Mussolini was a memebr of Italy's socialist party before starting his own fascist party, and the principles of fascism was a modified version of socialism.  So fascism and socialism/communism have a common root.

While "fascism" is in danger of losing all meaning beyond "that which I oppose politically", it is amusing to see it turned, ala Goldberg, on the left. Soviet propogandists', and fellow traveler's, success at turning "fascism" into an all-encompassing epithet owed much to their lack of discrimination-- Franco the fascist in '37, Hitler the fascist in '42, Truman the fascist in '48, Reagan the fascist in '83. To read their successors crying foul at latter day loose use satisfies.

Lenin, Stalin, Mussolini, and Hitler all started out by being Marxists. So next time you meet someone who says he or she is only a Marxist just think for a moment.

I opened this post while looking for something else in the archives. So Kid Blast is enthusiastically in favor of lying. That seems right.

Hitler was never, ever a Marxist. If there's one thing he hated, it was Jews. But if there were two things he hated, it was Jews and commies.

Your first mistake was going to Pajamas Media at all. Oh, and by the way, the Holocaust survivors I work with still remember Hitler's campaign slogan, "Better brown than Red!"

In Neither Right Nor Left: Fascist Ideology in France[320] Sternhell argues on p. 212:

Yet, on the other hand, the revision of socialism by the French and Belgian socialist rebels itself developed into fascism for one essential reason – the same reason that underlay the move toward the extreme right of the generation of 1910. For the revolutionary syndicalists at the beginning of the century as for the exponents of the new socialism twenty years later, the proletariat had ceased to be a revolutionary force and Marxism no longer provided a suitable answer to the problems of the modern world. This loss of faith in the vitality and capacities of the proletariat, joined with an unhesitating denunciation of the essential principles of Marxism and social democracy, this desire to achieve quick results by utilizing the full force of political power but without undertaking structural changes, this need to come to terms with the existing social order because one has come to regard it as natural and immutable, this replacement of Marxism by a national socialism, and of the revolutionary impulse of Marxism by a planned, organized, rationalized  system of economy, led, through a natural inner logic, to fascism. Thus in the thirties, fascism often appeared to be the only system of thought that answered to the logic of the twentieth century.

Where the above analysis does not apply to Labor Zionism is hard to discern. In any case, the Labor Zionist ideologue Berl Katznelson plagiarized the Belgain fascist Henri de Man while another Zionist leader Vitaly Viktor Haim Arlosoroff openly renounced democratic principles if they were to apply to the native population of Palestine. In New history, old ideas[321] Edward Said discusses the intellectual contortions through which Zionists put themselves to defend Zionism.

LGF is a big fat easy target. I dont peruse the site unless i need some racist quotes to use to lampoon them.

LGF is a "neo-con" sewer 

And DK is too good a boy to appreciate irony. 

How will we miss him if he won't say good-bye?

No, no I appreciate. You think the tables have been ironically turned, and you endorse lying for the sake of that allegedly ironic inversion. There's irony there, but not where you think. Goodbye. XOXO

But using a word used as a curse as a definition.

So by the same logic as Kid Blast uses here, anyone who calls another person a "mother f***er" is literally accusing them of having sexual relations with their female parent.

When leftiest called Reagen a 'facist', and some did, few ment it literally.  Kid blast pretends it was ment literally.

Thanks for the assist, Barbara. That's precisely what I was trying to point out. The lefties calling Reagan a "fascist" did not mean it literally. Indeed they could not have meant it literally. Nor does Goldberg mean it literally. The difference between those lefties and Goldberg is that he's winking a little bit about the whole thing. "Liberal Fascism" is too broadly serious and  straightforward in its approach to be satire, but it seems to me there's some fun lurking beneath, if only to tweak lefties past and present who in ignorance (generously) or cynically (less so) labeled their political enemies "fascists". Perhaps to salve a guilty conscience for fleeing freedom's land and bravery's home during a crucial period in its history, DK imitates the national paterfamilias in brooking no fib. We stay-at-homes need not overcompensate and thus see wisdom in the great British statesman's advice that truth requires a bodyguard. Ironic, no?

Truth requires a bodyguard from Kid Blast, alright. (I like that you think Barbara was assisting you. Very perspicuous. Or is that more of that dry dry dry humor of yours?) Enjoy freedom and bravery. Kisses.

I am not interested in supporting any neocon anywhere for any reason.  However, a few words of clarification never hurt.  Here, I think it wound up doing exactly what I hope... it clarified meanings.

Anybody who says: "I live under fascism, and that is very bad, and we are in a bad social system" , repeatedly, time, in public, in print, on the internet, at parties, is an absolute driveling idiot who does not understand the term. Some people say this for years. What escapes them is:

If that were true, he or she would be dead by now.

Fascists don't let you go around saying bad things about them. You are reported, turned in, and warned, or dealt with. Keep it up, and you are killed. Sometimes you are killed right away with no warnings.

 If he can say it and survive, then it can't be true! Duh!

F'r instance: this is a true story: Guy is on a bus in Germany in 1930's. Bus drives by burning synagogue. Guy says, out loud, "that is a disgrace to our culture". Other rider on bus, who knows who he is, reports this remark to local authority. Guy is asked to make rounds of neighborhood, collecting money for, and distributing pamphlets, for local authority. Fascist authority. Guy considers refusing. But something in local authority's eye tells him, that is what he has to do now, or bad things will happen. He does it. He doesn't like it, but that is their way of bringing him into line. ONE REMARK ON A BUS. That, honey, is fascism.

Maybe now you know a little more about how life really works. Don't throw loaded words around. When Seinfeld used the phrase "soup nazi" he did wrong. "Nazi" and "fascist" mean what they mean. Not whatever one is cross at today, or finds really, really icky.

Daniel Koffler,I don't know what Leibnitz's law is, and I haven't got time to goggle it, but the giving of power to a central State to overawe and control individuals, with intrusive and pervasive social controls, backed up by force, is INDEED common to the far left and the far right. Duh!It is as old as mankind, and has a thousand labels, from monarchism to socialism to communism to fascism to who knows what. It is the way of the world. It takes a blend of capitalist opportunity and a certain generous religious underpinning for anything else than this to work. The way it has worked in the US. Lincoln described our republic as a historic aberration, which it is, and wondered, at Gettysburg, if it could long endure. Well it's still around.

Make sure you prize it, because it is NOT naturally-occurring, not at all. You have never known anything else, so you think it is naturally-occurring. You have been reading J-J Rousseau. Stick to Henri Roussea. J-J was wrong.

(I have not read Jonah Goldberg's book.)

the faux left and right in America both serve the same end.

Example? Diane Feinstein ensuring confirmation of ziocon guard Michael Mukasey

nuff said...

Distinguish between real liberalism, which advocates the rights of the common man and defends the vulnerable, and leftism, which can lead to a totalitarian society, such as the old Soviet Union, which was a failure and a catastrophe. Three hundred million people tried communism for three, even four, generations. It failed because of its  intrinsic defects. The Soviets did a good job in World War II, and they made a good space program. But they failed horribly at absolutely everything else. Communism is neither logical, nor just, nor productive. The Mencheviks should have won, not the Bolsheviks. They should have been bourgeois. Being bourgeois is what actually works, in the real world, as life is lived. It is good to have personal property and it is good to have personal rights against state intrusion.

So, let's be for real liberalism, and against the Marxism that can sneak into liberalism, using its ideals to drag in totalitarianism - liberalism's opposite. Maybe that is what Jonah Goldberg means, although I have not read the book. Does it look to you as if I need to read it? I am going to read something cheerful. Shabbat Shalom.

thats why such a large number of folks one would think would be "liberals" are lining up behind the libertarian ticket. turns out a little conservatism is liberating....