@rainbow--gravity - Tumblr Blog

So, I looked up the definition of fascism on my phone, I was pretty sure I knew what it meant but wanted to be sure. Anyway, the Google recommended definition is completely different than the Merriam Webster definition (my personal choice of dictionary). Is it just me or is google implying that fascism is only a problem of “right-wing” government? Cuz that’s what it looks like. I mean I could be totally wrong but people have been calling trump and pence fascists lately (my reasoning for googling the definition) and I didn’t think they were using the right word to describe them. Idk. @redbloodedamerica @your-uncle-dave what do y'all think? It just looks like blatant misinformation to promote an agenda, to me.

redbloodedamerica

Yes, this notion that fascism is somehow “right-wing” or a “corporatocracy” has been a myth devised by leftist intellectuals for several decades now. It is sad that Google is relying on a source that is pushing this biased false notion. Merriam’s definition is not very satisfying either. This is also due to the general vagueness of the term. As Jonah Goldberg wrote in his excellent book Liberal Fascism:

It’s an academic version of Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle: the more closely you study the subject, the less clearly defined it be- comes. The historian R. A. H. Robinson wrote twenty years ago, “Although enormous amounts of research time and mental energy have been put into the study of it … fascism has remained the great conundrum for students of the twentieth century.” Meanwhile, the authors of the Dictionnaire historique des fascismes et du nazisme flatly assert, “No universally accepted definition of the fascist phe- nomenon exists, no consensus, however slight, as to its range, its ideological origins, or the modalities of action which characterize it.” Stanley G. Payne, considered by many to be the leading living scholar of fascism, wrote in 1995, “At the end of the twentieth century fascism remains probably the vaguest of the major political terms.” There are even serious scholars who make a credible case that Nazism wasn’t fascist, that fascism doesn’t exist at all, and that it is primarily a secular religion (this is my own view). “[P]ut sim- ply,” writes Gilbert Allardyce, “we have agreed to use the word with- out agreeing on how to define it.“

And yet even though scholars admit that the nature of fascism is vague, complicated, and open to wildly divergent interpretations, many modern liberals and leftists act as if they know exactly what fascism is. What’s more, they see it everywhere — except when they look in the mirror.

Fascism is an offshoot of socialism. It was thought to be the “third way” alternative to Marxist socialism and free market capitalism. In fact, it resembles modern progressivism (or if you want to call it “democratic socialism”) more than anything else and many of the early progressives even stole their ideas straight from European fascist countries which were very nouveau and chic at the time. The concept that it is mainly associated with authoritarianism or dictatorships is only a reflection of how Italy and Nazis Germany operated and should be treated as more of a side note more than a general definition because it could be possible to have a full-fledged democratic fascist governments just as easily. That’s because fascism is more of a collaboration of state and economy where the government controls the means of production but does not necessarily own it. It generally uses private enterprise in order to fund its nationalist agenda such as robust social programs, large infrastructure projects, a large military industrial complex, its imperialist endeavors, and the general size and scope of the central government in general.

It is an ideology focused on the importance of the nation state, shared national identity, a powerful strongman leader, and worldwide superiority. The only way the left have been able to steer the conversation towards it being associated with right-wing ideology is because the state works hand-in-hand with large corporations in order to push their nationalist agenda. So, naturally the left spins it that the corporations must be in charge but we all know historically that has never been the case. The government is running the show in fascist economies. In fact, Germany and Italy both nationalized many private instruments such as labor unions and even particular industries if it suited their needs better. Where they differ from the communists is that they did not attempt to run the entire economy from the centralized government.

However, one thing the right and the left can both agree upon when it comes to the concept of fascism is that it about control. So, when you hear it used a pejorative directed at someone trying to say silence your free speech it is not necessarily being used incorrectly. Then again, most left-wing ideology is based on the concept of control after all.

I highly recommend reading Jonah Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism and here are a few videos that may help you on your way to better understanding this ideology:

reasonandempathy

You ever come across a post so uninformed and stupid that’s trying to be informed so honestly?

That you just have to take a second and step back and stare at it for a moment before you shake your head and forget it exists, like you stared into the Abyss and your brain shut down for a moment to save you the trauma?

Here we go.

bravo-flag-flying

I mean… please educate me on how this information is wrong. I’m welcome to hear any opposition to the idea that fascism is not right wing by definition.

reasonandempathy

Fascism is a variant of right-wing authoritarianism, just as Theocracies are a different variant.

I’ve tried to read this a few times, and it’s just…a bit of a mess. So if you’ll allow me to be blunt:

It makes the common problem when discussing fascism or any authoritarianism; it misses the forest for the trees, so to speak.

The characteristics of authoritarianism are seen as unique to fascism.

A damned clear example of this is the statement “The government is running the show in fascist economies.”

The government isn’t running the show in the economy by design, but has de facto control. Examine Nazi-controlled Europe, where individual business owners were forced to give up their businesses that eventually became run by Aryan Germans. Even more explicitly, Schindler had enough independent wealth, clout, and protection even from the SS to save hundreds and hundreds of people.

And he wasn’t the only person to do so; just the most famous.

Contrast that to the U.S.S.R., where individual business “owners” (really just managers) had no clout other than through the Party. There wasn’t even a facade of business owners and individual wealth in the U.S.S.R.; everything was regulated and controlled directly.

Every authoritarian regime “breaks the back” of non-state institutions; that’s why they’re authoritarian. But it’s trying to make that a fascist trait.

To allow me an analogy; Fascism is the equivalent of having a 52-card deck of playing cards made with only Diamonds and Hearts. Two different things work together to form one thing.

Which is different from what left-wing/state party authoritarians do, which would be the equivalent of making a 52-card deck of only Diamonds.

bravo-flag-flying

I think @redbloodedamerica says that in his initial reply. He says specifically “The concept that it is mainly associated with authoritarianism or dictatorships is only a reflection of how Italy and Nazis Germany operated and should be treated as more of a side note more than a general definition because it could be possible to have a full-fledged democratic fascist governments just as easily”. And I would agree with that. It is completely possible to have a democratically elected fascist government. The government controls the means of production, but doesn’t necessarily own it. I don’t think he’s trying to say that all authoritarianism is fascist, just that fascist authoritarianism is not right wing. I don’t really see how fascist authoritarianism is right wing when you consider the interaction between government and the market. It isn’t a free market, but really a puppet market. The government provides social programs and welfare for its people, while simultaneously maintaining a strong military industrial complex.

redbloodedamerica

Pay no attention to @reasonandempathy. He is still has not come to the sad realization that everything he thinks he knows about political ideology, including that of progressivism, has been a giant lie.

For example, take Theodore Roosevelt who he proudly adorns as his avatar, who once twisted Lincoln’s words in his New Nationalism Speech in 1910 to push more of his radical progressive agenda. Tell me what this sentence reminds you of:

“The essence of any struggle for healthy liberty has always been, and must always be, to take from some one man or class of men the right to enjoy power, or wealth, or position, or immunity, which has not been earned by service to his or their fellows.”

or perhaps this big pile of class warfare

“At many stages in the advance of humanity, this conflict between the men who possess more than they have earned and the men who have earned more than they possess is the central condition of progress.”

or maybe this

“It has become entirely clear that we must have government supervision of the capitalization, not only of public service corporations, including, particularly, railways, but of all corporations doing an interstate business.

It is my personal belief that the same kind and degree of control and supervision which should be exercised over public-service corporations should be extended also to combinations which control necessaries of life, such as meat, oil, or coal, or which deal in them on an important scale. I have no doubt that the ordinary man who has control of them is much like ourselves. I have no doubt he would like to do well, but I want to have enough supervision to help him realize that desire to do well.”

or my personal favorites

“No man should receive a dollar unless that dollar has been fairly earned. Every dollar received should represent a dollar’s worth of service rendered — not gambling in stocks, but service rendered. The really big fortune, the swollen fortune, by the mere fact of its size acquires qualities which differentiate it in kind as well as in degree from what is possessed by men of relatively small means. Therefore, I believe in a graduated income tax on big fortunes, and in another tax which is far more easily collected and far more effective — a graduated inheritance tax on big fortunes, properly safeguarded against evasion, and increasing rapidly in amount with the size of the estate.

We are face to face with new conceptions of the relations of property to human welfare, chiefly because certain advocates of the rights of property as against the rights of men have been pushing their claims too far. The man who wrongly holds that every human right is secondary to his profit must now give way to the advocate of human welfare, who rightly maintains that every man holds his property subject to the general right of the community to regulate its use to whatever degree the public welfare may require it.

But I think we may go still further. The right to regulate the use of wealth in the public interest is universally admitted. Let us admit also the right to regulate the terms and conditions of labor, which is the chief element of wealth, directly in the interest of the common good. The fundamental thing to do for every man is to give him a chance to reach a place in which he will make the greatest possible contribution to the public welfare.”

Roosevelt’s use of the bully pulpit, his eagerness to control the economy, his staunch militarism, and his nationalist ambitions may have made him a precursor to European fascism.

But I digress, let me attempt to address more of his confusion.

“The characteristics of authoritarianism are seen as unique to fascism. A damned clear example of this is the statement: ‘The government is running the show in fascist economies.’ Every authoritarian regime ‘breaks the back’ of non-state institutions; that’s why they’re authoritarian. But it’s trying to make that a fascist trait. ”

You misunderstood my point. I even stated that these were representative of Germany and Italy but fascist regimes do not necessarily have be strictly authoritarian or somehow a dictatorship. A fascist economy can be implemented through the democratic process just as easily. In fact, this is how modern progressives do it through passing laws and regulations through the bureaucracy. Same language and attitude of control over the economy, just a different method of implementation.

I believe the confusion also seems to lie in how the term authoritarian is perceived. While it can be universally assumed to mean the use of [government] authority to apply strict obedience at the expense of personal liberty - in this sense I would most definitely consider Teddy Roosevelt to be an authoritarian, although it would more of a soft tyrannical version. The way it is used more commonly, especially in regards to fascism, is a tyrannical authoritarianism from either a regime or a ruler who imposes their will by fiat.

“Fascism is a populist movement, and like any populist movement it’s going to have a sprinkling of both left and right wing policies. However, it’s still a right-wing ideology.”

‘It’s a sprinkling of both left and right wing policies but it’s still right-wing.’ That is the dumbest thing I’ve read all day. The problem is that you cannot identify the right-wing elements from the left. I’m not even sure you know the difference honestly. You are just declaring definitively that it is somehow right-wing without explaining why.

No, fascism is a 100% left-wing ideology because it is a ideology of control; not of individual liberty. You are still just buying into layman’s “Wikipedia” definition which shows your ignorance on the subject. It also explains why you are a progressive.

“Mussolini literally invented Fascism. He himself made up the word.“

Many other philosophers were more inspirational to the concept of foundation such as Giovanni Gentile, who ghostwrote most of Mussolini’s works; Werner Sombart, who was at the forefront of nationalist socialism; and Thomas Carlye, who is believed to be the forefather of fascism. There are actually a whole bevy of philosophical and economic origins to the ideology long before Mussolini. ’Fascio’ was probably just a convenient word used to describe resistance groups in Italy at the time. There is no evidence that Mussolini coined the term.

“Honestly, the book has Hitler, Mussolini, JFK, FDR, and Woodrow Wilson on the same side. The President who explicitly fought fascism was a fascist?”

Actually, if you read the book, it distinguishes the difference between Italian Fascism, German Nazism, and modern progressivism. It does not lump them all under the same exact fascist ideology but rather exposes how their underlining root is nearly identical. Goldberg even prefaces this in the first passage of the book by explaining:

In fact, in many respects fascism not only is here but has been here for nearly a century. For what we call liberalism — the refurbished edifice of American Progressivism — is in fact a descendant and manifestation of fascism. This doesn’t mean it’s the same thing as Nazism. Nor is it the twin of Italian Fascism. But Progressivism was a sister movement of fascism, and today’s liberalism is the daughter of Progressivism. One could strain the comparison and say that today’s liberalism is the well-intentioned niece of European fascism. She is hardly identical to her uglier relations, but she nonetheless carries an embarrassing family resemblance that few will admit to recognizing.

And yes, Franklin D. Roosevelt and many in his administration were in fact students of European fascism and Mussolini in particular. Wilson was inspired by Teddy Roosevelt’s progressivism, and John F. Kennedy even was inspired in youth by European fascism prior to the war.

And while I am on the subject, some jackwagon thought he would be clever by posting a Wikipedia book review of Liberal Fascism, which was amusing at best. I’m glad he has to obtain his opinions of a book by a random Google search. But I’m sorry to inform you, that Jonah Goldberg is not the only scholar to have come up with the obvious conclusion. Here is a quote from economist Thomas DiLorenzo regarding economic fascism:

Mussolini thought it was unnatural for a government to protect individual rights: “The maxim that society exists only for the well-being and freedom of the individuals composing it does not seem to be in conformity with nature’s plans.”[7] “If classical liberalism spells individualism,” Mussolini continued, “Fascism spells government.”

The essence of fascism, therefore, is that government should be the master, not the servant, of the people. Think about this. Does anyone in America really believe that this is not what we have now? Are Internal Revenue Service agents really our “servants”? Is compulsory “national service” for young people, which now exists in numerous states and is part of a federally funded program, not a classic example of coercing individuals to serve the state? Isn’t the whole idea behind the massive regulation and regimentation of American industry and society the notion that individuals should be forced to behave in ways defined by a small governmental elite? When the nation’s premier health-care reformer recently declared that heart bypass surgery on a 92-year-old man was “a waste of resources,” wasn’t that the epitome of the fascist ideal—that the state, not individuals, should decide whose life is worthwhile, and whose is a “waste”?

As legal scholar Richard Epstein has observed: “[T]he eminent domain … and parallel clauses in the Constitution render … suspect many of the heralded reforms and institutions of the twentieth century: zoning, rent control, workers’ compensation laws, transfer payments, progressive taxation.”[8] It is important to note that most of these reforms were initially adopted during the ‘30s, when the fascist/collectivist philosophy was in its heyday.

Planned industrial “harmony.” Another keystone of Italian corporatism was the idea that the government’s interventions in the economy should not be conducted on an ad hoc basis, but should be “coordinated” by some kind of central planning board. Government intervention in Italy was “too diverse, varied, contrasting. There has been disorganic … intervention, case by case, as the need arises,” Mussolini complained in 1935.[9] Fascism would correct this by directing the economy toward “certain fixed objectives” and would “introduce order in the economic field.”[10] Corporatist planning, according to Mussolini adviser Fausto Pitigliani, would give government intervention in the Italian economy a certain “unity of aim,” as defined by the government planners.[11]

These exact sentiments were expressed by Robert Reich (currently the U.S. Secretary of Labor) and Ira Magaziner (currently the federal government’s health care reform “Czar”) in their book Minding America’s Business.[12] In order to counteract the “untidy marketplace,” an interventionist industrial policy “must strive to integrate the full range of targeted government policies—procurement, research and development, trade, antitrust, tax credits, and subsidies—into a coherent strategy … .”[13]

Current industrial policy interventions, Reich and Magaziner bemoaned, are “the product of fragmented and uncoordinated decisions made by [many different] executive agencies, the Congress, and independent regulatory agencies … . There is no integrated strategy to use these programs to improve the … U.S. economy.”[14]

Government-business partnerships. A third defining characteristic of economic fascism is that private property and business ownership are permitted, but are in reality controlled by government through a business-government “partnership.” As Ayn Rand often noted, however, in such a partnership government is always the senior or dominating “partner.”

And we come full-circle.

As progressives like Teddy Roosevelt once used class-warfare and other rhetoric to denounce profit motive and free market enterprise at the turn of the century, so did the fascists that followed him in the upcoming decades. Hitler mirrored many of these very sentiments when advocating for his “third way” between communism and capitalism. He once said, “We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions.” Sound familiar?

Same rhetoric; slightly different implemented solutions.

What amazes me is how butthurt progressives get when they are shown that their ideology is nearly identical to fascism. It reminds of how butthurt proponents of socialism get when they realize that it too is historically tied to fascism and national socialism. Sorry to burst your bubble, fellas.

rainbow--gravity

Authoritarianism isn't right wing. Maybe i don't know a ton, but i was taught that far right wing was anarchy (the opposite of authoritarianism). Far left with be Authoritarianism in theory.

redbloodedamerica

This is the legacy Obama is leaving office with.

[Source]

schuetzengrabenmints-deactivate

If you’re still taking everything the media says as fact I feel bad for you son

I’ve got 99 problems and the state run media ain’t one

deathbeforednf

Hillary Clinton, wants to ban guns to protect children.

Unless they happen to be brown children living overseas.

They get drones.

redbloodedamerica

Unprotected Power Grids: a Ticking Time Bomb

Our power grids are much more vulnerable than you think. With enough intelligence and advance planning, a terrorist can create a long-term power outage across entire regions of the country—if not more—and destabilize all of American society.

blackness-by-your-side

Very up-to-date.

redbloodedamerica

Debunked: ‘Adam Ruins Everything’ “Why a Wall Won’t Work”

There’s that slight of hand. It starts off with, “well, it would only help with maybe half, maybe 60%, 73%.” So, when you just hear that, you don’t even think about it. You’re thinking you heard 10% and you go, “well, that’s silly. Why would we spend the whole NASA budget to stop 10%?”

No, you’re spending a very reasonable budget and we can get Mexico to pay for at least a portion of it if you look at the actual plans and tariffs and what you can do with the transfer of money.

This idea that we don’t take enough Mexicans in legally, that it’s incredibly hard - more legal people have come from the United States from Mexico by an unbelievable margin. It can be done, it’s been done from Mexico more than any other country and of course it’s been done by plenty of other countries.

So, building a wall, beefing up the security - well, you have to decide: is it worth it to spend a relatively small amount to stop 60-70% of illegal immigration? I don’t know. I leave that to you.

I was actually going to write a post debunking this video before I watched this. Like I said last week, Adam Ruins Everything is about 40% informative substantive information and 60% biased bullshit. You just have to pay attention to how they spin the facts to fit their narrative. In this video, it was pretty obvious how they were spinning the truth.

betterthanideserve

These “Adam Ruins everything” clips show up on my Facebook news feed all the time and every time I watch them I just end up pissed. There needs to be a show dedicated to debunking all of his debunking, ex. “Stephen ruins Adam”.

Also there is just something about his mannerisms and condescending attitude that makes me want to punch him in the face. Maybe it is just the stupid haircut but it lends itself to yet a other show idea “I ruin Adam’s face”. Something about the guy just hits a nerve with me for some reason.

redbloodedamerica

I believe that’s his shtick. He’s supposed to be this annoying condescending blowhard.

But I would also like to see a website dedicated to debunking not only all these terribly biased skits but also all the other numerous memes floating around social media - a sort of conservative Snopes of sorts. I’ve pondered doing it myself.

redbloodedamerica

I thought we were past this as a nation...

I think the most disturbing thing i hear when i see videos of people protesting trump is the idea of "you're brown, and you're supporting trump. You are a disgrace, and a traitor". I think it's a terrible form of racism to assume all people of color HAVE to think one way. Intellectual diversity is the most important kind of diversity.

ithelpstodream

The Idea That Women Use Guns For Self-Defense Against Men Is A Lie

A new report found that in 2014, over 1,600 women were killed by men with a gun. During that same time period, there were only 15 instances of women using firearms to kill a man in self-defense.

For women in America, guns are not used to save lives, but to take them.

source: http://www.vpc.org/studies/wmmw2016.pdf

rainbow--gravity

You actual fucking idiot. Who the hell are you to tell my wife, and my daughters, and my sisters, and my mother that they shouldn't use the absolute best tool of self defense you can get. You know what would happen if no women had guns? No rapist would ever be wary about their targets. They would never feel an actual threat if they tried something. If a man wanted to rape a women, he would. And if for some reason he decided to break that law but follow the gun control laws he would beat her to death, or stab her to death. You are implying that a women shouldn't have that chance to defend herself because sometimes men do bad things with guns. But to any rational person even one woman defending herself with a gun is enough, because she saved her life, or somebody else saved her life, while if we didn't have guns she wouldn't have had that chance. Why wouod you give up your right to self defense? A woman who wants gun control is like a chicken who supports KFC. if you don't like guns don't buy one. But don't tell women they can't defend themselves with them when they very effectively can. Don't infringe on others rights because you don't like it.

#gun control #feminism

ithelpstodream

rainbow--gravity

So your opinion on silent moderate muslims is?

This breathes life into my lungs

#feminism #sjw

fiercefatfeminist

rainbow--gravity

You still probably aren't healthy though. That doesn't change with the way you are treated as a person

mendedpixie

FAT DOES NOT EQUAL UGLY.

FAT DOES NOT EQUAL UGLY

rainbow--gravity

For you

coverartistlol626

Any artist who only draws thin characters/people and refuses to draw larger bodies, needs to be reported for hate speech. Cause that’s literally what it is. Hate speech. It perpetrates the idea that only thinner bodies are beautiful and attractive. Thus, worthy of being drawn. An that can send a very bad message to those suffering from body issues. We as a society, have a responsibility to make sure everyone feels safe and welcome.

rainbow--gravity

No society does not have that responsibility and hate speech as a whole idea is the stupidest thing that can exist anywhere with free speech.

coverartistlol626

“If fat people just ate less calories, then they’d lose weight.”

Oh honey. Let me explain to you a little thing called set point. The set point is the theory that our bodies weight is predetermined at birth by outside factors. Such as our genetics and environment. When your body becomes accustom to a certain weight it will do everything in it’s power to stay at that weight. Like changing your hormone levels to increase appetite. Not everyone is meant to be a size 2, an that’s ok. Instead of us forcing others to conform to our social standards by shaming them, lets learn to embrace everyone’s differences and understand them.

rainbow--gravity

Half of what you said was dumb. You're telling peoplr they can't better themselves because they arem't built that way, and that's bullshit, but that's not why i'm here.

It's not about eating less, it's about eating better. I mean of you eat better your calorie intake won't be as high but you can eat just as much food.

Trending Blogs

Recently Viewed Blogs