“Liberal Fascism” - The end of freedom and prosperity
By Ted Belman
Jonah Goldberg recently wrote the book “Liberal Fascism”. He was interviewed by Glen Beck and the interviews can be seen on YouTube.. There are six parts to watch.
Wikepedia defines “fascism”. It seeks to form a mass movement of militants who are willing to engage in violence against their political opponents and groups or individuals that the movement deems to be enemies. Fascists wish to solve existing economic, political, and social problems by achieving a millenarian national rebirth by exalting the nation or race as well as promoting cults of unity, strength and purity. Fascism opposes the political ideologies of communism, liberalism and conservatism as well as political concepts and systems such as democracy, individualism, materialism, pacifism, and pluralism.
Various scholars attribute different characteristics to fascism, but the following elements are usually seen as its integral parts: nationalism (including collectivism and populism based on nationalist values);
In a Salon interview, Goldberg defined fascism. “I see fascism as a political religion. That doesn’t mean I think there’s some book, like a bible, that if you read it you will become a convert to this political religion. Rather I think it is a religious impulse that resides in all of us — left, right, black, white, tall, short — to seek unity in all things, to believe that we need to all work together to go past any of our disagreements and that the state needs to be, almost simply as a pragmatic matter, the pace-setter, the enforcer of this cult of unity. That is what I believe fascism is.”
Liberalism or progressivism seeks to create a nanny state in which the state mandates all kinds of things for the good of the people. And no person is entitled to opt out or to thwart the decisions of the state. Thus liberal fascism.
Goldberg has on his cover a happy face with a Hitler mustache on it. By this he suggests that liberal fascism is appealing. Many people want a nanny state and thus are drawn to Hugo Chavez, Che Guevera and Barack Obama. i.e., fascism with a happy face. But as we have seen with Nazism, Communism and Islam, it can have dire consequences.
In all cases it is accompanied by mind control which starts with controlling the message. Remember George Orwell’s 1984, or Mao’s farms for re-education or Arafat’s inculcation of Jew hatred
Barak Obama is a proponent of liberal fascism. Not only does he want to take care of everyone, he means to take your money as if he was entitled to it, in order to finance his, the state’s, plans. Gov. Palin pointed this out in her stump speeches. Joe Biden called giving your money to the state “patriotic”.
In order to accomplish his ends he has concentrated on reeducating the kids to reject conventional wisdom and embrace his and Bill Ayers, wisdom. He supported ACORN and trained them to be shock troops. He mobilized moveon.org and the MSM to assist in cudgeling the people. We have seen videos of kids in school in fatigues chanting pro-Obama messages. This is very suggestive of the Hitler Youth movement that all German children were required to join.
Many schools in the US are now educating the children to these socialist principles without the consent of the parents. Its called “social engineering”.
On September 4th Investor’s Business Daily (IBD), a mainstream paper of great repute, reported,
-
“Barack Obama was a founding member of the board of Public Allies in 1992, resigning before his wife became executive director of the Chicago chapter of Public Allies in 1993.
Big Brother had nothing on the Obamas. They plan to herd American youth into government-funded reeducation camps where they’ll be brainwashed into thinking America is a racist, oppressive place in need of ‘social change.
The pitch Public Allies makes on its Web site doesn’t seem all that radical. It promises to place young adults (18-30) in paid one-year “community leadership” positions with nonprofit or government agencies. They’ll also be required to attend weekly training workshops and three retreats.
In exchange, they’ll get a monthly stipend of up to $1,800, plus paid health and child care. They also get a post-service education award of $4,725 that can be used to pay off past student loans or fund future education.
But its real mission is to radicalize American youth and use them to bring about “social change” through threats, pressure, tension and confrontation — the tactics used by the father of community organizing, Saul “The Red” Alinsky.
By Lee Cary wrote about Obama’s Civilian National Security Force
-
Barack Obama’s recent words to promote his image as Community Organizer in Chief were not about forming a paramilitary force of volunteer brown shirts. They were about turning America into one, giant, community organizer’s sandbox at enormous cost to taxpayers.
Senator Obama was nearly 17 minutes into his July 2 speech (yet another one where naming Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was required) in Colorado Springs, Colorado when he deviated from his pre-released script and performed without the teleprompter net saying,
“We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.” (emphasis added)
The immediate context for that amazing statement was a preview of parts of his plan to vastly expand community service opportunities for Americans of nearly all ages. He said,
“People of all ages, stations, and skills will be asked to serve.”
On his web site he said that people would be “required” to serve. After much criticism he changed it to read “asked” to serve.
And to make matters easier for his plans, he wants to disarm the people.
To be fair, both liberals and conservatives want to provide a security net for the people. They debate how big and strong that net should be. The real issue is at what cost to our freedom and independence. Conservatives are trying to protect such things and the liberals don’t value them in the same way or to he same extent. They value the collective over the individual.
Democrats are quick to charge Republicans with fascism because, for example, Republicans want to maintain Guantanimo Bay and want profiling or wire tapping in certain cases. In effect they say this is an infringement of personal rights. As I said just above, providing the security net or or this case security itself, certain rights are infringed. What separates us is when restrictions are warranted and when they are not. Everyone must decide for themselves what is the biggest threat to their freedom.
Taking care of the weak in society is an admirable objective. The liberals have claimed this as their brand. But will they deliver on their promise?
Larrey Anderson in Waltzing on the Titanic doesn’t think so.
-
[..] They (young people in Europe) have been taught, since their first day in school, that capitalism is evil — that the government can, and should, provide health care, employment, and eventually, guaranteed retirement benefits for everyone.
In their leisurely conversations when they have finished condemning capitalism, they go on to praise the idea of socialism. They do not praise their own countries. They are not stupid. The health care stinks. (Young people don’t care much about that.) There are no jobs. (But there are unemployment benefits.) And the retirement systems are bankrupt. (But old age is way, way, way in the future.)
So, they argue, in the next election they are going to replace the loser socialists who currently run their countries with some real socialists — politicians who will finally keep their promises. I heard this discussion in France thirty years ago. I heard it the last time I was in Italy. It is taking place in Greece right now.
The last time I was in Rome I listened as a very bright young man explained to his friends, over lunch at a sidewalk café, what was really going on: Most European countries have become, essentially, plutocracies. The socialist governments give lip service to wealth redistribution but they are tightly interwoven with the “old money” in the banking system and in big business.
[..] Listen up young Americans: What is coming to the United States is what has been happening in Europe for decades. The ships of state have smashed into an iceberg called socialism and they are sinking.
This is not a Republican versus Democrat thing. Republicans had ten years to clean up the mess. They made it worse. I don’t blame you for wanting to throw the bums out. I did too.
But putting in a new and improved and ever more aggressive socialist like Obama is not the answer. (Don’t argue about his socialism. Go to his website and show me some free market proposals.) They have been trying this in Europe for three generations. It has not worked.
That trillion-dollar “bi-partisan” bailout passed by our Congress did not go to the people who cannot make their house payments. It is being handed out to the big bankers and to big business.
That is how socialism works. Politicians, bankers, and big businessmen do an age-old dance in triple time. There is no trickle down economics in socialism. Almost all of the money stays at the top.
In fact once the government has you on the dole, it has you.
Bush to his credit made an impassioned speech this week in defense of free markets.
-
“Free-market capitalism is far more than an economic theory. It is the engine of social mobility, the highway to the American dream.”
“At its most basic level, capitalism offers people the freedom to choose where they work and what they do … the dignity that comes with profiting from their talent and hard work. … The free-market system also provides the incentives that lead to prosperity — the incentive to work, to innovate, to save and invest wisely, and to create jobs for others.”
The NYT was quick to disparage him. But the market soared 550 points.
Europe is concerned with the election of Obama. James Lewis tells us why in Why Europe is secretly afraid of a socialist America
-
Suppose you’ve been living under the protective wings of a benevolent superpower for sixty years. And suppose you’ve used that big half century to take off on an endless vacation — spending all your tax money to buy votes for the socialist Ruling Class. It’s been one long, grand, drug-infested, sex-drenched, self-indulgent, tabloid party scene. Any time danger threatens you look to Washington for protection. The rest of the time you noisily abuse those Yankee imperialists, merely to boost your fragile ego. Corruption has become pervasive.
That’s Europe today.
What a sweet deal.
But now you see your guardian superpower electing a guy who wants to follow your example. Whooops! Time to sober up. Fast.
Yes, you went hoarse cheering Obama’s ego trip at the Berlin Victory Monument, because you love the idea that O will teach America to love Eurosocialism forever and ever. But shivers are running up and down your spine — because if he is what you think he is, America won’t be there any more to save you. It will just slide into vegetarian nihilism and leave Europe to the New Soviet Empire.
Europe would crumble like a soggy crouton without America’s commitment to its defense. We saw that happen three times in the 20th century, and the bad news is that it’s starting again. Real danger is at the gates; Europe’s Ruling Class is in denial; and half of it is preparing to surrender to the Russians or the Muslim fascists, whichever gets there first. [..]
Beware. Be very aware.
ADDENDUM
In Rabin Day, Naomi Ragen - points out how the left in Israel is fascist.
-
Today is the 13th anniversary of the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin according to the Jewish calendar. In Israel the week around the day has long been turned by the Israeli political establishment into an annual ritual of McCarthyist attacks on freedom of speech. In ceremony after ceremony and speech after speech, Israelis are reminded by their politicians and by the chattering class that Rabin was murdered because those who disagreed with his policies were allowed to exercise freedom of speech. The myth of a conspiracy by Rabbis and by the political Right to have Rabin killed is repeated with all the mechanical repetition of the Big Lies of two generations ago. This year, even Olmert repeated it, although he was a member of the Likud in 95 and is clearly one of those the McCarthyist Left asserts is collectively guilty of the murder.
Never mind that not a single Rabbi has been identified as having expressed approval of the idea of killing Rabin, nor approval after it happened, and not a single politician from the Israeli Right cheered or said hurrah when Rabin was killed. A handful of fringe Kahanists might have said hurrah, half of whom were probably police moles, but they are hardly representative of the half of Israelis who opposed Rabin’s policies.
I disliked Rabin and his policies. I think his policies were disasters and that they directly produced the 2000 or so Israeli deaths from the Oslo “peace process.” That does not make me a killer of Rabin. I am tired of being accused by the McCarthyists of having been part of the assassination. Like virtually everyone else who hated Rabin’s foolish policies, I wanted him evicted from power via an election and not murdered. I also want Kadima evicted via an election.
The anniversary of Rabin’s killing could have been turned into a day of education about democracy and freedom of speech. A day in which Israeli children are reminded that political assassination is an attack on democracy, and where they are also reminded that everyone has the right to freedom of speech even if they disagree with the leftist canon. Most importantly, a constructive Rabin Day would remind Israelis of the massive anti-democratic wave of McCarthyism launched by the Left right after the assassination, in which dissidents (including Rabbis) were arrested, indicted, harassed, demonized.
On a constructive Rabin Day, Israelis should also be warned of the efforts at deification of Rabin and the attempt to build around him a cult of personality, where his policies have been represented not as controversial and often foolish political proposals, but instead are raised to unchallengeable theological canon. A constructive Rabin Day might also address the dangers to democracy from a situation in which the entire media are self-recruited for one wing of the political spectrum. A constructive Rabin Day might point out the dangers to democracy of incidents such as Ehud Barak’s getting up and screaming that those who disagree with the Left are a cancerous tumor. In a week in which a communist candidate is running for mayor of Tel Aviv, a constructive Rabin Day might be spent discussing the dangers of totalitarian ideologies.
The McCarthyism around Rabin Day reasserts itself in the Israeli media every year. This year it is being fed by hysteria over an attempt to bomb far-leftist anti-democratic Prof. Zeev Sternhell, an attack attributed by the Israeli media with no evidence whatsoever to the political Right and to “settlers.” The media continue to demonize daily the Jews who live inside the West Bank as violent criminals.
One component of the Big Lie invented by Israel’s McCarthyist Left is that the political Right consists of people who are congenitally lawless and violent. No one denies that there have been a handful of violent criminals to emerge from the Right, people universally repudiated by the leaders and thinkers in the Right. Yigal Amir may be the worst.
But let us not forget the long long long history of crime and violence by the Left. Leftist hooligans clash violently with police and soldiers in the West Bank every day, trying to sabotage the security fence so that the terrorists can get in more easily. The Left produced the spies and the traitors, including Mordecai Vanunu, Azmi Bishara, Tali Fahima, Marcus Klingberg, and including the ring of espionage and terror operated by kibbutznik Udi Adiv (today a lecturer in political science at the Open University) in the 1970s. Those with long memories will remember the earlier campaigns of leftist violence against the Right in the 1940s, the “season,” the sinking of the Altalena, the betraying of members of the Edsel to the British by the Left, the gangs of street thugs operated by Ben Gurion to beat opponents, etc.
A constructive Rabin Day, devoted to stopping political violence and promoting open political debate, would mention not only Yigal Amir and the clown who threw a grenade at a Peace Now demonstration in 1983, killing protester Emil Grunzweig, but also Vanunu and Adiv and the others.
You missed out a part: “… while not actually being part of that collective.”
The so-called elites are preening themselves to be part of those GOVERNING the collective, not part of those within it, because - well - that’s where they naturally belong.
Further reading? Animal Farm by George Orwell.
Comment by keelie — November 15, 2008 @ 11:22 am
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 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.
what is currently labeled “liberal” politics is actually the current version of what was known as “Progressivism” in the 19th and early 20th centuries. This is in contrast to modern “conservatives,” who would have been labeled “liberals” during this time period. Progressives considered themselves to be “pragmatic,” that is, not bound to any fixed ideology. They therefore did not recognize any inherent limitation on the power of the State to achieve desired social ends. For example, Prohibition and eugenics were both very popular within the Progressive movement, as was a frankly imperialist foreign policy that was seen as bringing modernism to backward parts of the world. H.G. Wells, who sought to create “liberal fascists” and “enlightened Nazis.” That is, he was in favor of expanding and using State power to move society “forward,” over the objections of “conservative” forces attached to a more limited governments bound by traditions, constitutions, and parliaments.
Liberal Fascism: The Totalitarian Temptation from Mussolini to Hillary Clinton By Jonah Goldberg
Comment by yamit82 — November 15, 2008 @ 11:53 am
Thanks Yamit. You gave me the idea for this post.
Comment by Ted Belman — November 15, 2008 @ 12:56 pm
Mike Packer sent me this.
Comment by Ted Belman — November 15, 2008 @ 1:47 pm
Great thoughts Mike! I posted previously a quote from Aristotle:
Tolerance and Apathy is the last virtue of a dying society.
Mass democracy, is inherently evil. Politically active, engaged populations seek to determine policies and control politicians, but such control is short-lived. People hate doing this useless job, and the control of elected government soon proves useless. People hate responsibility, and political demagogues urge them to trust the government. When someone promises to care about you, and everyone around seems to concur, you also tend to concur.
Small groups are still reasoning entities, but reason disappears from large populations. The major reason for that is the mob tendency of adapting to the lowest common denominator: people shrink from offending others, realizing subconsciously that that may be dangerous, and seek the common points with them. The common point is the lowest common denominator, and for the large country such denominator is really low.
If the problems are both hard and not imminent, people prefer avoiding them. So, the demagogues are voted into the offices even though their promises are evidently absurd. “The dream of reason produces monsters.” Any candidate who tells the unpleasant truth to the mob has no chances of being elected.
Democracy is a very accidental political system. It was never practiced on large scale in antiquity, but only in small cities where participatory democracy remains viable. In all cases, democracy quickly eroded into demagoguery, tyranny, and then monarchy. Modern states erroneously identified as democracies are actually republics, the difference being that some basic values in republics are closed to democratic discourse; on the other hand, even theocracy allows democratic decision-making on mundane issues while the core values are kept non-negotiable. Democracy gained popularity during the Renaissance when westerners marveled at everything ancient. Unlike the classic art, democracy remained popular because it allowed the ruling classes to rule as if by popular consent (manufacturing and twisting that consent) and provided academics with the opportunity to legitimately influence societies with social theories.
Comment by yamit82 — November 15, 2008 @ 2:19 pm
The Second American Revolution
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKFKGrmsBDk&NR=1
Comment by yamit82 — November 15, 2008 @ 2:26 pm
Senator Obama’s “Civilian National Security Force”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AdF5TQIv1fU&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6eKcszDGUiE&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLKcQHWytfE&feature=related
Comment by yamit82 — November 15, 2008 @ 2:42 pm
I would throw in one of my favorite quotes from Madison (which someone should have read to Bush before he went off on his silly ‘democracy’ kick):
Democracy is the most vile form of government… democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention: have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property: and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.
James Madison
I would end by noting that the most glaring difference between the structure of the US government and everyone else in the world is that the US is the only nation in which the individual is the fundamental political entity. For the Euro-style parliamentary systems, the party is the fundamental political entity. This stress on individualism is why the US has been so much freer and more successful than the rest of the world. Individualism has been at the basis of our governing culture … at least it was until the US went nuts and voted for BHO and collectivism. The Democrats in Congress don’t seem to understand this fundamental difference, either, which is why they enjoyed having idiotic ‘no-confidence’ votes that are entirely meaningless in the US legislature, but made them feel more like a European parliament. Unfortunately, most Americans don’t have any idea that the US has always stood alone in our individualistic political structure.
Comment by progressoverpeace — November 15, 2008 @ 2:53 pm
I made some amendments to the article.
Comment by Ted Belman — November 15, 2008 @ 4:28 pm
Classic case of the pot calling the kettle black-above quotation straight out of The American Nazi Party propaganda literature.
Comment by celia — November 15, 2008 @ 5:32 pm
Rahm Emanuel sorry he is not an Arab
Obama chief of staff’s father is a very right-wing Jew, a former member of Irgun. In the interview to Maariv, he wrongly surmised that Rahm will be very pro-Israel because “he is not an Arab.” (Never mind Jimmy Carter also was not an Arab.)
Rahm apologized to American Arabs for his father’s remark.
Obama chief of staff’s father is a very right-wing Jew, a former member of Irgun. In the interview to Maariv, he wrongly surmised that Rahm will be very pro-Israel because “he is not an Arab.” (Never mind Jimmy Carter also was not an Arab.)
Rahm apologized to American Arabs for his father’s remark.
Pro-Jewish expo vandalized in Germany
A thousand anti-Semitic students and human rights activists wrought havoc in Humboldt University over an exhibition which depicts Nazi persecution of Jewish businesses
Comment by yamit82 — November 15, 2008 @ 6:17 pm
What silliness! Prof olsen gives us acres of land won by the GOP/ golly. and I had thought just winning both the electoral college and the popular vote was all it took to win an election. don’t you think it is time for the Right to cut the incoming people’s choice some slack. After all, he has not even taken the office and there you are with the badmouthing and sniping.
As for how long the nation will last: Rove was going to give us a permanent Republican majority! And guess what?
What you need to do: ask why after 8 years the nation felt compelled to elect a new guy and pretty much a new con gress. and put–a black in the White House! Why? Because of the total and utter failure of Bush and his minions. Total failure. And the public turned against the mess they created in not just one but in the last two elections.
Instead of this silly stuff why not put together an agenda and some good candidates and think positive. We Americans have had enough of the name calling, sniping, petty nonsense in lieu of ideas…
IN Sum:GET REAL
Comment by davidstill — November 15, 2008 @ 6:59 pm
Sadly, collectivism, another utopian idiocy, sounds good to those who don’t understand its consequences.
For decades, our schools, all the way up through the university level, have dumbed down the understand of history, political science, and government — and done outright brainwashing so as to turn young minds into non-thinking leftists. I myself have given up on public education and even most private schools; I now work with groups of homeschoolers, teaching them honors courses.
The book Liberal Fascism is the outside-reading choice of one of my best government students this school term. He’s reading the book at my recommendation, and believe it or not, this young man has the intellectual ability and educational background to understand what he’s reading. So, there’s ONE who won’t be sucking down the Koolaid!
If BHO and the Dem Congress manage to put America even further down the road of socialism, there are some who will wake up. My question: Will enough wake up so as to reverse the slide?
To my great chagrin, two members of my extended family voted for Obama. There was no telling them the dangers in advance.
Comment by alwaysonwatch — November 15, 2008 @ 8:10 pm
email rec’d
Comment by Ted Belman — November 15, 2008 @ 8:29 pm
email rec’d
Comment by Ted Belman — November 15, 2008 @ 8:30 pm
IT CAN BE RESISTED SUCCESSFULLY!
And Chanukah is the model
A few righteous can win over a majority of wicked, even if the wicked are more powerful, because G-d assists the righteous and thwarts the wicked. Americans CAN keep their country from being swallowed up by the Leftists. But they have to do it based on America’s connection with G-d, as in “In God We Trust” as the Rebbe explains in that tape.
So, HAPPY THANKSGIVING, and Hatzlachah Rabbah!
Comment by yonaton — November 15, 2008 @ 9:42 pm
email rec’d
Comment by Ted Belman — November 15, 2008 @ 10:33 pm
Salon has an article “We’re all fascists now” as a result of “An interview with conservative pundit Jonah Goldberg, who argues that fascism is left-wing, not right-wing, and that contemporary liberals are fascism’s intellectual offspring.” The author obviously disagrees with Goldberg.
What’s the book about?
It’s a revisionist history. It’s an attempt to reconfigure, or I would say correct, the standard understanding of the political and ideological context that frames most of the ideological debates that we have had since, basically, World War II. There’s this idea that the further right you go the closer you get to Nazism and fascism, and the further left you go the closer you get to decency and all good things, or at least having the right intentions in your heart.
For 60 years most historians have been putting fascism on the right, or conservative, side of the political spectrum. What are you able to see that they weren’t?
The interview continues. Goldberg explains himself.
Comment by Ted Belman — November 15, 2008 @ 11:54 pm
NATIONALISM
the enemy no 1 of the actual western main stream ideology is : the concept of nation.
but we can observe also in history as in the present that the opponents of the concept of nation always seek to rule over the whole world, this is very good explained in the commentaries of the story of nimrod the king of babel who instituted that all men have to speak in one language and to pursue the same goal.
the opposition of the goyim against nationhood derives from the fact that israel is the only REAL nation, while all others are only sums of individuals. here again, the goyim are determined to destroy what they miss.
the war of nato against the serbs in yugoslavia was a war against authentical nationhood, and the war of christianity (including liberalism and human rights) and islam against israel is a war against authentic nationhood. in fact, there is only one nation that has the right to exist as a nation: the palestinians. this because they are not a nation and NEVER intended to be one…
Comment by Tar Yag — November 16, 2008 @ 3:54 am
One of the rallying cries at our nation’s founding was “No taxation without representation”. I believe the reverse should be true as well: no representation without taxation. What that means is, if you don’t contribute to a society, you don’t get to vote. Accommodation needs to be made for those whose contribution is non-financial, e.g., those who are not in the workforce because they are raising children or taking care of others, or who have been contributing members of society but are no longer making a monetary contribution because they are retired or physically disabled. Those who do not contribute because they are too mentally or psychologically disabled to do so–really shouldn’t have a vote. Too disabled to make a contribution? Too disabled to make a decision that’s binding on the rest of us!
I seem to recall that the founding fathers spoke of the need for the electorate to have “a stake in society”, and I think that just makes sense. Apart from the exceptions mentioned above, of those whose contribution might be non-material but none the less valuable and necessary for society, I think the rule should be “If you don’t produce some of the nation’s wealth, you don’t get to decide how the nation’s wealth is spent”.
Comment by alexisjemima — November 16, 2008 @ 4:42 am
I blogged this at “Power and Control” and “Classical Values”
Comment by M. Simon — November 16, 2008 @ 5:44 am
God is for the individual. The State is for the collective.
Once you put them together you lose your individual rights in the name of God. Because God wants us all to behave one way and the State as arbiter of God’s Law knows what is best for you and you wouldn’t want to disobey God would you? Of course not. So don’t disobey the State.
I’m sorry to say but Jesus got that one right. One very bright Jewish boy. (Now I don’t go along with those who made a cult out of him but, he had some good ideas.)
Comment by M. Simon — November 16, 2008 @ 6:09 am
At the end of Eisenhower’s term in office he was considered a failure.
Now a days of course it is considered some kind of quasi golden era.
It is too soon to determine Bush’s place in history. His standing with the electorate counts for little. Of course if Obama does better Bush will fall in esteem. If he does worse Bush will rise.
Think of the Shah of Iran - nothing but a murderer when he was driven out of Iran. Now a days many pine for the “good old days”.
Comment by M. Simon — November 16, 2008 @ 6:57 am
davidstill:
Yes, mostly by people like you, so you and the email writer (#12) quoted by Ted ought to just shut up.
It’s enough that the entire country was subject to the vilest lies, hypocrisy, and intimidation, even from the so-called free press, in an effort to elect Obama. You don’t have to continue lying to promote him now that he has been elected. Time will tell. Your mouth won’t.
Comment by keelie — November 16, 2008 @ 8:00 am
As a Torah observant Jew, I can assure you that is not what G-d told us as a nation of individuals, not at Sinai and not through any of the prophets.
Jesus had no authority and no integrity to supercede G-d’s laws. Moreso, he supposedly claimed not to deny G-d’s laws. Or perhaps he thought he was arguing with himself.
Wanting what you wish for doesn’t make it the truth.
Comment by Shy Guy — November 16, 2008 @ 9:00 am
Women in Green advises
Comment by Ted Belman — November 16, 2008 @ 9:32 am
email rec’d
Comment by Ted Belman — November 16, 2008 @ 10:59 am
email rec’d
Comment by Ted Belman — November 16, 2008 @ 11:00 am
Shy Guy,
Jews no longer follow God’s law. There are known Jewish adulterers. Why aren’t we having stoning parties for them? It is the law. Heck there are homosexual parades in Israel. Why aren’t observant Jews out there with machine guns (or at least rocks)? Why doesn’t any real court pass sentence? And why don’t you see any Jews with multiple (official) wives? That too is the law.
Really. It is impossible to read the Torah and look at modern Jewish practice and say we follow God’s law.
It has all been re-interpreted and rabbied to death. Why?
We are closer to Jesus and his interpretation of the law than we are to what is written in the Torah. If reality is any guide. And yet some still say God’s law is immutable. It is to laugh.
I’m sticking to the points you criticized. The state is for the collective. God is for the individual. It is the way to liberty. And Jews have chosen liberty. With all its discontents. This - in my opinion - is all to the good.
Times change and Jews change with it. This is all to the good.
Comment by M. Simon — November 16, 2008 @ 11:17 am
Keelie: You don’t tell anyone on Israpundit to shut up, least of all Davidstill, one of the most intelligent voices on this site.
Up is not down,
White is not black,
A dog is not a cat.
Fascism is still Right not Left,
and Keelie if you don’t feel comfortable with the freedom of expression, an integral part of Israpundit, may I suggest you comment on an alternative Right wing site such as,
http://www.americancivilrightsreview.com/jewwatch.htm
Comment by h peskin — November 16, 2008 @ 11:35 am
email rec’d
Comment by Ted Belman — November 16, 2008 @ 11:40 am
Speak for yourself.
In any case, that is the “bechirah” - the choice - G-d created you to chose from.
Yisrael, af al pi sheh’cht’im, Yisrael hem!
Capital crime was abolished by the sages precisely because of the reason that the Jewish nation denegrated themselves to the point where the Torah’s capital laws were no longer of benefit. That’s Jewish law, too. Go and learn.
Precisely because things are out of control. Don’t worry, we’ve paid, are paying and will continue paying. Stupid Jews don’t get it.
Cherem D’Rabbeinu Gershom and Minhag Yisrael K’halacha. That’s the law, too. And there’s no Torah law which OBLIGATES a husband to have multiple wives.
Go and learn. You obviously haven’t.
Because the Torah advocates placing protective measures around its laws to prevent their violation. Go and learn.
Only you are. And according the Paul, Jesus said to heck with the Torah’s laws for the most part.
Only by the arrogant. Hint, hint.
There is nothing new under the sun. Not even the Jews collective inability to learn from their recent past the cause and events which lead them to historical calamity. You are a classic example.
Comment by Shy Guy — November 16, 2008 @ 11:42 am
Hi, Ted.
I can’t keep up with all these posters. I appreciate this piece of yours, as well as others. You seem to be making a genuine effort to rationalize everything that’s been coming down upon us. That said, I don’t think that “Liberal Fascism” or “Fascist Liberalism” or “PostModern Neo-Platonism” or any other label one tries to pin on these things does much justice. Nevertheless, I will use a label of my own. How about,
“Mis-placed Messianism”?
The Liberal crazies who are calling for the dismemberment of Israel, as well as for same-sex marriages, sex without marriage, live-birth abortions and a plethora of simply wicked things, are basically people practicing and advocating good-old-fashioned immorality while trying to seem moral. While excusing their disgusting personal behavior, they claim to be fighting for a greater good — a “New Age” of peace and harmony, wherein the dead are raised through unbridled scientific accomplishment, where the nations are ruled by a benevolent “rod of iron” and the prophets of “false religion” (namely, the Bible) are made ashamed of their prophecies and publicly punished. This is just a “messianic age”, with Hashem removed and an “enlightened” oligarchy replacing Him.
You know the prophecies — the oligarchy is the ten horns, or the ten toes of iron mixed with clay, which stick together for a while, but ultimately crumble apart. In the end, a horn arises with the face of a man and a big mouth, who uproots three of the ten horns and takes over. That’s the fate of these Lefties, who think THEY will rule the world and issue in an ideal age in which they will live in ease and comfort (at our expense). Ultimately, they will all be done in by DA BOSS. Is that Fascism? Communism? Right? Left? It’s just godless humanity, doing what it does best. In the end, you KNOW what happens to DA BOSS. When his back’s turned,
WHAM!
I know that’s not very deep philosophy, but I studied Chemistry in school.
Shalom shalom
Comment by BlandOatmeal — November 16, 2008 @ 12:43 pm
Political labels simply cannot capture the entire essence of a particular person’s or group’s small lettered political thought and behavior. The world is much too complicated and probably always has been for any particular ideology to provide all answers and direction to its staunch adherents.
Ideologues, just like the ordinary person usually find their ideology cannot accommodate all prevailing circumstances or the exigencies of the moment and thus ideologues, just like ordinary people who have a usual bias towards some small lettered political thought, employ eclecticism as a practical way to adjust their particular biased views to help them make sense of the world around them.
Goldberg’s analysis is open to attack because he chose a political label that he immediately concedes is a revisionist characterization that clashes with conventional understandings and is at first blush a contradiction in terms.
To add insult to injury of Liberal sensitivities and sensibilities, Goldberg uses a smiley Hitler image that appears to suggest that Liberals are nice, but Hitler types nonetheless. It is no surprise therefore that liberals (& leftists) who feel that Goldberg’s book is a direct personal attack on them will react with outraged indignation as they have.
The interview Goldberg had with Coombs of Hannity and Coombs serves to actually make Goldberg’s case identifying Liberals as the fascists they are.
Coombs was out of control in his disdain and anger for Goldberg and much taken it seemed with the role he cast for himself as the defender of all Liberals Goldberg offended. Coombs in typical Liberal/Liberal – Left fashion offered Goldberg a forum to explain his book, but when Goldberg sought to do just that by responding to Coombs’ charges, Coombs proceeded to continually interrupt Goldberg every time Goldberg tried to answer Coombs.
Coombs was rude, disrespectful and constantly raised his voice to talk over Goldberg as Goldberg tried to answer Coombs’ charges. In the end, it wound up as a shouting match that explained nothing.
Coombs in typical liberal and liberal-left arrogant fashion, openly revealed his intolerance and disdain for any view he disagrees with.
As the liberal fascist he is, Coombs dishonestly got Goldberg to agree to what Goldberg was entitled to believe would be a civil interview and back and forth discussion.
From the get go it was clear that Coombs set Goldberg up to be trashed by him for the pleasure of Coombs’ liberal and liberal left viewing audience.
Coombs was as discredit to journalism and journalists,
Comment by Bill Narvey — November 16, 2008 @ 12:46 pm
peskin,
I’ll say what I damn well please; I don’t need you to either define me or define the limits to what I say. That’s MY freedom of expression.
I guess you’re measuring davidstill’s intelligence by your own measuring rod. You should have it checked out for accuracy.
Comment by keelie — November 16, 2008 @ 9:39 pm
Keelie: You know what-let’s make a deal-if you don’t tell Davidstill to shut up- I will not tell you to shut up. What’s fair is fair. Do we have a deal?
Comment by h peskin — November 16, 2008 @ 10:03 pm
The crux of “liberal fascism” today is that it replaces nationalism with internationalism, and has an effeminate approach rather than a masculine.
The first self proclaimed Liberal Fascist
Comment by RandyTexas — November 16, 2008 @ 10:12 pm
h peskin,
Says socialism is right not left. And he is correct. Within the realm of socialist thought fascism is right socialism and communism is left socialism. Within the wider discourse however, socialism is left.
Comment by M. Simon — November 16, 2008 @ 10:18 pm
Randy Texas: This might come as a surprise to you.
There is no Santa Claus.
There is no tooth fairy.
Belman is no Deity.
And
There are no Liberal Fascists.
only those on the conservative Right.
Comment by h peskin — November 16, 2008 @ 10:21 pm
Randy Texas: I might be making an erroneous judgement here, but might you be more at home at YouPorn.Com or Bangbros.Com than at Israpundit? I am making a snap guess based strictly on your name. I am trying to be helpful and no offence intended.
Comment by h peskin — November 16, 2008 @ 10:40 pm
Hey, Peskin, your name reminds us no less of a website appropriate for your name.
No erroneous judgement and offence intended.
Comment by Shy Guy — November 17, 2008 @ 2:14 am
I have finally diagnosed Peskins mental malady: there seems to be no other possibility unless as a child he was dropped on his head.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3iZdBAXi5_0
Comment by yamit82 — November 17, 2008 @ 5:17 am
PLEASE MAKE THAT VIDEO GO AWAY!!!!
Comment by Shy Guy — November 17, 2008 @ 5:21 am
After bar Kochba’s revolt, Jews lost jurisdiction over criminal matters. By some accounts, Jerusalemites lacked the power of capital punishment still a century earlier, when Roman procurators had to approve executions. In the Roman law, religious violations were not subject to capital punishment. At least those not the official religion of the Empire at any given time.
What matters that at least after Herod the Great Jews were unable to exercise caret, capital punishment for numerous (38) religious transgressions set out by the Torah. Nor were Jews able to exercise capital punishment for other religious crimes, where Torah prescribes specifically death rather than caret (removing the transgressor’s soul from among his people).
Rabbis, accordingly, made face-saving changes in Jewish law. They made death sentences impractical by erecting impossible burden of proof, and placed authority for capital punishment in the hands of Sanhedrin, which was hardly operational, certainly not as the criminal court after the 135 CE. Executions, therefore, were made legally impossible though seemingly carried out against Jewish traitors who endangered the communities before gentiles, and Rabbis also redefined caret as afterlife punishment.
Historically, rabbis did disburse capital punishment in the absence of Sanhedrin. The rabbinical doctrine of malshin, Jewish informants liable for execution because they endangered entire communities, could only develop with the capital jurisdiction in mind. Even Christian rulers, eager to avoid pogrom violence, granted Jews the authority of capital punishment in regard to informers, such as in Barcelona in 1383. In Thessaloniki, capital crime jurisdiction was granted by Christians in 1558 and confirmed by the invading Muslims. A famous case of executing informants took place in Ukrainian town of Ushitza in 1836. Jews in other countries, too, executed traitors.
Today, rabbis use the absence of Sanhedrin as an excuse to avoid punishments for religious transgressions, including executions of Jewish traitors who seek to abandon the Land of Israel.
Comment by yamit82 — November 17, 2008 @ 5:40 am
Only Ted has the power now, as for peskin? nobody seems to have that much power.
Comment by yamit82 — November 17, 2008 @ 5:44 am
Wells was probably influenced, as were Mussolini and Hitler, by the ORIGINAL fascists, the American “Progressives” from the early 1890’s.
Note that John Edwards touted himself as a “Progressive,” which would make him, what, maybe a neo-retro-proto-fascist?
Comment by yonaton — November 17, 2008 @ 6:54 am
RE: “Peskin’s malady” — Comment by yamit82 — November 17, 2008 @ 5:17 am
He’s a lefty, and EVERYTHING THEY KNOW IS WRONG.
For more details listen to Evan Sayet’s excellent Shiur on the topic.
Oh, and before the America “Progressives” there were … the French! (see fourth and fifth paragraphs down from top)
Comment by yonaton — November 17, 2008 @ 7:07 am
I LOVE this book! I don’t know if most of you here ever read it or bought it, but I did and it’s one out of many books I liked this year, next to Dick Morris’ book FLEECED. On Page 14 of LIBERAL FASCISM - “American liberalism is a totalitarian political religion, but not necessarily an Orwellian one. it is nice, not brutal. Nannying, not bullying. But it is definitely totalitarian.” On page 16, “No serious perso can deny that Marxist ideas had a profound impact on what we call liberalism.” On page 29, “Perhaps no elite institution in America was more accomodating to Fascism than Columbia University.” Indeed, the Iranian President invitation to Columbia University to speak PROVED this as a fact. I always wondered how people like Yasser Arafat, Hamas, Hizbollah, the Iranian President Ahminijihad, Sadaam Hussein, Fidel Castro, Gaddafi, and Obama were allowed to live…..it just makes sense that the democratic party was indeed planned by the communist agenda against America and fulfills the agenda of all ISRAEL HATING NATIONS, who, since World War I, have HATED JEWS and ISRAEL and have plotted the demise of God’s people for well over a century. Althought this systematic conspiracy fulfills the Ezekiel 38 and Revelation 20 Satanic agenda, the prophecies are very clear that such democratic strategies will be short lived, as they do not have the support or POWER of Earth’s Creator on their side - but FAITHFUL Israelis and those who love them do!
Comment by Michael Sunstar — November 17, 2008 @ 7:13 am
The God of Israel is not a democracy - HE IS KING! THE KING.
The God of Israel’s Laws and Commands are EVERLASTING, not something that can be altered, changed, edited, or deleted by the will of man, no matter how hard they try, although Daniel’s prophecy concludes that “CHANGE” of the set times and laws will be the theme of the anti-Christ (since man’s laws are always meant to be changed as they are not based on the will of Earth’s Creator).
Yes, God listened to Moses and has appointed thrones upon which those whom God has chosen is going to sit on and rule with Him forever in Eternity, but even though God will listen to what we have to say, it is always going to be HIS WILL and HIS DECISION.
If, by popular vote, Americans vote for a president that the God of Israel doesn’t approve of, that president’s plans are doomed to fail, but God often used bad presidents and kings to achieve a greater good and it was usually on behalf of Israel that God allowed certain rulers to have their time under the sun - but EVERY EMPIRE AND GOVERNMENT ON EARTH HAS FAILED because we turned away from the Lord of Creation and turned to our own will and way - and today, turning to our own will and way, thus turning away from the God of Israel, is the theme of liberal democrats - they turn away from Him instead of towards Him - and that is why their plans will only succeed for a short time, because as in the case of every evil empire of evil rulers throughout history, eventually THE GREATER GOOD WILL PREVAIL and Earth’s owner will come to Earth and claim that which is His - but first, all those who boasted against Him and against His people will be allowed to come full circle with their own ways and the trouble they’ve brought upon others recoils on themselves. The whole Bible confirms this kind of wrath against those who opposed the God of Israel - and it will be the same today as it was then - and those who turn to idols and other gods - are doomed to disaster!
Let us all rally together in support of not just THE LAND OF ISRAEL, BUT ISRAEL’S GOD! HE IS OUR ROCK AND FORTRESS DURING THESE TIMES OF DESTRUCTION and will be our FOUNDATION until prophecy is fulfilled.
Comment by Michael Sunstar — November 17, 2008 @ 7:26 am
email rec’d
Comment by Ted Belman — November 17, 2008 @ 10:19 am
The social contract requires the relinquishment of certain rights to protect other rights. So I understand your first sentence but would question whether its called fascism. Now a component of fascism is that the State is in league with the capitalists.
You are too quick to embrace Mosley and his aim “Sir Oswald’s sole aim was always to put an end to the scourge of war.”
Give me a break. War cannot be avoided. You support the suppression of the people to accomplish your view of what is good.
As I noted in my article the need is to balance the restrictions with the benefits and not go too far in any direction. I prefer the conservatives to manage the balancing act.
Comment by Ted Belman — November 17, 2008 @ 10:30 am
“Fascism balances individual liberty with duty and responsibility” — email rec’d #50
“Duty” to what? “Responsibility” to whom?
Fascism doesn’t “balance” anything. It usurps (hijacks) the role of G-d, and is a form of idolatry. It enslaves one person to the whim of another. Any time the State demands of individuals more than it has a right to according to G-d’s Laws, it is at odds with Him, and removes itself from His good graces. The same when a State doesn’t demand of it’s citizens what it has the right (and obligation) to under those Laws. America has been the best of the best of the Nations of the World. But the underminers who envy that position want to undo it, so they lie to gain power over her in order to destroy the good she represents.
“Too many people, these days, misuse the term “Fascism” to mean all the wrong things.”
And so your prescription is to deny what it really is just because some people slightly misuse the term, even though they use it more correctly than you do?
““liberals” are liberals, Fascists are Fascists.”
Right, BUT… Fascists have misappropriated the term “Liberal” in order to confuse people, exactly as you are trying to do. That’s why I never call them Liberals unless I put it in quotes. They are not Liberals. They are Leftists. And Fascism is one of the many evil manifestations of the essence of the Left, as are Socialism and Communism and Nazism. And what you call a misuse of the term “Fascist” is merely the use of that term as a synonym for it’s other kindred demons, which, while not strictly “correct” in detail, is absolutely correct in spirit.
Comment by yonaton — November 17, 2008 @ 12:12 pm
“Sir Oswald’s sole aim was always to put an end to the scourge of war.” — email post #50
That was, incidentally, the EXACT SAME LIE told by Mussolini and Hitler in order to gain power, which, after they gained power they conveniently abandoned. All other Fascists were pretenders to peace, as well, and whatever else the people wanted to hear…until they gained enough power where listening to the people was no longer necessary and the pretense could be dropped.
Why is it that the hopie changie “believers” always bring proofs of someone’s good character from the false claims they make, even when they later proved themselves liars by their actions? (rhetorical question, btw)
I wonder how many of Obama’s lies he will abandon? (Actually, I don’t “wonder,” but I will be taken aback by any lie he DOESN’T abandon.)
Comment by yonaton — November 17, 2008 @ 1:22 pm
[...] Israpundit ” Blog Archive ” “Liberal Fascism” - The end of freedom and ̷… [...]
Pingback by Government Grants to Start a Business « Government Grants — January 18, 2009 @ 12:46 am
[...] Israpundit ” Blog Archive ” “Liberal Fascism” - The end of freedom and ̷… [...]
Pingback by Government Grants to Start a Business « Government Grants — January 18, 2009 @ 12:46 am