On 16 June, 00:31, Barry wrote:
Liberal fascism sounds like an oxymoron

It doesn't 'sound like' an oxymoron....it is one!

– or a term for conservatives
to insult liberals.

Well, let's say people who call themselves 'conservatives'. Genuine
conservatives (on both sides of the Atlantic) have more sense.

Actually, it was coined by a socialist writer,
none other than the respected and influential left-winger H.G. Wells,
who in 1931 called on fellow progressives to become "liberal fascists"
and "enlightened Nazis." Really.

Indeed. Let's explore this further.The origin of this garbage appears
to be the following article. The
citation is:-

Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 35, No. 4, 541-558 (2000)
(c) 2000 SAGE Publications

H.G. Wells's 'Liberal Fascism'
Philip Coupland
University of Warwick, UK

And here is the abstract:-

"During the 1930s H.G. Wells's theory of revolutionary praxis centred
around a concept of 'liberal fascism' whereby the Wellsian 'liberal'
utopia would be achieved by an authoritarian élite. Taking
inspiration from the militarized political movements of the 1930s,
this marked a
development in the Wellsian theory of revolution from the 'open
conspiracy' of the 1920s. Although both communist and fascist
movements evinced some of the desired qualities of a Wellsian
vanguard, it was fascism rather than communism which came closest to
Wells's ideal. However, in practice, despite the failure of
approaches to parties of the left and centre as possible agents of
revolution,
Wells rejected the British Union of Fascists. The disparity between
Wells's theory and his actions when faced by the reality of fascism
echoes the unresolved tension between ends and means at the heart of
the concept of 'liberal fascism'. "

You will note the following points:-

'Liberal fascism' refers to a tactic of revolution - the
imposition of a liberal revolution by means of an authoritarian coup
by an elite (possibly commanding a militarised organisation). And
there the resemblance ends....it has nothing whatever to do with the
actual philosophy behind the revolution, which is still essentially
liberal (in the sense of emancipatory) in nature.

Note also that Wells would have nothing to do with actual fascists.
Indeed, he was repelled by them.

But you can see how a second rater like Goldberg might get things
muddled ...

His words, indeed, fit a much larger pattern of fusing socialism with
fascism: Mussolini was a leading socialist figure who, during World
War I, turned away from internationalism in favor of Italian
nationalism and called the blend Fascism.

Which had nothing in common with socialism. He had the Matteoti, the
italian socialist leader murdered.

Likewise, Hitler headed the
National Socialist German Workers Party.

Which also had nothing in common with socialism. He put the Social
Democrats in concentration camps.


These facts jar

Actually, they only do to political illiterates like Goldberg and
yourself...


because they contradict the political spectrum that
has shaped our worldview since the late 1930s, which places communism
at the far left, followed by socialism, liberalism in the center,
conservatism, and then fascism on the far right. But this spectrum,
Jonah Goldberg points out in his brilliant, profound, and original new
book, Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left from
Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning (Doubleday),

It's actually a pile of crap that was panned in the serious media.


reflects Stalin's
use of fascist as an epithet to discredit anyone he wished – Trotsky,
Churchill, Russian peasants – and distorts reality. Already in 1946,
George Orwell noted that fascism had degenerated to signify "something
not desirable."

Orwell was referring to its use as an insult! So what! We all know
that it is used unthinkingly as an insult. Goldberg's book is still
crap, though.

To understand fascism in its full expression requires putting aside
Stalin's misrepresentation of the term and also look beyond the
Holocaust, and instead return to the period Goldberg terms the
"fascist moment," roughly 1910-35. A statist ideology,

If you define 'stae' as part of a corporate entity, a vision of
society...

fascism uses
politics as the tool to transform society from atomized individuals
into an organic whole.

Well, so does (genuine) conservatism! Or haven't you notices? The
difference is that fascism utilises race as the ultimate poltical
solvent, and (in some versions) outlines a theory of a so-called
revolution.

It does so by exalting the state over the
individual, expert knowledge over democracy, enforced consensus over
debate, and socialism over capitalism.

True socialism is about individual emancipation. Fascism is the exact
opposite.

It is totalitarian in
Mussolini's original meaning of the term, of "Everything in the State,
nothing outside the State, nothing against the State." Fascism's
message boils down to "Enough talk, more action!" Its lasting appeal
is getting things done.

In contrast, conservatism calls for limited government,

Not all versions do.

individualism,
democratic debate, and capitalism. Its appeal is liberty and leaving
citizens alone.

That isn't always the case. You see, the problem is that Godberg is
American. All his concepts belong to parts of the American right.
That's why some reviewers say that he doesn't understand fascism,
which stands in a European political tradition.


Goldberg's triumph is establishing the kinship between communism,
fascism, and liberalism.

Which he cannot do, because such kinship does not exist.

All derive from the same tradition that goes
back to the Jacobins of the French Revolution.

Really? And not Thomas Acquinas? Or Aristotle?


His revised political
spectrum would focus on the role of the state and go from
libertarianism to conservatism to fascism in its many guises –
American, Italian, German, Russian, Chinese, Cuban, and so on.

Cuban fascism????

(Rest of sh*t deleted.)

Boy, you people are in trouble!!!!!

Dr. Barry Worthington