Liberal fascism sounds like an oxymoron – or a term for conservatives
to insult liberals. 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.

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. Likewise, Hitler headed the
National Socialist German Workers Party.

These facts jar 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), 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."

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, fascism uses
politics as the tool to transform society from atomized individuals
into an organic whole. It does so by exalting the state over the
individual, expert knowledge over democracy, enforced consensus over
debate, and socialism over capitalism. 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, individualism,
democratic debate, and capitalism. Its appeal is liberty and leaving
citizens alone.

Goldberg's triumph is establishing the kinship between communism,
fascism, and liberalism. All derive from the same tradition that goes
back to the Jacobins of the French Revolution. 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.


As this listing suggests, fascism is flexible; different iterations
differ in specifics but they share "emotional or instinctual
impulses." Mussolini tweaked the socialist agenda to emphasize the
state; Lenin made workers the vanguard party; Hitler added race. If
the German version was militaristic, the American one (which Goldberg
calls liberal fascism) is nearly pacifist. Goldberg quotes historian
Richard Pipes on this point: "Bolshevism and Fascism were heresies of
socialism." He proves this confluence in two ways.

First, he offers a "secret history of the American left":

Woodrow Wilson's Progressivism featured a "militaristic, fanatically
nationalist, imperialist, racist" program, enabled by the exigencies
of World War I.
Franklin D. Roosevelt's "fascist New Deal" built on and extended
Wilson's government.
Lyndon B. Johnson's Great Society established the modern welfare
state, "the ultimate fruition" (so far) of this statist tradition.
The youthful New Left revolutionaries of the 1960s brought about "an
Americanized updating" of the European Old Right.
Hillary Clinton hopes "to insert the state deep into family life," an
essential step of the totalitarian project.
To sum up a near-century of history, if the American political system
traditionally encouraged the pursuit of happiness, "more and more of
us want to stop chasing it and have it delivered."

Second, Goldberg dissects American liberal programs – racial,
economic, environmental, even the "cult of the organic" – and shows
their affinities to those of Mussolini and Hitler.

If this summary sounds mind-numbingly implausible, read Liberal
Fascism in full for its colorful quotes and convincing documentation.
The author, hitherto known as a smart, sharp-elbowed polemicist, has
proven himself a major political thinker.

Beyond offering a radically different way to understand modern
politics, in which fascist is no more a slander than socialist,
Goldberg's extraordinary book provides conservatives with the tools to
reply to their liberal tormentors and eventually go on the offensive.
If liberals can eternally raise the specter of Joseph McCarthy,
conservatives can counter with that of Benito Mussolini.

http://townhall.com/Columnists/Danie...lism?page=full

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

On Jun 16, 3:27*am, "Dr. Barry Worthington"
wrote:
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

DrBW,

Try to use 1930s Definitions to Deny that Liberal-Fascism
Does Exist in the 21st Century is an Tired Old Argument.
-ps- Yeah We Got Trouble Right Here In Liberal City !
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Fascism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonah_Goldberg
http://liberalfascism.nationalreview.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsFoiVZDSRs
"Everything You Know About Fascism Is Wrong"
http://books.google.com/books?id=wHi...snum=7#PPA7,M1

Dr. Barry Worthington wrote:


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


Casting pearls before swine, Doctor?



mike



--
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __
/ /\ / /\ / /\ / /\ / /\ / /\ / /\ / /
/ /\ \/ /\'Think tanks cleaned cheap' /\ \/ /
/_/ \/_/ \/_/ \/_/ \/_/ \/_/ \/_/ \/_/

Densa International©
For the OTHER two percent.



Due to the insane amount of spam and garbage,
I block all postings with a Gmail, Google Mail,
Google Groups or HOTMAIL address.
I also filter everything from a .cn server.


For solutions which may work for you, please check:
http://improve-usenet.org/

On Jun 16, 9:15*am, m II wrote:
Dr. Barry Worthington wrote:
Indeed. Let's explore this further.The origin of this garbage appears
to be the following article.

- Casting pearls before swine, Doctor?
-
- mike

Try to use 1930s Definitions to Deny that
Liberal-Fascism Does Exist in the 21st
Century is an Tired Old Argument.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.r...d91b4a2e4429c9


--
* *__ * *__ * *__ * *__ * *__ * *__ * *__ * *__
* / /\ */ /\ */ /\ */ /\ */ /\ */ /\ */ /\ */ /
*/ /\ \/ /\'Think tanks cleaned cheap' /\ \/ /
/_/ *\/_/ *\/_/ *\/_/ *\/_/ *\/_/ *\/_/ *\/_/

* * * * * * *Densa International©
* * * * * For the OTHER two percent.

* Due to the insane amount of spam and garbage,
*I block all postings with a Gmail, Google Mail,
* * * *Google Groups or HOTMAIL address.
* *I also filter everything from a .cn server.

For solutions which may work for you, please check:
* * * * * *http://improve-usenet.org/

On 16 June, 17:20, "~ RHF" wrote:
On Jun 16, 9:15*am, m II wrote: Dr. Barry Worthington wrote:
Indeed. Let's explore this further.The origin of this garbage appears
to be the following article.

- Casting pearls before swine, Doctor?
-
- mike

Try to use 1930s Definitions to Deny that
Liberal-Fascism Does Exist in the 21st
Century is an Tired Old Argument.http://groups.google.com/group/rec.r...d91b4a2e4429c9

I have tried to respond to your original reply, but the system will
not let me. So I will answer here.

Firstly, I expect you to answer the points that I made in my posting.
If you cannot, I am not prepared to to deal with a lot of citations
from a variety of sites that appear to be hagiography of Jonah
Goldberg. Do you have an opinion on the Coupland article? Or are you
just conent to parrot any amount of junk?

Secondly, I should point out that a number of us have had problems
with the wikipedia site entry for Liberal Fascism, since someone is
determined to revert material that is posted about H.G. Wells on this
matter.

Dr. Barry Worthington





--
* *__ * *__ * *__ * *__ * *__ * *__ * *__ * *__
* / /\ */ /\ */ /\ */ /\ */ /\ */ /\ */ /\ */ /
*/ /\ \/ /\'Think tanks cleaned cheap' /\ \/ /
/_/ *\/_/ *\/_/ *\/_/ *\/_/ *\/_/ *\/_/ *\/_/

* * * * * * *Densa International©
* * * * * For the OTHER two percent.

* Due to the insane amount of spam and garbage,
*I block all postings with a Gmail, Google Mail,
* * * *Google Groups or HOTMAIL address.
* *I also filter everything from a .cn server.

For solutions which may work for you, please check:
* * * * * *http://improve-usenet.org/- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Jun 16, 5:27*am, "Dr. Barry Worthington"
wrote:

(Rest of sh*t deleted.)

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

Dr. Barry Worthington

And it's all your fault!

Yet ANOTHER Liberal Fascist!

Name: Dr. Barry Worthington
Location: Abertay University, Dundee - (rolling eyes)
Title: Tourism Lecturer - bwaHAHAHAHAHA!
Industry: Education - Liberal Fascism
Email address:
About me: "I AM A SOCIALIST" - ROTFLMAO!

Ja, on the road to serfdom - HEIL HITLER HerR Professor!

pffft-bwaHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

On Jun 16, 5:27*am, "Dr. Barry Worthington"
wrote:
On 16 June, 00:31, Barry wrote:

Liberal fascism sounds like an oxymoron

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


They're still pushing Goldbergs imbecilic claim that Mussolini's
"Ultimate merging of state and corporate power" is liberal. Well,
somebody forgot to tell the Republicans, because that was the meaning
of life for them for the last eight years. Letting corporations run an
extremely militaristic government while letting them set policy, carry
out wars-for-profit, letting them write their own legislation and then
letting them sponge off the taxpayers after they looted the country is
not even distantly related to that capitalism hating liberalism we're
always hearing about and being accused of fostering. It should also be
noted that the same people pushing this line of BS are simultaneously
calling Obama a Marxist. This isn't even worth arguing about. It's
just another piece of right wing driftwood, like "The Holocaust museum
shooter was a liberal" or "Obama is a secret Muslim."