Liberal Fascism

It has been said before that Hitler was a socialist, and that the Nazis were socialists/leftists. 

Just came across an awesome book by Jonah Goldberg that is very relevant to this topic and explains why fascism is a phenomena of the left, not of the right as is commonly believed.

The book is here: 
http://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Fascism-American-Mussolini-Politics/dp/0385511841/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1212735927&sr=8-1

Here's some interesting interviews with him: 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=on-qPdxcuG0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J30-eYb9SlE

A speech: 
http://myheritagemedia.org/gallery.asp?action=viewimage&categoryid=1&imageid=3524

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dict.asp?Word=fascism
"a.  A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism."

Stringent socioeconomic controls (big government/nanny statism),  censorship (such as the regulations advocated by liberals lately masquerading as campaign finance reform), centralization of government power  (big national government as opposed to more states rights, an idea of the left not the right), and dictatorship (as opposed to limited and constitutional government) are all concepts antithetical to traditional conservative or "classical liberal" modes of thought. 

Conservatives oppose centralization of government power and favor state's rights.  They oppose unbridled government power and support limited government.  They oppose "stringent" socioeconomic government controls, and support rolling back many laws and regulations that infringe on liberties. 

The idea that conservatives could be fascists is just absurd, and Jonah rips the notion to shreds in his intriguing new book.

>>40
Nice attempt at retarded denial, butthurt loser, however you are ignoring the fact that no one ever said right-wing fascist, while you were retarded enough to utter the phrase left-wing socialist. Cry more.

>>40
Also notice how the retard failed in copying the dialogue style. Even the simplest things are too hard for you...

http://politicalcompass.org/images/USelection2004.gif
http://politicalcompass.org/images/axeswithnames.gif

Is Bush closer to Fascism than Socialism? Yes. But I don't understand why a retarded libertarian would cry about this, since in their pathetic mindset everything but libertarianism is the same.

>>41-42
Butthurt retard thinking that I had any other post other than >>40 ITT and that BUSH IS RIGHT-WING FASHCIST, offering as proof a most retarded website with arbitrary charts.

>>43
Thanks for accepting the fact that you are a retarded loser who is screaming about arbitrary delusions with no backing or no one has ever said them. While the retardation I cited was screamed by someone clearly sharing some of your mental inadequacies.

You retards and the lengths you go to deny reality... Making up arbitrary definitions all by yourself full of logical fallacies is OK, but the website is arbitrary because it factually disproves your delusions, really funny, but a bit sad...

>>37
No, more sensible posters that do not use the following in every post -
- BAWWW
- 'Butthurt'
- 'Retardation'
- 'SOSHALIST' et al
- Poor attempts at undermining intelligence of opponent with blunt childlike statements.
- Insult instead of making valid points.
- Ending sentences with '...' to add effect and affect.

Really, regardless of your points, which may even be logically infallible in themselves, you will not be taken seriously while you keep doing this.

The fact remains, Liberals want to control more aspects of your personal and financial life than Conservatives, (and I do me conservatives, not neo-cons).  Liberalism leads to fascism because they do everything they can to limit free choice.

>>45
So, being retarded is OK, but exposing retardation is not? Sorry friend, either you are in the party who has been figuratively "butthurt" over this, or you have been in this board for about 10 seconds to not see what is inside. There are people who are retarded enough to genuinely think Bush is socialist - at first I tried to be civil when disproving their delusions, but shortly afterwards it became apparent that there was no salvation for these people, for they denied even the crystal-clear truth when handed over to them in a silver platter.

But, as I said, if you take CULTURAL MARXIST CONSPIRACY BUSH IS LEFT-WING SOCIALIST seriously, then look at the mirror for the problem, buddy. Glad if I could help you face reality...

>>46
Oh, like how conservatives are respecting civil liberties when it comes to things like abortion and crap. Sorry, "the ones who fail aren't from us" isn't a real argument, if you're going to try it, and while we're at it, let's ignore the fact how social-democratic countries in Europe enjoy far greater civil liberties than their American counterparts, and how the British new-labor switch to neo-liberal economics started a chain reaction resulting in transforming them into an almost American-grade police state right? Let's ignore reality and stick to our all-American basement retard delusions, right? LIBERALISM LEAD TO FASCISM BECAUSE I ARBITRARILY DECLARED IT SO WITH NO EXAMPLE IN HISTORY.

Though I don't understand why you're trying, because I believed people of your caliber simply went libertarian and declared everything else the same and evil.

>>48
Ok, maybe >>46 was a little one sided.  It's true, conservatives try to impose some restrictions, but not nearly as many.  Essentially they don't want fags getting married, or women getting abortions.  That's about it.

Liberals on the other hands want to control what you eat, how you spend your money, how you raise your children, how you educate them, want to ban smoking, and how you can protect yourself.

I'd say liberals learn more toward fascism.

>>48
There are plenty of real examples:
Liberals push to ban transfats.
Liberals push to ban smoking.
Liberals push to ban guns (ie. the right to protect yourself/family)
Liberals push to restrict speech so you don't hurt some other fag's feelings.  (they invented the concept of a "hate crime")
Liberals always support higher taxes in the name of helping the less fortunate.  This takes away your right to decide how your own money is spent.

>>48
Also, don't forget, it's the EU that wants to make "global warming denial" a crime.  Thought police anyone?  Free speech?  Oh sure you can say whatever you like as long as we approve of it.

>>49
No, the fact of the matter is, both sides impose "arbitrary restrictions", and I wouldn't say crying about faggots getting married is equally logical as trying to prevent scientifically disproven theories in classrooms. Most importantly, fascism isn't only about restrictions durhur, if we stick to definitions and not make retarded claims like fascism is socialist, it is clear that structurally American conservatives are far closer to Fascism with rampant militarism, patriotic rhetoric for abolishing rights etc. etc.

But on one hand, if you asked me whether American liberals had fascist leanings or not, I would say yes, but that is due to the extremely narrow scope of American politics, regardless though saying they are less fascistic than conservatives is simply uninformed and wrong.

>>51
Retarded delusions perpetrated by you and your knuckle-dragging blogs isn't truth, sorry. If you're going to cry about thought police, look at your patriot act first, retarded loser.

>>50
So, while conservatives want to put forward scientifically disproved things such as creationism in classrooms, and do similarly idiotic crap based on belief in the supernatural, liberals want to ban things proven to be scientifically harmful. I see, they're stopping you from realizing your potential as a complete retard. Sorry, but intelligent people care about real freedoms rather than if he can gorge himself on trans-fats or not.

Liberals want to ban this, conservatives want to ban that.

Clearly the third way involves not banning anything arbitrarily,  libertarians already do this but apparently there is something wrong with them. No one has actually explained what it is but there are many arguments against libertarianism like "OMG YOU FUCKING BUTTHURT RETARDED YOU FUCKLING ASSHOLE I HGATE YOU RERTARD, HURR LIBERTARYANS HURR, ALL YOUR ARGUMENT ARE ILLOGICAL>? WHY? BECAUSE I SAID EXACTLY THE SAME THING AS IM SAYING NOW A WHILE A GO".

>>53
It's true some of the more retarded conservatives want creationism taught in school, but they aren't out trying to ban opposing thoughts.  They aren't proposing that people be arrested for talking about science.

Also, I never brought up the patriot act, but that was a creation of neo-conservatives.  True conservatives would never vote for such a horrendous piece of legislation.

And even if libfags want to ban scientifically "bad" things it's still an intrusion upon your personal liberty.  What the fuck don't you understand about making choices for yourself?  Do you want some fuckwad of a pencil pusher telling you you can't eat a cheeseburger because it's bad for you?  What happens when some jack ass decides the way you discipline your child is "bad".  You want him telling you how to raise your kids?  Or worse yet, taking them away from you?

Do you honestly think a bunch of stuffy old, politically motivated fucksticks have your best interests in mind?  You actually think politicians, liars by their very nature, know how to make your life better?  HA.  The more things they restrict, the more fucked you are.

>>54
Ahh, and here is the obligatory retarded libertarian who doesn't understand reality and the lack of implementability of his scientifically invalid delusions, due to his lack of knowledge over economics. The latter part of your argument stems from libertarians, like you, perpetually making statements like BUSH IZ SOSHALIST.

>>55

The level of self-contradiction in this post is really a sight to behold, so politicians don't have your best interest in mind, but the politicians who you support do because you're short-sighted and dim-witted enough to believe their rhetoric of FREEDOM AND AMERICA?

What part of "reality" don't you understand? Don't do it wrong, retard. Don't teach scientifically invalid positions, don't cry about pseudoscientific delusions because you were raised by your retarded parents as ignorant. Most conservatives cry about this simply because if the system works, there won't be mass-produced retarded hicks to cry about religion etc.

Liberals want to restrict retarded thought, conservatives want to restrict thought contradicting with their retarded thought. The whole "protecting individual from society" crap is utter bullshit. While they hold pretty much the same thought, conservatives stick to old and outdated notions, while liberals are a bit more at peace with reality - it's like wikipedia vs. conservapedia. Wikipedia isn't good, but at least it isn't a load of retardation like conservapedia, it's at least somewhat useful. And, the conservative position is like crying because he deleted the evolution page and put a picture of jesus there, and then got banned.

The 'polite' totalitarianism of the moderate left scares me. Especially in Britian (where I live) there are cameras everywere, there are serious government plans to have a national I.d card system and national 'data base' of everyone in the country. Oh yeah and on this database they're going to keep all this information on you;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_to_be_contained_on_the_National_Identity_Register

Highlights include; EVERY place you've ever lived including places abroad, finger prints, head and shoulder photograph, signature, 'other biometric data'.
You can check the list for yourself. All I can say is, FUCK THAT SHIT. If that isn't liberal faschism I don't know what is.

>>57
>it's like wikipedia vs. conservapedia

Fucking hell when is this dickhead going to leave this website? Every argument with this guy is just a race to see who can be the most idiotic and emotionally set in thier views. If I ever needed proof that the liberals are just crybaby suburan teenagers.

>Liberals want to restrict retarded thought, conservatives want to restrict thought contradicting with their retarded thought.

Does politics get any more idiotic then this?

>>59
Come back when you can argue with facts rather than cry when owned. Back to BUSH IZ SOSHALIST DERP DERP now.

>>58
Are you the same retard who said BNP was less fascist than Labor because you were so pathetically stupid that you thought cameras were all that mattered?

Regardless, new labor's subsequent transformation of Britain to an almost-American grade police state right after adopting liberal economics says something. But, since according to our American retards LIBRAL=FASCIST=SOSHALIST=STAYT, this reality might be a tad confusing for them.

For those who want to cry about ARBITRARY CHARTS BECAUSE THEY DON'T FIT IN THE ARBITRARY SELF-CONTRADICTORY DEFINITION I SHAT OUT A MINUTE AGO, see http://politicalcompass.org/extremeright

>>57
See faggot, here's the problem.
Conservatards do not seek to make opposing opinions illegal.  Libfags do.  Libfags would love to lock you up for not believing what they do.
(I'm sure you'll turn this argument upside down and bitch about a neocon policy, but that's not the debate here you little shit.)

Freedom to think as you please and debate it against others >>>>> being told what you're allowed to think.

I certainly am not a religious person, but if other people want to believe in ancient legends it's their fucking right to do so and none of your business or mine.

>>60

How about including some 'facts' in the first place.

You think your over whelming immaturity and arrogance is 'winning' debates? You're boring and purile, your views ammount to nothing more than the babbling of a child.

politicalcompass.org

LOL

>>63
Sorry buddy, while they aren't getting it completely right, it represents a valid viewpoint backed up with reasonable information - though I'm sure you prefer ZIONOFASCISM BLOG!!!!

It should also be noted, that if you can't read I can't help you in the first place.

>>62
So, it's OK to be retarded and believe in a retarded religion, but don't you cry about it when muslims want four wives? People should keep it to themselves, and when they try pushing disproved crap to classrooms, it no longer is their own pathetic selves they're deluding, but they are trying to make the next generation as retarded as themselves - BUT this is OK since they "allow" the scientifically valid position to coexist? If those retards had unlimited power, wouldn't they try to ban the opposing view? Liberals are going harder in this, because reality is backing them up.

Also, lol@looking at OOH DAT'S NEOKONS, NOT US!!! argument when FREEDUM!!! argument runs out.

Enjoy crying over immaturity and arrogance due to your immature mind failing you against truth and reason.

>>65
Guess what, fuckwad, the reason why they don't have unlimited power is because people are allowed to have differing opinions and debate and oppose them.

Also, did you read my post through shit stained glaucoma eyes?  I said I'm not religious.  I don't give a rat's ass what the muslims do as long as they're aren't interfering with my life.

>>63
Political compass probably gives the best indication of the true nature of politics, its not perfect no, i'll admit that.

Plus i refuse to listen to the argument of someone who thinks overwhelming is two words

>>66
Again, since you're not religious, conservatives aren't religious and it's DEM NEOKONS? No, sorry, I look at reality not personal delusions.

And, they don't have unlimited power because people debate scientifically invalid positions over and over denying truth? Well, that's good to know.

They aren't interfering with life as long as you aren't interfering with others. Just because you are a moron, you shouldn't have the right to raise your kids as moronic as you. I'm all for teaching of varying positions as long as they have validity. Differing opinions is not a good thing if one side is telling the truth and the other is trying to make his lies look something resembling scientific. Just because they are your kids they aren't your property - you can't lock them in your basement and rape them to protect them from "the outside".

>>47
I have no idea if Bush is socialist or not, I do not care, and I have not argued it either way. You really are missing the point.

>>69
Having no idea about something so fucking obvious yet again says something about you, and the fact that you think your views were relevant in the quoted post says another.

Both aren't really nice...

jesus christ, these threads blow.