About Me

My photo
Lift your lamp beside the golden door, Break not the golden rule, avoid well the golden calf, know; not all that glitters is gold, and laissez faire et laissez passer [let do and let pass] but as a shining sentinel, hesitate not to ring the bell, defend the gates, and man the wall

Saturday, January 30, 2010

Liberal Fascism

Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg (Google eBook)
__________________________________
 


       
______________________________________


 
_____________________________________

Introduction The Definition of FASCISM
______
Page 23

“Fascism is a religion of the state, it assumes the organic unity of the body politic and longs for a national leader attuned to the will of the people. It is totalitarian in that it views everything as political and holds that any action by the state is justified to achieve the common good. It takes responsibility for all aspects of life, including our health and well-being, and seeks to impose uniformity of the thought and action, whether by force or through regulation and social pressure. Everything, including the economy and religion, must be aligned with its objectives. Any rival identity is part of the 'problem' and therefore defined as the enemy." 

"[In this book I will argue that] Contemporary American liberalism embodies all of these aspects of fascism.”

(Its National Socialism IE Fascism (not to be confused with the greater Nazism of Hitler's Germany), Vs International Socialism or the subset of Bolshevism. Both being imperialistic the nationalist just retaining the obvious human necessity of tribal identification and separate National interest; that being the sole difference between the Collectivisms.)

__________________________________________________________________________________


Chapter 5 The 1960s: Fascism Takes to the Streets 
________
Pages 163


          The self-styled revolutionaries had grown increasingly brazen in their campaign to force concessions from the university. Students and professors who were labeled race traders received death threats. Enemies of the racial nation were savagely beaten by roaming thugs. Guns were brought onto the campus, and the students dressed up in military uniforms. Professors were held hostage, badgered, intimidated, and threatened whenever they were teaching contradicted racial orthodoxy. But, the university administration, out of a mixture of  cowardice and sympathy for the rebels, refused to punish the revolutionaries, even when the President was man-handled by a fascist goon in front of an audience made up of the campus community.


          The radicals and their student sympathizers believed themselves to be revolutionaries of the left—the opposite of fascists in their minds—yet when one of their professors read them the speeches of Benito Mussolini, the students reacted with enthusiasm. Events came to a climax when students took over the student union and the local radio station. Armed with rifles and shotguns, they demanded an ethnically pure educational institution staffed and run by members of their own race. At first the faculty and administration were understandably reluctant; but when it was suggested that those who opposed their agenda might be killed, those of the “Moderates” 

[Benito Mussolini
_______
Page 164 

quickly reversed course and supported the militants. In a mass rally reminiscent of Nuremberg, the professors recanted their reactionary ways and swore fidelity to the new revolutionary order. One professor later recalled how easily “Pompous teachers who Catechized about academic freedom, with a little shove, be made into dancing bears.”

          Eventually, the fascist thugs got everything they wanted. The Authorities caved in to their demands. The few who remained opposed quietly left the university and, in some cases, the country, once it was clear that their safety could not be guaranteed

          The University of Berlin in 1932? Milan in 1922? Good guesses but this all happened at Cornell in the spring of 1969. Paramilitary Black Nationalists under the banner of the Afro-American Society seized control of the university after waging an increasingly aggressive campaign of intimidation and violence.

         The public excuse for the armed seizure of the Cornell Student Union was a cross burning outside a black dorm. This was later revealed to be a hoax orchestrated by the black radicals themselves in order to provide a pretext for their violence—and to overshadow the administration's faint hearted and toothless “Reprimands” of six black radicals who’d broken campus rules and state laws. This Reichstag-fire style tactic worked perfectly, as the gun-toting fascist squadristi stormed Straight Hall in the predawn hours, rousting bleary-eyed parents who were staying there for Parent’s Weekend. These bewildered souls who had the misfortune to bank role the educations of the very gun-toting scholarship students now calling them “pigs” were forced to jump from a 3-foot-high cargo deck into the freezing Ithaca rain. “This is Nazism in its worst form,” declared a mother with breathless, if understandable, exaggeration. The university president James A Perkins, was required to cancel his morning convocation address sublimely titled “The Stability of the University.”

__________________________________________________________________________________


Chapter 6, From Kennedy's Myth To Johnson's Dream  
_______ 
Page 221


In the past, liberalism had referred to political and economic liberty as understood by Enlightenment thinkers like John Locke and Adam Smith. For them, the ultimate desideratum was maximum individual freedom under the benign protection of a minimalist state.. The progressives, led by Dewey, subtly changed the meaning of this term, importing the Prussian vision of liberalism as the alleviation of material and educational poverty, and liberation from old dogmas and old faiths. For progressives liberty no longer meant freedom from tyranny, but freedom from want, freedom to be a “Constructive” citizen, the Rousseauian and Hegelian freedom of living in accord with the state and the general will.  Classical liberals were routinely called conservatives, while devotees of social control were dubbed liberals


[John Locke] [Adam Smith] [John Dewey] [Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel] [Jean-Jacques Rousseau]

________
Page 262

   In 1964 Senator Barry Goldwater was National Review’s candidate of choice rather than of compromise. Goldwater was the first Republican presidential candidate since Coolidge to break with the core assumptions of Progressivism, including that Goldwater called “me-to-Republicanism.” As a result, Goldwater was demonized as the candidate of “hate” and nascent fascism. LBJ accused him of “Preach[ing] hate” and consistently tried to tie him too terrorist “hate groups” like the Klan (whose constituency was, of course, traditionally Democratic). In a speech before steelworkers in September 1964, Johnson denounced Goldwater’s philosophy of the “soup line”-as if free-market capitalism’s ideal is to send men to the poor-house—and scorned the “prejudice and bigotry and hatred and division” represented by the affable Arisonan. Needless to say, this was a gross distortion. Goldwater was a champion of limited government who put his faith in the decency of the American people rather than in a bunch of bureaucrats in Washington. His one great mistake which he later admitted and apologized for, was to vote against the Civil Rights Act
   Few liberals, then or now, would dispute that the Great Society was premised on love and unity. “We will do all these things because we love people instead of hate them… because you know it takes a man who loves his country to build a house instead of a raving, ranting demagogue who wants to tear down one. Beware of those who fear and doubt and those who rave and rant about dangers of progress,” -Johnson railed. Meanwhile, the establishment worked overtime to insinuate that Goldwater was an architect of the “climate of hate” that had claimed Kennedy’s life. As befitted the newly psychologized zeitgeist, Goldwater was denounced as, quite literally, insane. An ad in the New York Times reported that 1,189 psychiatrists had diagnose him as not “psychologically fit” to be president
   The charge was then recycled in excessive “free media” coverage. Dan Rather’s colleague Daniel Schorr (now a senior correspondent with National Public radio) reported on CBS Evening News, with no factual basis whatsoever, that candidate Goldwater’s vacation to Germany was “a move by Senator Goldwater to link up” with neo Nazi elements.
   Goldwater lost in a landslide.

[Barry Goldwater] [National Review] [Calvin Coolidge] [LBJ - Lyndon Banes Johnson] [Free Market Capitalism] [Limited Government - Classical Liberalism] [Civil Rights Act - 1964] [JFK - John Fitzgerald Kennedy] [NYT - New York Times] [CBS - Columbia Broadcasting System] [NPR - National Public Radio] 
__________________________________________________________________________________

Chapter 7 Liberal Racism: The Eugenic Ghost in the Fascist Machine  
_________________________











  
_________________________
_______ 
Page 248 

Scholarly exchanges between eugenicists, "raceologists," race hygienists, and birth controllers in Germany and the United states were unremarkable and regular occurrences. Hitler "studied" American eugenics while in prison, and sections of "Mein Kampf" certainly reflect that immersion. Indeed, some of his arguments seem to be lifted straight out of various progressive tracts on "race suicide." Hitler wrote to the president of the American Eugenics Society to ask for a copy of his "Case for Sterilization"--which called for the forcible sterilization of some ten million Americans--and later sent him another note thanking him for his work. Madison Grant's "Passing of the Great Race" also made a huge impression on Hitler, who called the book his "bible." in 1934, when the national socialist government had sterilized over fifty thousand "unfit" Germans, a frustrated American eugenicist exclaimed, "The Germans are beating us at our own game."
   Of course American progressives are not culpable for the Holocaust. But it is a well-documented fact that eugenics lay at the heart of the progressive enterprise. The eugenic crusade, writes the historian Edwin Black, was "Created in the publications and academic research rooms of the Carnegie Institution, verified by the research grants of the Rockefeller Foundation, validated by leading scholars from the best Ivy League universities, and financed by the special efforts of the Harriman railroad fortune." German race science stood on American Shoulders.
   It would be nice to say that liberals' efforst to airbrush eugenics from their own history and fob it off on conservatives are unacceptable. But of course they have been accepted. Most intellectuals, never mind liberal journalists and commentators, don't know much about either conservatism or the history of eugenics, but they take it on faith that the two are deeply entwined. One an only hope that this wrong can be made right with a dose of the truth. A brief review of the progressive pantheon--the intellectual heroes of the left, then and now--reveals how deeply imbued the early socialists were with eugenic thinking. 
   Just as socialist economics was a specialization within the larger progressive avocation, eugenics was a closely related specialty. Eugenic arguments and economic arguments tracked each other, comp.lemented each other, and, at times, melted into each other.  

[Adolf Hitler]

_______
Page 249

Sidney Webb, the father of Fabian socialism and still among the most revered British intellectuals, alid it out fairly clealry.
"No consistent eugencist," he explained, Can be a 'Laissez Faire' individualist [that is, a conservative] unless he throws up the game in despair. He must interfere. interfere, interfere!" The fact that the "wrong" people were out breeding the "right" ones would put Britain on the path of "national deterioration" or, "as an alternative," result "in this country gradually falling to the Irish and the Jews."
   Indeed, British socialism, the intellectual lodestar of American Progressivism, was saturated with eugenics. The Fabians Sidney and Beatrice Webb, George Bernard Shaw, Harold Laski, and H.G. Wells were devoted to the cause. John Maynard Keynes, Karl Pearson, Havelock Ellis, Julian and Aldous Huxley, Eden Paul, and such progressive publications as the New Statesman (founded by Webb) and the Manchester Guardian were also supporters of eugenics to one extent or another. 
   As discussed earlier Wells was probably the most influential literary figure among pre-World War II American Progressives. Despite his calls for a new "liberal fascism" and an "Enlightened Nazism," Wells more than anyone else lent romance to the progressive vision of the future. He was also a keen eugenicist and particularly supportive of the extermination of unfit and darker races. He explained that if his "New Republic" was to be achieved, "swarms of black and brown, and dirty-white and yellow people" would "have to go." "It is in the sterilization of failures," he added, "and not in the selection of successes for breeding, that the possibility of an improvement of the human stock lies." In The New Machiavelli, he asserts that eugenics must be the central tenet of any true and successful socialism: "Every improvement is provisional except the improvement of the race." While Wells could be squeamish about how far the state should go in translating this conclusion into policy, he remained a forceful advocate for the state to defend aggressively its interest in discouraging parasitic classes.
   George Bernard Shaw--no doubt because of his pacifist opposition to World War I--has acquired the reputation of an outspoken individualist and freethinker suspicious of state power and its abuses.l nothing could be further from the truth. Shaw was not only an ardent socialist but totally committed to eugenics as an integral part of [the socialist project.]
 
[Sydney Webb] [Beatrice Webb] [Fabian Socialism] [Laissez Faire - Free Market Capitalism] [Progressivism] [Eugenics] [George Bernard Shaw] [Harold Laski] [H.G. Wells] [John Maynard Keynes] [Karl Pearson] [Havelock Ellis] [Julian Huxley] [Aldous Huxley] [Eden Paul] [New Statesman] [Manchester Guardian] [The New Republic -  That is, A Utopia of H.G. Wells] [The New Machiavelli]
___________________________________________________________________________________
  










  


_______
Page 250

[Shaw was not only an ardent socialist but totally committed to eugenics as an integral part of ] the socialist project. "The only fundamental and possible socialism is the socialization of the selective breeding of Man," he declared. Shaw advocated the abolition of traditional marriage in favor of more eugenically acceptable polygamy under the auspices of a State Deparment of Evolution and a new "eugenic religion." He particularly lamented the chaotic nature of a laissez-faire approach to mate selection in which people "select their wives and husbands less carefully than they select their cashiers and cooks." Besides, he explained, a smart woman would be more content with a 10 percent share in a man of good genetic stock than a 100 percent share in a man of undesirable lineage. What was therefor required was a "human stud farm" in order to "eliminate the Yahoo whose vote will wreck the commonwelalth." According to Shaw, the state should be firm in its policy toward criminal and genetically undesirable elements. "[W]ith many apologies and expressions of sympathy," he wrote with ghoulish glee, we "should place them in the lethal chambers and get rid of them."
   Other liberal heros shared Shaw's enthusiasm. John Maynard Keynes, the founding father of liberal economics, served on the British Eugenics Society's board of directors in 1945--at a time when the popularity of eugenics was rapidly imploding thanks to the revelation of Nazi concentration camp experiments. Nonetheless, Keynes declared eugenics "the most important, significant and, I would add, genuine branch of sociology which exists." Julian Huxley, the founder of the World Wildlife Fund, first director of UNESCO, and revered science popularizer, co-wrote The Science of Life with Wells and Wells' son. Huxley, too, was a sincere believer in eugenics. Havelock Ellis the pioneering sex theorist and early architect of the birth control movement, spoke for many when he proposed a eugenic registry of all citizen, so as to provide "a real guide as to those persons who are most fit, or most unfit to carry on the race." Ellis did not oppose Nazi sterilization programs, believing that good science "need not become mixed up in the Nordic and Anti-Semitic aspects of Nazi aspiration." J.B.S. Haldane, the British geneticist, wrote in the Daily Worker, "The Dogma of human equality is no part of Communism ... the formula of Communism: 'from [each according to his ability, to each according to his needs,' would be nonsense, if abilities were equal."]


[John Maynard Keynes]
[George Bernard Shaw]
[Harold Laski]
[Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.]
 []
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]

___________________________________________________________________________________

   












   
_______
Page 251

["The Dogma of human equality is no part of Communism ... the formula of Communism: 'from ] each according to his ability, to each according to his needs,' would be nonsense, if abilities were equal."
   Harold Laski to some the most respected British political scientis of the twentieth century (he was Joseph KennedyJr.'s tutor and JFK's professor), echoed the panic over "race suicide" (an American term): "The different rates of fertility in the sound and pathological stocks point to a future swamping of the better by the worse." Indeed, eugenics was Laski's first great intellectual passion. His first published article, "The Scope of Eugenics," written while he was still a teenager, impressed Francis Galton, the founder of eugenics. At oxford, Laski studied under the eugencist Karl Pears, who wrote, "Socialists have to inculcate that spirit which would give offenders against the State short shrift and the nearest lamp-post."
   Laski, of course, had an enormous impact on American Liberalism. He was regular contributor to the New Republic--which in its early years published scores of leading British intellectuals, incuding Wells. He also taught at Harvard and became friends with Felix Frankfurter, an advisor to FDR and, later, Supreme Court justice.Frankfurter introduced Laski to FDR, and he became one of Roosevelt's most ardent British supporters, depsite his strong communist ties. More famously he became one of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes' closest friends, despite an age difference of more than five decades. The two maintained a storied correspondence that lasted nearly twenty years

EUGENICS, AMERICAN-STYLE 

American Progressives, who took their lead in many ways from their British cousins, shared a similar ardor for racial hygiene. Take Justice Holmes, the most admired jurist of th eprogressive period and one of the most revered liberal icons in American legal history. It seems that no praise of holmes can go too far. Felix Frankfurter called him "truly the impersonal voice of the Constitution." "No justice thougt more deeply about the nature of a free society or was mor zealous to safeguard its conditions by the most abundant regard for civil liberty than Mr. Justice Holmes." Another observer com- [] 

[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
  
___________________________________________________________________________________
          










 

____________
Pages 252-253

Insert Text of Pages Here 
 []
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]


__________________________________________________________________________________
        










   

_______
254-255

Insert Text of Pages Here

[Woodrow Wilson]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]

________________________________________________________________________________
      












_______
256-257 
   
Insert Text of Pages Here 
    
[Theodore 'Teddy' Roosevelt]
___________________________________________________________________________________     











     
 
258-259
    
Insert Text of Pages Here 
 
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]

__________________________________________________________________________________

Chapter 7 Liberal Racism: The Eugenic Ghost in the Fascist Machine  

___________ 
Page 266-267 
   
Nietzsche himself had pointed the way- [For Eugenics to give a scientific rationale for Romantic German Cultural yearnings]. -In 1880 he wrote, “The tendency must be towards the rendering extinct of the wretched, the deformed, the degenerate.” Reproduction, Nietzsche argued, needed to be taken out of the hands of the masses so that “race as a whole [no longer] suffers.” “The extinction of many types of people is just as desirable as any form of reproduction.” Marriage itself Nietzsche argued, must be more scrupulously regulated by the state. “Go through the towns and ask yourselves whether these people should reproduce! Let them go to their whores!”-

[Nietzsche]

___________________________________________________________________________________
  
Chapter 10 The New Age: We Are All Fascists Now 

_______ 
Page 383
 

When Charles Wurster, the chief scientist for the Environmental Defense Fund, was told
that banning DDT would probably result in millions of deaths, he replied,
"This is as good a way to get rid of them as any." -Charles Wurster 
  

The Finnish environmental guru Pentti Linkola argues that the earth is a sinking ship,
and a chosen remnant must head to the lifeboats.


"Those who hate life try to pull more people on board and drown everybody.
Those who love and respect life use axes to chop off the extra hands hanging on the gunwale" -Pentti Linkola


[Pentti Linkola]

________
Page 387
"When it comes to feelings, a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. There is no rational basis for saying that a human being has special rights." -Ingrid Newkirk

Few sentiments could be more fascist. First there is the emphasis on "feelings"--not thought or reason--as the defining characteristic of life. Second is the assumption that the higher "feelings" --those associated with conscience--are of such little consequence that they don't enter into the equation. When Newkirk says there's no "rational basis for distinguishing between vermin and humans, what she really means is that there is no legitimate distinction between them, which is why PETA felt no compunction in comparing the slauhter of pigs, cows, and chickens to the slaughter of Jews in their infamous "Holocaust on your plate" campaign

     
[Ingrid Newkirk] 

___________________________________________________________________________________ 
_________________________________________________________________ 
____________________________________

"Champions of Liberty get called Fascists by Champions of Statism" -Jonah Goldberg
_______________________________



__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
 
Comments On "Liberal Fascism" by Asderathos

Hitler's Was a Socialist Movement; A National Socialist Movement, occuring after Mussolini, which took over Itally.

There was Black Nationalist Movement in the 60s which was socialist. I'm sure there are other examples More details are in Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg.

Every socialist wishes to define his own brand of socialism as "The REAL Socialism" but going by the broadest and most accepted definition of socialism, it is the partial ownership or control of the means of production by the workers, or rather supposedly on their behalf, vested in govt (as is the only form to occur) Thus national Socialism -IE- Fascism is a subset of that Socialism. Some would define socialism as communism but that leaves one without distinction, and ignorant of Marx's perspective.
___

YouTubeSocialist:  Nationalism is an ENORMOUS factor. Any socialist that accepts nationalism is not a socialist. Also on nationalization, Mussolini didn't have a planned economy, and 1/4 of Italian industry was still privatized.

You define socialism in YOUR way and then use that superfluity to discount other Socialisms, Illogical!

the argument goes-

A: All Monkeys have tails

B: (what about tailless Monkeys)

A: they're not monkeys,

B: (But the Genetics! The Language! The DEFINITION of "Monkey"!?)

A: NOT MONKEYS!!!
___

Yes Fascism is not a popularly well defined term; however Goldberg supplies his definition, which best describes the ideology which ORIGINATED THE TERM (Fascio) while recognizing & pointing Out that Rival Leftist Ideologies called all opponents "Fascists" thus the popularization of it as a synonym for "Evil".

and if we were to be more Linguistically accurate the 60s Black Nationalists (while still Fascists) Should be recognized for their greater Nazi-esque ideology of Racial Supremacy.
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
 
 The Ayn Rand Lexicon
  

Fascism and Communism/Socialism

For many decades, the leftists have been propagating the false dichotomy that the choice confronting the world is only: communism or fascism—a dictatorship of the left or of an alleged right—with the possibility of a free society, of capitalism, dismissed and obliterated, as if it had never existed.

[Some “moderates” are trying to] revive that old saw of pre-World War II vintage, the notion that the two political opposites confronting us, the two “extremes,” are: fascism versus communism.

The political origin of that notion is more shameful than the “moderates” would care publicly to admit. Mussolini came to power by claiming that that was the only choice confronting Italy. Hitler came to power by claiming that that was the only choice confronting Germany. It is a matter of record that in the German election of 1933, the Communist Party was ordered by its leaders to vote for the Nazis—with the explanation that they could later fight the Nazis for power, but first they had to help destroy their common enemy: capitalism and its parliamentary form of government.

It is obvious what the fraudulent issue of fascism versus communism accomplishes: it sets up, as opposites, two variants of the same political system; it eliminates the possibility of considering capitalism; it switches the choice of “Freedom or dictatorship?” into “Which kind of dictatorship?”—thus establishing dictatorship as an inevitable fact and offering only a choice of rulers. The choice—according to the proponents of that fraud—is: a dictatorship of the rich (fascism) or a dictatorship of the poor (communism).

That fraud collapsed in the 1940’s, in the aftermath of World War II. It is too obvious, too easily demonstrable that fascism and communism are not two opposites, but two rival gangs fighting over the same territory—that both are variants of statism, based on the collectivist principle that man is the rightless slave of the state—that both are socialistic, in theory, in practice, and in the explicit statements of their leaders—that under both systems, the poor are enslaved and the rich are expropriated in favor of a ruling clique—that fascism is not the product of the political “right,” but of the “left”—that the basic issue is not “rich versus poor,” but man versus the state, or: individual rights versus totalitarian government—which means: capitalism versus socialism.



__________________________________________________________________________________



No comments:

Post a Comment

Sociable