of the culture wars.[26]

Michael Tomasky wrote in The New Republic:

So I can report with a clear conscience that Liberal Fascism is one of the most tedious and inane—and ultimately self-negating—books that I have ever read. [...] Liberal Fascism is a document of a deeply frivolous culture, or sub-culture. [...] However much or little Goldberg knows about fascism, he knows next to nothing about liberalism.[27]

In his book Idiot America: How Stupidity Became a Virtue in the Land of the Free, Charles P. Pierce describes Goldberg's book as "[a]pparently written with a paint roller" and "a richly footnoted loogie hawked by Goldberg at every liberal who ever loosely called him a fascist". Pierce also claims that Goldberg ignored historical facts relating to his accusations against Woodrow Wilson, arguing:

It seems that Wilson was a Progressive, and Goldberg sees in the Progressive movement the seedbed of American fascism which, he argues, differs from European fascism, especially on those occasions when he needs it to differ because he has backed up the argument over his own feet. Anyway, Wilson brought the country into World War I. Therefore, Progressives love war.

In January 2010, the History News Network published essays by David Neiwert, Robert Paxton, Roger Griffin, Matthew Feldman, Chip Berlet and Michael Ledeen criticizing Liberal Fascism. They also published Goldberg's response which several authors responded to.[28]

You need to work on your ability to post correctly.


Put it on the list.

I'll never be the master of ✂ and paste that you are. Your pre-school teachers must be so proud of you.

It's exhilarating to see how deeply my posts wound you.

More where that came from.

Strike first, strike hard, no mercy.........

 

[alang1216]

It's exhilarating to see how deeply my posts wound you.

Yes, they do wound me deeply. I fear for my country seeing the level of discourse I see here on USMB.

 

[alang1216]

Strike first, strike hard, no mercy.........

no logic, no facts, no evidence... (and of course no Unions)