The Fascist New Right

There are a lot of terms flying around today, especially in the political sphere.  They include, but are not limited to:  Socialist, Communist, Racist, Nazi, Fascist, Lib, Liberal, Teabagger, and Thug.  These terms are seemingly used by any, and everyone, with reckless abandon.  The problem is, that when you actually have a reason to use one of these terms, it gets dismissed.  I have noticed a lot of attention on Goodwin’s Law.  The concept that, “As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.“  This is quite humorous.  At the same time, this does not mean the comparisons are not valid.  I find a strong correlation between Fascism and the New Right. (The Conservatives of today, be they Tea Party, Tories, or National Front.)

Sometimes the Left does propose Socialist ideals, or at least borderline socialist ideals.  “Universal healthcare” could be considered more Socialist than Capitalist.  There is no secret that I think they should stop pretending.  I personally think they should say, “We aren’t concerned with who developed this idea.  We are concerned with something that works.  This isn’t a new concept, and the countries that use it are doing quite well with it.”  Farther, they should point out, “As Americans, we should be trying to do it better than other nations, not avoiding it.”  On the same hand, while I am not a big fan of Fascism, I do not contend to use “Fascist” in this entry as an epithet.  The New Right has Fascist ideology and Fascist goals. Fascism is also not democratic.  So, in some way, I am claiming the New Right are anti-democratic.

I want to reiterate, that I am not claiming the New Right are Fascist to drive a farther wedge.  The goal here is to really examine what is going on.

There are a few things that strike me as odd with the rise of the New Right in the past year or so.  When Barack Obama was elected President, a new wave of protest swept through the nation.  There are tangible threads that weave through this new tapestry that seriously concern me.  Especially as the numbers are growing.  Just last night, the Tories in England got back a large portion of British Parliament.  So, let’s look at Fascism and see how it relates to American Conservativism.  (Fascism is quite complex as an ideology.  This is not an academic journal, so I am just using Wikipedia as my reference for any information on Fascism that are listed here.  I do not believe that Wikipedia is the absolute authority on the subject, or even the best authority, but I’m trying to keep this as short as possible, so… I accept that flaw for the time being.)

First we have the basic ideology of Fascism:

• Fascism is a “radical and authoritarian, nationalist political ideology.  Fascists seek to organize a nation on corporatist perspectives, values, and systems such as a political system and the economy.“

If you were to go to a Tea Party website, such as the Tea Party Patroits‘ website, you would see, their “Core values” are “Fiscal Responsibility, Constitutionally Limited Government, and Free Markets.”  – “organize the nation on corporatist perspectives, values and systems such as political system and the economy.”

Fascists believe that a nation is an organic community that requires strong leadership, singular collective identity, and the will and ability to commit violence and wage war in order to keep the nation strong. . . . They claim that culture is created by collective national society and its state, that cultural ideas are what give individuals identity, and thus rejects individualism.  In viewing the nation as an integrated collective community, they claim that pluralism is a dysfunctional aspect of society, and justify a totalitarian state as a means to represent the nation in its entirety.  They advocate the creation of a single-party state. . . . Fascists reject and resist autonomy of cultural or ethnic groups who are not considered part of the fascists’ nation and who refuse to assimilate or are unable to be assimilated. They consider attempts to create such autonomy as an affront and threat to the nation.

That’s a long block, I know.  I felt it was spelled out better than I could reword it.
The Tea Party and their cohorts have been extolling the virtues of “What makes America great” and that the “Liberal Elite” want to destroy them and make the US culture a multi-cultural, pluralist society that will lead the nation into ruin.  Arizona just passed a law that will fundamentally restrict autonomy of cultural or ethnic groups that are not considered part of the nation.  It will also penalize anyone who refuses to assimilate or are unable to be assimilated.  They definitely find immigrants with foreign customs to be an “affront and threat to the nation.“

“Fascism is strongly opposed to core aspects of the Enlightenment and is an opponent of liberalism, Marxism, and mainstream socialism  for being associated with failures that fascists claim are inherent in the Enlightenment.”
I was just looking at Al-Sonja Schmidt (who I have much to say about in a future time) and there were a lot of references to Marx, Socialism, Black Nationalism and such.  To get the whole trifecta, she said that President Obama was influenced by Marx and is a tyrant.  (He has a foreign sounding name, is pluralistic, and a product of the Enlightenment.)

I don’t think it is really worth spending much time on how the New Right feels everyone should stay in the Cold War and we need to start the Red Scare back up.  I have spent enough time on this ridiculous garbage.

THE CORE TENANTS OF FASCISM:

Nationalism is probably one of the most obvious core tenants of Fascism.  I also highly doubt any Conservative would decry that Nationalism is not a massive “core value” of their ideology.  Is it even worth examining farther?  The real question is if people truly understand the true meaning of Nationalism.

Fascists saw the struggle of nation and race as fundamental in society, in opposition to communism’s perception of class struggle.  The fascist view of nation is as a single organic entity which binds people together by their ancestry and is a natural unifying force of people.  Fascism seeks to solve economic, political, and social problems by achieving a millenarian national rebirth, exalting the nation or race above all else, and promoting cults of unity, strength and purity.

(more…)

Tags: AFA, Al-Sonja Schmidt, American Family Association, anti, apartheid, Arizona, brown shirts, Burning Fence, Central Valley Tea Party, chicano, Christian Right, conservative, Constitution, economy, equal rights, fascism, fascist, gay marriage, Glenn Beck, illegal immigrant, immigration, labels, lawrence auster, Left, liberals, mexican american, musolini, Neo-Conservative, Neo-Fascism, neocon, neoconservative, New Right, racism, racist, right, sarah palin, status, Tea Party, Teabagger, Tory, UK, United States, white dominance, zombies
Category New Right |

Gay marriage, Abortion, Taxes, Social Values, et cetera.

I have been engaged in debate on the comments of a few entries.  This response is going to be quite lengthy, so I decided to just address it all in one entry.

Gay Marriage:

The debate about the right of gay marriage was a big issue in these comments.  This is really an issue of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.  I am not talking about my personal views in these clauses, but what the clauses actually state.

According to the First Amendment:  “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”
And the Fourteenth Amendment:  “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

The Fourteenth Amendment was all that was needed to state that anti-miscegenation laws violated Constitutional rights.  It does not matter if a majority votes against them.  In fact, a majority of voters in the United States opposed the right of interracial marriage.  Prior to that, it was actually illegal to allow Black Americans to marry.  At the time, it was claimed that it “tarnished the sanctity of marriage.”  It really didn’t matter what the claim was, or how much support there was, because EVERY CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES IS GUARANTEED EQUAL RIGHTS AND PROTECTIONS. “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.“  To deny anyone the rights granted to other Americans violates this clause.

Many argue that marriage is a religious institution and not a civil institution.  Well, some churches perform “gay marriages.“  So, by making that illegal, isn’t that endorsing Churches that do not allow gay marriage?  The Constitution resolves that issue in a simple sentence as well:  “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.“

By endorsing Churches that do not perform gay marriages, or by making it illegal for other Churches to do so VIOLATES the First Amendment of the Constitution.

And, let’s be honest, what is it hurting you that gay people are married?  The biggest social problem in context of gay marriage is “Who is the husband?” or “Who is the wife?”  I don’t see where there are any other negative impacts on gay marriage.  It is not like straight people are all going to run out and get a gay marriage once it is legal.  Is that what we are afraid of?  Or do we just want to avoid giving the same rights and privileges to gays that we give to straights?

Whatever your opposition is to gay marriage, I fail to see any rationality in it.  It is a purely religious argument and a personal decision.  For the life of me, I cannot see why so many people care so damn much?  I mean, really?  Why do you care?  Don’t give me the “Sanctity of marriage” argument.  I’ve known plenty of married people, and I would venture to guess that 90% of them weren’t all that sanctified.

Abortion:

This is probably a trickier issue than gay marriage.  The problem is that there is science behind the development of a fetus and there are a lot of gray areas.  I stated several times that I do not believe this is a black and white issue.  Many people try to make it into one (especially those on the far right.)

Although I am pro-Choice, I am not pro-abortion.   This does not come from a religious vantage, but from a scientific one.  I would agree that when a woman is 8.5 months pregnant, the developing fetus within her womb is pretty much a viable baby.  If it were to be removed from her womb, the probability of survival is very high.  On the same hand, a zygote is nothing more than a cluster of cells that have a genetic blue-print to create a human being.  Ovum have genetic blueprints to create human beings.  I do not feel that destroying a zygote is equatable to destroying a baby.

That said, what it comes down to is legality.  The problem I have is that we are not legal citizens until we are born.  The “rights of the child” really don’t come into play until birth.  The Supreme Court of the United States disagrees with me, and I’m fine with that.  In reality, I’m not a woman, I will never have to make this decision, so I can’t pretend to know what I would do when confronted with the decision.  This is why I am pro-Choice.  The decision to abort a pregnancy is a decision for a woman and her medical staff.

Note:  I do find it odd that many people who support capital punishment typically condemn abortion, and vice versa.  Who is “Pro-Life”?  Its ok for the State to take someone’s life?  Even though there is no evidence that executions decrease crime rates?  (In fact, executions typically cause an increase in crime rates, but we are still unsure why.)
Just an interesting aside.

Taxes:

(more…)

Tags: abortion, antibiotics, aristocracy, capitalism, Castro, Chavez, Che, church and state, communism, condoms, Congress, Constitution, democracy, embryo, equal protection clause, equal rights, fetus, first amendment, Foucault, fourteenth amendment, gay marriage, Gramsci, healthcare, Ho Chi Minh, Khemer Rouge, Lenin, Ludlow Massacre, Lukacs, Mao, Marcuse, Marx, medicine, Pol Pot, prevention, prop 8, racism, religion, roe v wade, rule by plebocite, sarah palin, social values, Stalin, stds, taxes, traditional values, Trotsky, US Constitution, vaccines, values, viability, zygote
Category Neo-Conservative |

Rule of the “Elite”

(This came up in a comment today, and I have been meaning to address it.  So, I will do so now.)

Sarah Palin makes a big deal about the “Elite.”  The Media Elite, the Washington Elite, the American Elite.  When pressed who she means, she backpeddles and says “it’s about anyone who thinks they are better than someone else.”  This is a two pronged issue.  (Really, a three pronged issue.)  The first is the implication, the second is the actual message.  I’m going to start with the second.  (And we are going to basically ignore the fact that “Elite” in political science is pretty Marxist in nature.)

Who are these people who think they are better than other people?  Are NBA players “Elites”?  What about PGA Tournament winners?  What about Jeopardy winners?  Olympic gold medalists?  I mean, they won.  Doesn’t that make them the “best”?

If someone obtains a PhD in a subject, they took more then a summer course on the topic at their local community college.  Any Doctorate requires intense years of research, study, examinations, and whatever.  (I know – “and whatever” – is such a bogus description, but I really don’t want to go into a detailed description of the Doctoral process at University.)  Shouldn’t we assume that someone with a doctorate in a subject knows the subject better than those without it?  I mean, first you need a primary education, and then throw on 3 to 6 to 8 or more years of study on top of that… intense study.  It is not just a piece of paper, it is a lot of work.

I use this example often, because I like it:

• When I need to get my car fixed, I find a mechanic.  I typically want to find a competent mechanic, one that knows how to repair cars as best they can.  I might even use a specialist.  Like if I have an accident, I go to an auto-body repair shop, instead of a break specialist.
• When I want my teeth worked on, I see a dentist.  I want a dentist that knows teeth and knows the best way to fix them.  I prefer a dentist that is focused on saving my teeth and causing me minimal amounts of pain.
• If I have a brain tumor, I want a neurologist.
• If i have a heart attack, I want a cardiologist.
• If I am a criminal defendant in court, I want a criminal defense attorney.
• If my toilet is broken, I want a plumber.

What I don’t want:

• I do not want a dentist repairing my car.
• I do not want a mechanic removing my brain tumor.
• I do not want a civil trial attorney fixing my toilet.
• I do not want a plumber giving me open heart surgery.

Why then do I want Joe the Plumber deciding economic policy over economists?  Why do I not want people who study international relations deciding foreign policy?  Why do I not want people who have advanced degrees in Constitutional studies deciding what is a violation of the Constitution and what is not?

That is what this “anti-Elite” message says… the innuendo is that these people are the “ELITES” and they are destroying us.  Are we supposed to have no specialization of services?  Everybody just do whatever you want?  I do not think anyone would agree with that.  But there are two areas that everyone feels they are an expert, and that experts are idiots… in politics and religion.

(more…)

Tags: aristocrats, Constitution, economy, elite, elitism, equal rights, Independents, Joe the Plumber, liberals, libertarians, marxist theory, neocon, neoconservative, rights, Ron Paul, sarah palin, social, Tea Party, Teabaggers, United States
Category Definitions |

The Divided States of America.

The United States population has probable not been this divided since the Civil War.  There is truly a bi-polar split in the national psyche.  There are splits and fringes on both sides, but there is still a divide right down the middle.  I recall mentioning this before, but I don’t recall how much detail it was on this site.  What I’m really pondering today, is from a comment I received this morning.  I was asked why we don’t support secession for states like Arizona.

My initial response is: “Please.”  Unfortunately, it is not that simple.  Let’s just use Arizona, Texas, and New Mexico.  (Sorry, New Mexico, if we let you stay, my hypothetical becomes even more confusing.)  In the future, Arizona, Texas and New Mexico leave the United States to form the “New Republic of America.”  The first thing we need to consider, is if they allow everyone who wants to remain in the United States to leave.  If they do not do this, it would cause a lot of tension and end up like a North Korea/South Korea situation.

So, let’s assume it is amicable.  The New Republic resents Washington D.C. so much, they want to govern themselves.  The US says, “Ok.”  And anyone in these states leaves to enter the United States… (and the companies that are in those states have to pick a side, too… but now that the Supreme Court decided companies are people, we don’t have to argue specifics.) … and these states are now the new Southern border of the United States.

I’d assume they would all enact Arizona’s “Pass Laws” and end up with an Afrikaner Apartheid system.  But they have their own Constitution, so we cannot deride them for violating out Constitution.

What I cannot figure out, is what their economy is going to be based on.  I would guess agriculture and oil.  I’m sure they would also have to purchase weapons from the United States, to maintain their border system.

So, let’s jump forward ten years.  The “New Republic of America” has been exporting beef, wheat, other agricultural products and oil for ten years.  They have a secure border on both sides and pass laws, that anyone stopped by police has to provide proof they are Citizens of the New Republic.  The average wage is equivalent to US $30 a week.  The University students in America are growing weary of this Apartheid system on their border and protest for full divestment.  Within 2 more years, the United States will no longer sell weapons to the New Republic on humanitarian grounds, or trade with them for oil and agricultural products.  China offers, though, because they could honestly care less what is happening in the Western Hemisphere, as long as it cannot cross the Pacific.  They will need these weapons because, just putting a military zone between the New Republic and Mexico, the drug cartels have completely overrun Mexico.  As the violence from the drug lords escalates, multi-national corporations leave Mexico and go to South East Asia (and maybe the New Republic.)  So, you now have a country that makes Nicaragua look peaceful on the border, you are going to need good weapons.

Now we have Chinese weapons south of the American border, with a country trading almost exclusively with China, the biggest growing threat and competition to the American government and economy.  Of course, up here in America, we also have to deal with people escaping the “New Republic” – to gain wages higher than $30 a month, where we make $300 a month in McDonald’s here.  The New Republic knows not to aggravate the United States, as the US could just send in a few dozen drones and take out the entire government.

Anyway, I’d give the New Republic 20 years.  By the end of the second decade, they will either be begging to come back, or begging to be invaded by UN Peacekeepers.  So, no, I don’t support secession by other states, it would be a travesty.  The loss and suffering on both sides would hardly be justifiable.

One could argue that there are weapons manufacturers and tech companies in the South.  Plenty in Texas alone.  Well, how many would stay and give up contracts to the United States military?  Are the Southern states going to build their own military manufacturing plants?  What is the justification for an arms buildup on the US border?  You’d have to be careful, too much Nazi-esque talk about “enemies” ‘and needs to “weapons” and internment camps for minorities, and you’d have to deal with all of Europe and the United States.  (Or do you believe that England and France would take the side of the South?)

I really don’t see this as a win for anyone.  And this wasn’t an all inclusive example.  There is plenty of contribution from Southern states that the United States utilizes.  Any secession would be detrimental.  The whole world would feel it.  It may even be worse than I had explained.  What if drug cartels or terrorist organizations overran one of the states and launched the US into a century of warfare?  What if China got sick of all the bickering and just blew everything in North America up?  What if England just said, “We gave you a few centuries and you can’t get your shit straight… you are coming back home.” ?

** update **
As per requested, spelling of secession has been corrected.  May 5, 3:00 am PST.

Tags: agriculture, aliens, apartheid, Arizona, Constitution, discrimination, economy, New Mexico, response, sarah palin, secession, Texas, United States, white dominance
Category Main category |