Post New

'How do we resist the corrupted and crooked fascist far left?'
Snip
'Recent cultural phenomena have shown that there are a lot more decent people than 'Democrats' and it's time to unite against them.

Many of us are seeing our country go sideways while being blamed for it by every national socialist media source. For the first time in history, the fascist far-left controlling class has arrested its leading political opponent, symbolized by the mugshot heard 'round the world. This certainly isn't normal and the proverbial scent of gasoline is starting to waft through the air. You're probably thinking, 'What can I do though?'

The key strategy is to use our advantages against their disadvantages.

Anti-liberty leftists have the advantage of a complete lack of moral character (because they're 'saving the planet' or something). They are also perfectly willing to weaponize the government whenever they can, and they dominate most of the media and indoctrination centers (schools).'

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2023/08/how_d...

Bottom line....Do not vote democrat. Restore sanity in America.

LurkerMom: For the first time in history, the fascist far-left controlling class has arrested its leading political opponent...

Republicans don't study history, do they?

Former French president Nicolas Sarkozy was found guilty by a court in Paris on charges of trying to bribe a judge and influence peddling dating from his time in office.

Former French president Jacques Chirac was found guilty for kickbacks and an attempt to bribe a magistrate.

South Korea investigated and convicted five former presidents starting in the 1990s, a wave of political prosecutions that culminated in the 2018 impeachment of president Park Geun-hye and, soon after, the conviction and imprisonment of her predecessor, Lee Myung-bak.

Brazilian ex-president Luiz Inácio 'Lula' da Silva, a popular leftist, was jailed in 2018 for accepting bribes.

In fact, 23% of countries that transitioned to democracy between 1885 and 2004 charged former leaders with crimes after democratization.

And perhaps you've heard of Netanyahu?

the fascist far-left controlling class

Oh, sure, the threat of fascism is from the left? Ludicrous, like almost crazy lie and conspiracy theory you dredge up from the slimy pit of right wing media.

"Fascist far left?"

By definition, fascism is a far-right position.

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

Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement,[1][2][3] characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation and race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy.[2][3]

I'm not aware of a specific term for far-left authoritarians, but those people do exist. "National socialist" is "NAZI", by the way. Far-right again. The author apparently didn't even know that.

It's one thing for you, a face in the crowd, not to know that. We're on a message board. But you expect anyone to take seriously a "journalist/editorialist" who doesn't know that? That link was raving loony. Weaponize government? What do you think DeSantis is doing in FL...or are you going to claim he's a Dem?

If you want to restore sanity, don't vote for Trump. Vote Rep if you must, but not for Trump. He is a threat to our democracy, as he demonstrated already.

Republicans don't study history, do they?

While you are focus on fascists of foreign countries, the article is focus on the far left fascists right here in America. Please follow the bouncing ball.

Fascism actually has its origins on the far-left.

Before inventing it, Benito Mussolini was in fact'

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/how-mussolini-...

'one of Italy's leading socialists.

A rising star of the Italian Socialist party and a brilliant editor of its newspaper Avanti!, he had been expelled from the party in 1914 because he opposed its policy that Italy should remain neutral in the first world war. Instead, the future Duce believed that Italy must go to war against Austria and Germany which it eventually did in 1915. He insisted that socialists could not wait for history, as Marxist doctrine preached. They must make history, he argued, and such a war would help, not hinder, the revolution. As it did, in Italy, as elsewhere. The French and German socialist parties agreed with Mussolini and decided to fight for their respective countries against each other. This caused the collapse of the Second Socialist International and thus of international socialism.

Most people don't understand socialism. Marx and Engels believed in an international revolution of the proletariat (Workers of the world, unite!) whereupon the masses would revolt, seize the means of production and declare a new international socialist order. But'


The first world war had exposed a fatal weakness at the heart of international socialism whose mission was supposed to be world revolution and the abolition of the nation-state: people are more loyal to their country than their class. Mussolini made this cardinal rule the key to his version of socialism. It inspired him to replace international socialism with national socialism which he called fascism. Hitler, who would copy much from Mussolini, would call his version of fascism national socialism.

Indeed. Turns out that national identity is a thing. A big thing. So big that you're never going to get your Workers Of the World uniting. All you're ever going to get is Workers of Canada or Workers of Poland uniting. A worldwide socialist revolution was never happening. Communist Russia never really figured this out either.


Fascism began as a left-wing heresy against the Marxist creed and remained so at heart to the bitter end ' regardless of the far-right tag attached to it after 1945 by a left desperate to avoid fascism and communism being treated as two sides of the same coin. In April 1945, when communist partisans shot Mussolini and his mistress Clara Petacci after their capture at Lake Como, those with him included his old friend Nicola Bombacci, a founder of the Italian communist party and member of the Soviet Comintern, who had been his closest adviser in the last two years of the war. Bombacci's last words before a communist partisan firing squad shot him dead beside the lake were: 'Viva Mussolini! Viva il Socialismo!'

Now that we've cleared up the history, let's add a footnote and then bring things forward to today.

Fascism revolved around the practical nature of running a country and the mental energy needed to drive it forward. The practical part was simple: why cut out the industrialists who knew how to run things? Why not have them do what they do under the direction of the state instead?

The fascists did not believe, as the communists did, in the nationalisation of the means of production, or the abolition of private property, but that the state should run the economy in partnership with owners and workers via corporations ' the so-called corporate state. Among early manifesto pledges was the abolition of the monarchy.

Fascism also had its own variant of the class war, this one between producers of whatever class, and parasites of whatever class. It introduced the welfare state. Mussolini ' at the same time as Lenin ' had realised that only a political party ' not trade unions, still less a parliament ' could enact the revolution. And he rejected Marxist dogma which gave a decisive role to the proletariat. The role of the party, the revolutionary vanguard ' or priesthood ' was to instill and maintain faith. The role of the proletariat was to believe, which it would do only if the revolution was national, not international.

Dope1: Fascism actually has its origins on the far-left.

Before inventing it, Benito Mussolini was in fact'

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/how-mussolini-...

'one of Italy's leading socialists.


You mean before he was expelled from the Italian Socialist Party in 1914, right?

Well, thank you for the Drunk History lesson but there is nothing liberal about fascism. Fundamentally, fascism is anti-Left.

Bringing us back on topic, arguing that fascism is leftist is like arguing that there are atheist believers in God.

Perhaps you noticed that both Hitler and Mussolini relied on anti-leftist militias, the Brownshirts and Blackshirts, to fight "pinkos" in the streets or attack union or labor party meetings. Gee, and I thought the left favored unions.

Fascists also fused nationalism with the concept of a "single true race," with the goal of purging the nation of Jews, Roma and other "undesirables."

Huh, that's not lefty thinking, either.

At the same time, fascists wanted to violently strike at pluralism, gay rights and women's rights -- all ideas that animate the modern left.

But then I guess people like Farrell can empty out or dumb down the definition of fascism until anything you dislike fits the bill, but don't expect to get agreement from actual historians.

But here's the fundamental truth that the left doesn't want to face:

To dismiss the Duce as a grotesque buffoon, as Anglo-American historians normally do, or a puppet of the bourgeoisie, as Marxist ones always do, cannot be right. Such definitions fail to explain why he was able to get power and keep it for more than two decades with relatively little use of the mass murder that characterizes most dictatorships ' especially communist ones. Nor why there was so little resistance to him until he began to lose battles in the second world war ' or why he was so popular abroad.

The explanation is obvious: true, there were no opinion polls and no fair elections, but the only feasible answer must be that a critical mass of Italians was in favour of fascism, and a majority in favour of Mussolini. That fascism was wanted by so many Italians, not imposed, is something that the mainstream left still refuses to accept because it means accepting an uncomfortable truth: the Italians, not just the Duce, were to blame for fascism.

Today's left shares much in common with Mussolini's version of fascism. Sorry, gang. It's true.

A domineering federal government in extralegal partnership with overwhelmingly powerful corporations. Witness the democrats' unholy alliance with Google, with Facebook and others to overtly censor opinions that run counter to the leftist narrative. Witness the ESG concepts pushed at the expense of shareholders' interests but very much in line with democrat party interests by the likes of Vanguard and Black Rock.

A rejection of traditional Judeo-Christian values, replacing them with The State being Mother and Father. Recall the story of "Julia":

'The Life of Julia' has done what many conservatives have failed to do so far ' outline in exacting detail what modern Democratic policy wants for individuals. Here we have Obama's 21st century synthesis of the Great Society, New Deal and New Frontier.

https://www.cnn.com/2012/05/09/opinion/bennett-oba...
Julia's entire life is defined by her interactions with the state. Government is everywhere and each step of her life is tied to a government program. Notably absent in her story is any relationship with a husband, family, church or community, except a 'community' garden where she works post-retirement. Instead, the state has taken their place and is her primary relationship.

Who needs a community - a real one - when you have The State? And are being watched by your corporate overlords?

As banal and hackneyed as Julia's life of government dependence may seem, many Americans support it. After all, similar promises lured a number of European countries into overreaching and under-supported social safety nets. With the American family less intact than ever and with single motherhood at historic highs, women like Julia are increasingly left on their own. The idea of government assistance can become more and more attractive to them and even necessary.

And here we come full circle with Mussolini, don't we?

a critical mass of Italians was in favour of fascism, and a majority in favour of Mussolini. That fascism was wanted by so many Italians, not imposed, is something that the mainstream left still refuses to accept because it means accepting an uncomfortable truth: the Italians, not just the Duce, were to blame for fascism.

And so it will be with Americans: Wanting the comforts of life but having been conditioned by the democrats to accept that the only true path to happiness is by handing control over to the overarching government, they'll happily pull the lever for it. Standing in the way are conservatives who view this as anathema to a healthily functioning society.

You mean before he was expelled from the Italian Socialist Party in 1914, right?

Ooooo, you think you scored a point! How cute.
They kicked him out over his pro-join-the-war stance. Meaning, he wanted Italy to join the war for Italian reasons and that flew in the face of the International Socialist Revolution that his comrades wanted.

So, ooopsie. He wasn't thrown out because he suddenly renounced their views. Do try and learn, old sod.

A rising star of the Italian Socialist party and a brilliant editor of its newspaper Avanti!, he had been expelled from the party in 1914 because he opposed its policy that Italy should remain neutral in the first world war. Instead, the future Duce believed that Italy must go to war against Austria and Germany which it eventually did in 1915. He insisted that socialists could not wait for history, as Marxist doctrine preached. They must make history, he argued, and such a war would help, not hinder, the revolution.

You don't have the chops to challenge me on anything.

But let's continue with the history lesson, now that your objection has been flicked aside.

In replacing international socialism with a home-country view, a...national socialism if you will, Mussolini set about building his ideal state. To do that he needed

1. Support from the people
2. Support from the industrialist class
3. A common goal to rally them all around

#1 was achieved by inspiring faith in the crowds.

The genius of Mussolini was to create fascism, not just as an armed political movement, but as a religious cult with him as a sacred leader who transformed politics into a daily act of collective faith. This is, of course, what the leaders of the French Revolution did as well.

Hitler would later replicate this model, as the state with him as its head was to replace religion in the eyes of the people. That takes care of #1.

#2 was solved by actually partnering with the industrialists in a corporate-dominated, state directed economy.
#3 was solved by pointing #1 and #2 towards their shared Roman glory and concept of Mare Nostrum - Our Sea - hearkening back to the days of empire.

Bringing us back on topic, arguing that fascism is leftist is like arguing that there are atheist believers in God.

Except that this is where the true drunken reasoning comes in.
You hate the concept of religion, but all human beings need faith in an externally-driven cause or focus. For the religious, that faith is in a figure such as God or Jesus or whatever.

For the likes of you...that faith is driven towards your version of what the world should be like. Not "could be like" but should be like. Why "should" instead of "could"?

Because you have faith you're right and others are wrong.

So yes, homie...you DO have a religion. And the reason why you hate everyone in it is the exact same thing you gleefully point to in religious societies: Fanaticism. You know you're right, those other people are wrong, and worse yet they're keeping you from your goal of The Ideal Society.

And so you hate them, and say things accordingly.

Fundamentally, fascism is anti-Left.

Yes. The National Socialist Worker's Party (NAZI) has "socialist" in the title, but that's about as far as it went. It was really about attracting the blue collar peasants, and then dosing them with a lot of nationalism (and scapegoating..."it's not your fault, the Jews are keeping you down!"). The USSR was more socialist, and authoritarian (but not, strictly speaking, "communist"). The Third Reich was hardly anything resembling socialism, unless you count creating jobs to build a lot of hardware. The state did not own very much production, but the authoritarian nature allowed them to dictate what was produced (from Volkswagen Beetles to Panthers). Neither Stalin nor Hitler tolerated dissent, but that was because both were authoritarians.

I think it safe to say that the NAZI party very early on adopted right-wing policies, touted nationalism, and mixed in a bit of quasi-religion (sort of a Nordic/Aryan mythology, with Hitler as a "hero" of that mythology).

Yes.

Nope. Fascism grew from the left.

The state did not own very much production

The state controlled 100% of national production. What do you think Albert Speer was doing? People like Ferdinand Porsche did what they were told.

If it comforts many of you on the thread, the range of left/right is a line with two endpoints for extremism, one called "left" and the other "right". It's more like a circle where the two extremes meet at the exact same point.

OCD: the range of left/right is NOT a line with two endpoints for extremism, one called "left" and the other "right". It's more like a circle where the two extremes meet at the exact same point.

Yes, they controlled it. I basically said that. But they didn't own it. That is socialism (owning the means of production).

I agree that authoritarianism is very similar right vs left. Neither tolerate dissent, both can pass arbitrary laws at a whim (just by edict), subordination of the individual, etc. However, in the traditional left/right spectrum, fascism is far right. Again, from the wiki (with citations):

Fascism rose to prominence in early 20th-century Europe.[4][5] The first fascist movements emerged in Italy during World War I, before spreading to other European countries, most notably Germany.[4] Fascism also had adherents outside of Europe.[6] Opposed to anarchism, democracy, pluralism, liberalism, socialism, and Marxism,[7][8] fascism is placed on the far-right wing within the traditional left'right spectrum.[4][8][9]

I agree that authoritarianism is very similar right vs left. Neither tolerate dissent, both can pass arbitrary laws at a whim (just by edict), subordination of the individual, etc. However, in the traditional left/right spectrum, fascism is far right. Again, from the wiki (with citations):

I've covered this. Mussolini recognized that international socialism was never happening, so he adapted it to his needs. Hence, fascism's left wing origins.

Yes, but you are (mostly) in contradiction to the scholarship on this issue. Again, from the wiki (with citations):

Fascism's origins are complex and include many seemingly contradictory viewpoints, ultimately centered on a mythos of national rebirth from decadence.[44] Fascism was founded during World War I by Italian national syndicalists who drew upon both left-wing organizational tactics and right-wing political views.[65] Italian Fascism gravitated to the right in the early 1920s.[66] A major element of fascist ideology that has been deemed to be far right is its stated goal to promote the right of a supposedly superior people to dominate, while purging society of supposedly inferior elements.[67]

So Mussolini used left-wing organizational tactics (which I assume was appealing to the downtrodden proletariat), but right-wing political views. To argue that is a spawn of the left is, at best, incomplete. And in its manifestation, it was clearly right-wing. And still is to this day. It is not in any way socialist or left-wing. It is the views that define any "-ism", not so much the origin (necessarily).

Left-wing authoritarians are not fascists because their views do not align with fascists, even if both are authoritarian.

Yes, but you are (mostly) in contradiction to the scholarship on this issue. Again, from the wiki (with citations):

Nope, because the facts all lay out as I've presented them. The only thing remaining is the fairly meaningless left/right label.

Left-wing authoritarians are not fascists because their views do not align with fascists, even if both are authoritarian.

Uh, huh. Riddle me this: what does a left-wing authoritarian regime look like?

Overall, we rate the American Thinker, Questionable based on extreme right-wing bias, promotion of conspiracy theories/pseudoscience, use of poor sources, and several failed fact checks. Low Credibility.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/american-thinker/#g...

So this is an extreme right wing propaganda mill.

Opposed to anarchism, democracy, pluralism, liberalism, socialism, and Marxism, fascism is placed on the far-right wing within the traditional left'right spectrum. Fascists saw World War I as a revolution that brought massive changes to the nature of war, society, the state, and technology. Wiki

...Otto and Gregor Strasser did much to grow the party by tying Hitler's racist nationalism to socialist rhetoric that appealed to the suffering lower middle classes...(Otto saw it wasn't socialist and left after a while)

...In April 1933 communists, socialists, democrats, and Jews were purged from the German civil service, and trade unions were outlawed the following month. That July Hitler banned all political parties other than his own, and prominent members of the German Communist Party and the Social Democratic Party were arrested and imprisoned in concentration camps. Lest there be any remaining questions about the political character of the Nazi revolution, Hitler ordered the murder of Gregor Strasser, an act that was carried out on June 30, 1934, during the Night of the Long Knives. Any remaining traces of socialist thought in the Nazi Party had been extinguished.
https://www.britannica.com/story/were-the-nazis-so...

So Hitler used the socialists, then merged with the right, and purged and murdered them out of the party.

Mussolini did start with the communists and he learned how to get people to listen to his ideas, but by the time he gained power, the communists that booted him out were forgotten.

This is the fallacy of Poisoning the Well. Won't fly. Facts are facts no matter what.

Wiki isn't a source. It's hilarious you guys are dumping on others while citing it.

Dope: This is the fallacy of Poisoning the Well. Won't fly. Facts are facts no matter what.

Me: Non-responsive and what was presented was opinion and not fact.


Dope: Wiki isn't a source. It's hilarious you guys are dumping on others while citing it.

Me: It's 2023 Dope. Wiki cites it's sources so you can look at them. Adios.

Facts are facts no matter what.


Now that is genuinely funny coming from a Trumper who has to live in a fact free world in order to maintain his political beliefs.

Me: It's 2023 Dope. Wiki cites it's sources so you can look at them. Adios.

Wiki has always cited sources. It doesn't mean that somebody who edited the article is credible.

It's 2023 Dope. Wiki cites it's sources so you can look at them.

Yep. They have become really good at citations.

And one citation I can't give is that I have forgotten more about WWII (and the lead-up to it) than most people will ever know. It was a hobby of mine when I was younger. I read about it voraciously. When I had to do book reports, I made them books about the War as much as I could. The wiki is correct, Dr Dope1 is wrong.

I still have a lot of my books. Like the entire Time/Life series about WWII. Prelude to War covers Mussolini, and the rise of fascism, and it's morphing into Nazism (which it considers related, but distinct from fascism because of the Nordic/Aryan mythos around Hitler). I just pulled it out and skimmed the bits about Mussolini in particular. It confirms what you and I and the wiki are saying. The scholarship has not changed since the publishing of this series, apparently.

I would say right-wing folks like to try to rewrite history. And they do. The left doesn't so much rewrite it, as condemn historical figures based on modern standards (e.g. Jefferson owned slaves). Interestingly, both want Jefferson either reviled or removed, but for different reasons. Both positions are wrong, IMO. History is what it is, and we shouldn't hide it -or contort it- just because we don't like it.

The wiki is correct, Dr Dope1 is wrong.

Nope.
Mussolini was a socialist. One of their leading ones, as a matter of fact.
He wanted Italy to join WWI, which wasn't the orthodoxy of the international socialists.
He soon realized that international socialism as envisioned by Marx and Engels wasn't going to happen and that a better way to achieve the goals lay in a more nationalistic version.

That's where fascism came from. These are all facts.

I would say right-wing folks like to try to rewrite history. And they do.

You guys aren't even trying anymore. Seriously. You're so caught up in feeling good about yourselves that you just don't want to even think about questioning any of the left's sacred cows.

History is what it is, and we shouldn't hide it -or contort it- just because we don't like it. - 1pg

--------------------

Damn right! However there needs to balance, fine to teach kids about the horrors of slavery but equal time should be given to the greatness of our country, the significant progress that has been made, and to the opportunities that are available.

They're incomplete facts. We're trying to complete them for you. If you care to check sources, you'll see where the scholarship is.

And, no, I'm not "feeling good about myself". History is what it is. I can accept that without taking it personally. It wouldn't matter to me if fascism had its roots in the left. But it really doesn't, except that Mussolini (and Hitler) used left talking points (downtrodden proletariat, etc), but their policies were very definitely right wing. Il Duce may have been a communist early-on, but they tossed him. Just because he continued to use the talking points doesn't mean he was a socialist.

Stalin (and the USSR) is probably the closest I can come to a left-wing autocracy. Probable the PRC before Nixon, too. I don't recall which leader of the USSR made his "communist compromise with capitalism", but that is when they diverged somewhat from the state owning all means of production. Probably either Stalin or Kruschev. Pretty sure that the PRC was similar, but now is allowing capitalism. Both regimes were autocratic, and oppressive. They have that in common with right-wing regimes like Pinochet, Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, and others. But their policies were different. Germany, for example, prized its industrialists. They had a command economy, but Messerschmidt was NOT owned by Hitler (or the state). Nor Henkel. Etc. For a long time in the USSR, those sorts of companies were owned by the state.

I see your point. The "greatness" is very subjective. I assume you don't want to just tell kids "we're great", but give them reasons to think so (e.g. due process, Bill of Rights, etc). If you teach civics, and history, you can let the kids decide for themselves. Slavery is a stain on this nation. But we ended it, passed the Reconstruction Amendments, and have slowly been improving. Are we done? Certainly not. We have come a long way, but we still have a ways to go. Teach all of that. Not that slavery helped the slaves (which is the latest drivel I've heard from the right recently).

Jefferson is a great example. He was a slave owner. He was also a principal architect of our nation. Kids need to know both of those things. And he was not inspired by the 10 Commandments (nor was Thomas Paine, or Madison, or anyone else). Teach the facts, good, bad, or neutral. But also teach how these influenced what we see today. History is about more than names and dates. We are where we are today because of past events, and we need to understand those events.

And one citation I can't give is that I have forgotten more about WWII (and the lead-up to it) than most people will ever know. It was a hobby of mine when I was younger. I read about it voraciously. When I had to do book reports, I made them books about the War as much as I could. The wiki is correct, Dr Dope1 is wrong.

I still have a lot of my books. Like the entire Time/Life series about WWII. Prelude to War covers Mussolini, and the rise of fascism, and it's morphing into Nazism (which it considers related, but distinct from fascism because of the Nordic/Aryan mythos around Hitler). I just pulled it out and skimmed the bits about Mussolini in particular.

Super. I didn't like history when I was younger - I was probably ADHD and didn't know it, liked math, B student overall in High School. In the Philippines I joined a FB group on the Phil Am war and found I could enjoy it, but I still only got partway through a book on it. I mostly read articles, looked at photos, and watched debates. And these were real historians, who had copies of the original materials on their computers. They spent two years posting photos and debating the war. I learned a lot and the USA was accused of a lot of things, and we did do some things, but get accused of a lot more.

HM: Damn right! However there needs to balance, fine to teach kids about the horrors of slavery but equal time should be given to the greatness of our country, the significant progress that has been made, and to the opportunities that are available.

You can't teach history properly without pointing out how unusual and historical our written Constitution is, that it was a product of the age of reason, and that many of the concepts of freedoms were essentially new. The structure was similar to many of the State Governments and you should teach the controversies and compromises, as we still live with those today. Teaching a clear view of slavery is not pretty and cannot be made pretty. Live with that.

We won the War but lost the Reconstruction and to this day pay that.

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.