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 |

The Need For Cohesion

[I have already discussed on the Left in the United States is really pretty "center Right" in the global scheme of politics.  But for the sake of this piece, we will consider the Democratic Party the "center Left."  Although I find this problematic, I just have to accept it.  Considering the Right (GOP) is farther right then the DNC, we will consider the Democratic Party to be "Left."]

Yesterday, I mentioned that I was not happy with Adsense, displaying ads such as Newsmax and anti-minorities links.  I logged into Facebook yesterday, and there was an advert to “remember in November” to “stop Obama and Obamacare.”  I don’t have a problem with allowing the Conservatives to advertise their views.  Quite contrarily, I agree with it.  Everyone should be given a venue to espouse whatever concept they wish.  (I did go to UC Berkeley, and even enjoyed the elderly, black man that would scream “Jesus wants you to be a racist!”,  the man who would scream about the Jewish Armageddon that was about to descend upon us, or the man with the anti-petrol sign that would just say to everyone “Your mother loves you.”)  But, I see these massive campaigns against the Democratic party, and all leftists.  Someone is feeding the Tea Party a steady stream of propaganda (Fox).  On the left, there is no cohesion.

You have the center-Left Democrats, that support a more Keynesian economic platform, than a Hobbesian “Free Market.”  You also have various Socialists, Communists, Marxists, Anarchists, and whatever other “Left” leaning ideology you can imagine.  None of these groups work together.  The Democratic Party wants no association with Ultra-Left ideology.  So, everyone left of center ends up a “marginalized fringe.”

Farther, there is no cohesion within the Ultra-Left.  The Socialists won’t work with the Marxists or the Communists.  The Black Nationalists won’t work with any other Socialists, Marxists, Communists, Anarchists, etc.  It all goes on, because everyone gets hung up on minutia.

The problem with this is that many of the primary goals of ALL of these groups is the same.  Fair labor rules, fair market regulation, equality under the law, equality in the workplace, elimination of poverty, healthcare for every citizen.  (These are just key issues, but I find there are many, many more commonalities.)  Do the Marxists want to marginalize the Latinos in America?  Surely not.  If anything, the Marxists and Socialists care just as much about fair labor rules for Latino/Chicano laborers as any other group, maybe more.  Do the Marxists or the Socialists promote racism?  Obviously not, how is that equality under the law?  Do the Anarchists support any inequalities at all?  Not in my experience.  Do the Democrats want more social stratification?  Less aid to the poor or impoverished families?  Does the DNC want less fair workplace environments, hiring policies and legal treatment?  I highly doubt it.

All of these groups have a common “enemy.”  I do not use “enemy” as a loaded term.  This is not a war.  This is not about violence, or any physical means of attack.  Its an ideological enemy.  Conservativism believes in aristocracy, class stratification, unfettered corporate progress and a “free market.”  EVERYONE on the left opposes these things.  Why can’t everyone on the Left stand against these things?  Why can’t the DNC ask the rest of the Left for support?  Well, there is one reason.

McCarthyism, and the Cold War in general, did a number of the American psyche and created memes against keywords.  As soon as the word “Socialist” or “Communist” is espoused, the Tea Party loads their guns.  The pundits on Fox and Friends decide to launch an all out attack to tear them down, and the DNC ultimately loses votes.  I understand this problem and empathize with it.  But, I really need to say, “so what?”

Pay for advertisements to explain that you don’t care if it is considered “socialist” to do something, because it is what is fair.  Explain that your goal is govern, not run a business.  Our rights are not a corporate “mission statement.”  There is no profit motive for guaranteeing equal rights under the law, the freedom to assemble, freedom of movement, freedom of speech, etc. Get the Anarchists and the Socialists and the Communists and everyone else in the Ultra-Left to support you.  Any Socialist or Marxist can explain plenty of things FOR you.  They will be the first to point out they are anti-fascism.  (Fascism is far right – this is a fact, and as debatable as gravity.)  They will also be the first to point out they are not Left Liberals.  They also can be valuable allies.

To everyone else on the Ultra-Left:  Stop fighting over ideological bullshit while your primary goals are being squandered. If you truly believe you are right, would you rather convince the Democrats that you are right, or a Tea Party rally?  Who is going to benefit you more?  If you want to promote Black Nationalism, is that ever going to happen with the GOP in power?  With the Tea Party roving around Virginia with loaded weapons?  If you are a proponent of a Socialist economy, are you ever going to convince the Far Right this is plausible?  Would you rather they be in charge?  Your lack of support for the Democratic Party is only hurting you, and everyone else.  Your fragmentation only farther marginalizes you and makes you irrelevant.  You are becoming your own worst enemy.

(more…)

Tags: african-american, anarchists, anti, black, chicano, commentator, communists, conservative, discrimination, equal, equal rights, equality, labels, labor, labor laws, latino, liberals, neocon, neoconservative, New Right, racism, racist, Radical Left, rights, social, socialists, southern poverty law center, status, white dominance
Category Radical Left |

Biological Aspects of Race

Tags: aliens, American Association of Physical Anthropologists, Asian, biological, discrimination, genetics, Indian, labels, race, racism, racist, social, southern poverty law center, white dominance
Category Definitions |

Defining “race” and “racism”

Being noticed by Lawrence Auster brought a few of his followers to this site. A few debates on “race” ensued. What made me curious was his use of the current social-political environment of South Africa to perpetuate the “white fear” agenda. But, I don’t want to really talk about South Africa. What I find concerning is the American concept of “race.” It is not limited to America, but this is where I’m limiting my concern for today. I feel like most people in the United States think “race” or racial classification, is something it is not. (I also do not believe that this blog entry will actually change that, but I’m still doing it for my own sake.) I can start with my conclusion: The social concept of race is not scientific, but does exist as a social classification.

In taxonomy, “race” is used to describe subspecies.  All human beings are homo sapiens sapiens.  There is no genetic basis for racial classification. I don’t know how many times I have to state this, but apparently, I cannot be overstated.  Many people believe human “races” are as different as dogs and cats.  Not only is this unfounded, science actually contradicts it.  Through genetic mapping, we know that majority of the world population has any variation of “racial genetic makeup.”  This has become an alarmingly popular topic recently, as President Obama comes from “mixed parentage.”  I read several articles, a few on the Huffington Post, mentioning President Obama “denying his white ancestry” or similar topics.  Well, what about the rest of Black America?  On average, African Americans are genetically 30% to 60% African.  Do they get to claim to be of “mixed parentage” as well?  And what of White Americans who have more then 40% African genetic markers?  What if someone is 30% Asian, 50% European, and 20% African?  I could also go into the fact that these physical traits are not clustered. You can have two siblings with the same parents and two different noses, but the same brow.  I really don’t want to go into genetic clustered traits and clines and all of that.

Quite simply:  genetics are not like mixing paint, they are more like playing roulette.

(more…)

Tags: anti, labels, race, racism, racist, white dominance
Category Definitions, Racism |

Response from “A knee-jerk liberal blogger”

So, today Larry Auster calls me “a knee-jerk liberal blogger.” The full entry can be found here. I think it is interesting, that there was not one link to my site, or my page. Not one mention of me. (update: there is a link to my entry, but it is on the word “finds,” so I don’t know how intuitive that is.) Yet, he disliked being called out as a racist so much he commented on it. So, today’s entry is in response to Larry and his post about me. I will ignore the fact that he is afraid to link to me as to have a proper display of information.
(In all sense of fairness, I did edit the entry today.  There were problematic sentences and spelling errors, but I honestly did my best to not change any meanings or specific terminology that was originally used.  I simply tried to make it flow better and convey my points more succinctly.

Specifically he states:

A knee-jerk liberal blogger, the type who takes the Southern Poverty Law Center as his authority, came upon View from the Right, this entry in particular, and finds it indistinguishable from the neo-Nazi Stormfront.

So… I’m not a liberal, but I don’t even want to get into that. I’m probably more liberal than Conservative, though. But, let’s just place our own labels on people and that way we can dismiss them without actually using talking points, definitions, discussion and debate.  For instance, Lawrence Auster is a racist. Farther, I did not use the SPLC as my authority.  Larry, I found quite a few interesting tidbits of information about you from all over.  Even your Wikipedia entry is a bit interesting (and brief).  I just said the SPLC classified you as a racist before I did.  But, yes, I did say your site felt like Stormfront.  (I did not say I found it indistinguishable from Stormfront, just that it has the same “feel.”)  Majority of all of your bitches are about non-whites, Larry.  That is the same thing as the Stormfront website.  The biggest difference is that Stormfront complains about “Jews” as much as every other “non-white” in their classification.

Mr. Auster, I will attempt to answer your questions.

(more…)

Tags: conservative, labels, lawrence auster, liberals, Martin Luthar King Jr, neocon, neoconservative, racism, racist, response, southern poverty law center, white dominance
Category Racism |