"Controversy at Museum of the American Revolution" Topic

Perhaps this will help:

Definition of fascism:

1.an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.

2.extremely authoritarian, intolerant, or oppressive ideas or behavior.

3.very intolerant or domineering views or practices in a particular area.

Need examples besides the Eurupean crop of totalitarian dictators from the 1930s and 1940s?

Seems very simple to understand…

Still is, but keep it to yourself!!

OK everyone, your time is up!! All the minds that are going to get changed, have been and the event in question from the OP is well in the rear view mirror. it is time to move onto another topic and stop trying to unring this bell.

This is truly like the old adage about trying to teach a pig to sing, you are wasting your time and are also annoying us pigs.

Thank you and goodnight…

Elvis has left the building.

"it appears to be quite the opposite, the ALA appears to fight censorship of books."

Yes, it does appear that way, but they're not. Look what happened when someone found Dr. Seuss to be offensive, his books were pulled from library shelves. Roald Dahl's books have been rewritten to conform to modern sensibilities, or simply pulled all together.

"Additionally, one librarian allegedly saying something on the phone that they shouldn't have isn't the same as the ALA releasing an official statement."

Correct, however I only pulled one quote from that article, there were more. I was pointing out that you posted an article claiming it supported your view, when it was the exact opposite. Meaning you were either banking on people not reading your article or you didn't read it yourself.

"Additionally, there isn't a requirement for the library to explain why they give another group a reading slot, especially when there are so few."

Actually there is. Since they are taxpayer funded they are required to accomidate everyone.

"In any case, as you point out, Cameron got to have his reading time. By this measure and assuming you approve of this result, MLF should be stopped from removing books from libraries. Is this what you believe?'

Hardly. He shouldn't be forced to fight for equal time with drag queens. Viewpoint discrimination on taxpayer funded facilities is illegal. And yes, taking pornography out of schools is fine by me.

"Deflection of what? Just to stop you right here, A group that quotes AH is a hate group. I do not need the SPLC to tell me this. I see that you don't quite like this, but it is non-negotiable."

Again, deflection. The quote from Hitler highlights what the other side is trying to do. Your response is the same evry time, "They quoted Hitler. Hitler is bad. They are bad." It's actually fairly sad that you can't back up your position.

APDC your continued defense of the SPLC despite the evidence they are dishonest is amazing. Despite repeatedly being shown their bias you choose to believe them. Such blind faith, because they reinforce what you believe to be true, is the only reason anyone listens to them at all.

As for what fascism is and where it came from:

YouTube link

This video is pure nonsense. He doesn't understand the political spectrum. There are many models but Fascism is on the far right and Communism is on the far left. Both IMO are bad. There has been a trend over the past six or seven years to misrepresent it and put both Fascism and Communism on the same side. They are polar opposites. There is a fundamental problem with the way we are teaching Civics and History in this country.

Perhaps the following will help the discussion…

link

link

Mussolini was a socialist, as was Hitler. Neither was "far right". Stalin's regime, and Hitler's, were much alike: one party totalitarian dictatorships. Only important difference in theory was that the Bolsheviks claimed to be internationalists while the Nazis were "nationalists" (actually racialists).

Mussolini was not quite as bad, somewhere between totalitarian and authoritarian, and more nationalist than racial. He was likewise a socialist.

OC's statement is consistent with many texts; those texts are wrong.

The left desperately tries to deny that the bloodiest regimes were all leftwing.

Since the SPLC keeps being referred to, perhaps the website might be of some assistance:

splcenter.org

link

Mussolini was a socialist, as was Hitler. Neither was "far right". Stalin's regime, and Hitler's, were much alike: one party totalitarian dictatorships. Only important difference in theory was that the Bolsheviks claimed to be internationalists while the Nazis were "nationalists" (actually racialists).

Mussolini was not quite as bad, somewhere between totalitarian and authoritarian, and more nationalist than racial. He was likewise a socialist.

OC's statement is consistent with many texts; those texts are wrong.

The left desperately tries to deny that the bloodiest regimes were all leftwing.

Per the posted definition of fascist, OC is absolutely correct. Fascism is a far-right ideology based on hatred and authoritarianism. Civil rights are abolished, minorities are discriminating against, and political opponents are imprisoned. Both Hitler and Stalin were monsters, and Mussolini was a monster as he supported Hitler as well as military conquest.

And were the Soviets less hateful and authoritarian? That is a distinction without a difference. You rely on definitions that are flawed.

The video is pure nonsense.

And were the Soviets less hateful and authoritarian? That is a distinction without a difference. You rely on definitions that are flawed.

Orwell saw clearly the essential sameness of the Bolsheviks and the Nazis. And the Soviets abandoned internationalism when it suited them, as in "the Great Patriotic War."

The prevailing political theory, or tendency, from about 1900 on, emphasized an economy characterized by large units controlled or dominated by a government with unchecked power. In the US the Progressives had to operate within the two party system, and also within the bounds of the Declaration and the Constitution, which they resented and tried to change. (See Woodrow Wilson and to a lesser extent Teddy Roosevelt.) FDR's New Deal was definitely of the Left, yet was in important ways not dissimilar from Mussolini's Fascism. They were points along the same scale.

Don't leave out the "Communist" Chinese in the Uyghurs.

Don't leave out the Chinese and their 'cultural revolution' where millions perished…

Yep. Loads and loads of evil people no matter their political ideologies.

Kevin, explain what exactly makes Hitler or Mussolini "right wing. I assume you acknowledge that they were a variety of socialists, with government control of the economy (regardless of who technically owned the means of production).

Historically the "right" meant, originally, the Monarchists, and then the moderate revolutionaries who opposed the totalitarian Jacobins. Today "right" tends to mean "conservative" which is an attitude rather than a theory: conserving WHAT? But in the American context "right" certainly means opposed to big government and emphasizing federalism and individual rights. Explain how one slides along that scale to a "far right" single party and totalitarian dictatorship? I'll wait.

The thread that would not die!

Doc, I don't get what you are talking about. It does not align with anything I have learned from a lot of different sources about fascism. Generalizing "the left" as desperate fascism deniers is not something I have noticed.

OC +1
Interesting stuff about Moms For Liberty, Brech. The cringy feeling I initially got about them is born out.

The political rebranding of fascism is not changing many minds IMO. The idea that the "left" concurrently represents all the loaded buzzword ideologies we often name here pretty much means there is no discussion to be had, IMO.

Tortorella +1

Agree with your logic and conclusions. I don't get what he's talking about either.

Seems to me that 'political rebranding of fascism' is done to fit a current political agenda.

Left and right…These goal posts can be moved anywhere. It's like herding cats while the mud flies.

Then explain what elements of Naziism or Italian fascism make it "far right?" Betcha can't.

Surely the scale runs from totalitarian control, at one extreme, to complete anarchy, at the other end. An authoritarian regime would typically prohibit POLITICAL diversity but allow cultural freedom; Franco's Spain is a good example. A constitutional republic with at least two parties is the golden mean.

Hitler and Stalin are both out on the same end of that scale. Is there a different scale that is more important? If so, please describe it.

I suppose one could have a scale between privilege and equality. But in that case the Old Regime and the Jacobins would both be out on the same end, different only in WHICH group of people were privileged or singled out to be destroyed. The Jacobins wanted to destroy the aristocracy, the Nazis the Jews, and the Bolsheviks the middle class (many of whom were Jewish). Having "victim classes" and "oppressor classes" -- identity politics which abandon any notion of individual guilt or innocence -- has been a characteristic of totalitarian regimes right up to the present day.

Then explain what elements of Naziism or Italian fascism make it "far right?" Betcha can't.

It's because they worked with the establishment and in many ways admired it.

Mussolini worked with the aristocracy, the King, the industrialists, the church and the army.

Same for AH, he identified and worked with all these institutions and was always identified closely with Ludendorff's ultra right wing party.

For the masses, both created a sort of golden era blood-and-soil identity of racial and cultural purity with anyone who didn't, couldnt or wouldnt conform to this singularly ideal historical vision condemned as parasites or social poison.

Meanwhile, the Communists usually tear down all the bastions of tradition, such as the church, the officer corps, the industrialist class, the aristocracy/monarchy.

The willingness to work with the status quo is why extreme right wingers in the USA generally identify more with fascists and Nazis, even if they are ashamed to admit it.

Gingrich started this nonsense about the Nazis being socialists. He did it because the populist part of the party were demoralized about being called Nazis for their intolerant instincts. Thus Gingrich came up with the fantasy that because Nazis had originally invaded a workers party and controlled some aspects of industry, they were socialists, just like American democrats who believed in social programs. That tautology caught fire with the ignorant and intolerant and is kept alive today by criminal demagogues like Dinesh Dsouza (a long time disciple of Gingrich's) and conspiracy theorists like Praeger.

Another interestsing article:

link

"it appears to be quite the opposite, the ALA appears to fight censorship of books."

Yes, it does appear that way, but they're not. Look what happened when someone found Dr. Seuss to be offensive, his books were pulled from library shelves. Roald Dahl's books have been rewritten to conform to modern sensibilities, or simply pulled all together.

The Suess family decided some of Dr Seuss' books were offensive and pulled those books on their own. Dahl's publisher asked him to revise his book. In both cases, this has nothing to do with the ALA.

"Additionally, one librarian allegedly saying something on the phone that they shouldn't have isn't the same as the ALA releasing an official statement."

Correct, however I only pulled one quote from that article, there were more. I was pointing out that you posted an article claiming it supported your view, when it was the exact opposite. Meaning you were either banking on people not reading your article or you didn't read it yourself.

My view? You and doc made an accusation that the ALA censors books and all you could come up with was this Kirk Cameron kerfuffle? If asking for proof about wild, sweeping allegations is having a viewpoint…

All the quotes in that article are from the same, unilateral source, Kirk Cameron, and thus all suffer from the same potential unreliability.

"Additionally, there isn't a requirement for the library to explain why they give another group a reading slot, especially when there are so few."

Actually there is. Since they are taxpayer funded they are required to accomidate everyone.

Thus, if there are only 10 slots a day and thousands of authors who want to read books to da little childrens, the library either gives Kirk Cameron a spot or they are discriminating?

That's an interesting standard you have. Taxpayer funded organizations are required to accommodate everyone? Are you sure?

"In any case, as you point out, Cameron got to have his reading time. By this measure and assuming you approve of this result, MLF should be stopped from removing books from libraries. Is this what you believe?'

Hardly. He shouldn't be forced to fight for equal time with drag queens. Viewpoint discrimination on taxpayer funded facilities is illegal. And yes, taking pornography out of schools is fine by me.

That isn't what I asked. I asked if Kirk Cameron gets to read his book, does that mean that the book titles that MFL want removed from libraries must remain in the libraries? Under a neutral viewpoint, you cant have it both ways.

We don't know if he had to "fight" for reading time because the libraries didn't like him personally or because he is a emotionally disturbed hate monger with no literary talent.

It's interesting that he is a bit of a lone voice about persecution of Christian values by the library system. Probably the ALA has been cleverly persecuting Christians for centuries and it took child actor Kirk Cameron to uncover the fiendish plot…

But let's examine your approach that viewpoint discrimination is illegal for taxpayer funded entities.

Would that mean that public schools cant remove books MFL want because it would be a viewpoint discrimination against the authors of those books?

If an author wrote a book "Christians are Evil and must be destroyed" would the libraires have to let the author have children's reading time? If they were denied this, could the author then claim a Christian conspiracy by the ALA?

What if the book were "Why children should hate the Police"? Is that something that the libraires would need to allow for readings or else it would be proof of a police state?

"Deflection of what? Just to stop you right here, A group that quotes AH is a hate group. I do not need the SPLC to tell me this. I see that you don't quite like this, but it is non-negotiable."

Again, deflection. The quote from Hitler highlights what the other side is trying to do. Your response is the same evry time, "They quoted Hitler. Hitler is bad. They are bad." It's actually fairly sad that you can't back up your position.

Again, deflection?

Considering I still don't know what deflection you're talking about would this constitute Double Secret Deflection?

They should neither be promoting AH nor call other people AH. Whatever you're trying to prove here it is coming across as "Just give AH a chance".

What makes it worse is that you continue to defend their statement after MLF themselves retracted and condemned it. Perhaps you think they folded too quickly to public opinion?

After all, this is America. Why cant someone quote AH? AH was right some of the time wasnt he? Maybe if we all learned a little tolerance we would understand that AH is a viewpoint like any other? Is that right?

APDC your continued defense of the SPLC despite the evidence they are dishonest is amazing. Despite repeatedly being shown their bias you choose to believe them. Such blind faith, because they reinforce what you believe to be true, is the only reason anyone listens to them at all.

I have not defended the SPLC. I could if you wanted me to but I haven't. I asked you what their being so called left wing had to do with MFL's own statement by AH. Do you think that SPLC made them quote AH?

I also said, I don't need SPLC to cause me to condemn MLF's statement or their motives. I can figure this out on my own. Just bc you don't know anyone who can figure things out on their own doesn't mean they don't exist.

I also asked you, if SPLC is so left wing and purposefully ignores the many hate groups, then why isn't there a mirror right wing version of the SPLC to go after all those evil groups?

As for what fascism is and where it came from:
YouTube link

Pure misinformation by a political performance artist and felon. He isn't reliable. No historian of any merit has ever considered the Fascists anything other than ultra-right wing. I am shocked someone on a board with at least a hint of doing research and reading concerning history would use a populist video rather than an accredited author

MLF with their cultural and religious purity, manufactured outrage against an imaginary evil "other", persecution of the queer community, desire to censor books, anti-intellectual bullying, association with white supremacy groups and their willingness to embrace the words of AH are a Fascist organization and probably worse.

They have an expansive list of 2500+ books most of which deal with the experiences of non-whites in the USA. Thus, they can add racists to their list of "qualities".

And I don't think any of our cultural institutions should give them any oxygen for their anti-intellectual, commercial rallies.

One of their similarities to the Nazis is that like the Nazis using the faux cover of a working man's organization to recruit unwitting laborers, MLF is pretending theyre shielding kids. But when people start to realize what they actually stand for, other legitimate American institutions will hopefully bar them from holding events that tarnish the nation's reputation.

And you could only throw out Kirk Cameron's lone, dishonest desire to promote his paranoid take on Christianity as proof of Christian persecution by the ALA. That's some serious sloppiness and inability to measure degree which calls your judgment into question.

Arguing with you, Charge, is like trying to get a drink from a high pressure hose.

Another interestsing article:

link

It's worse than I thought. I didnt realize Christian Ziegler chastised MLF for removing the AH quote. It makes sense though. There's a reason groups like the Proud Boys and MLF identify with the Nazis and not the Soviets.

You gotta love Kirk Cameron's campaign that hating hate groups is hate!

I may have got this wrong, perhaps someone can clarify, but wasn't the alleged MLF quotation from Adolf Hitler indicating an attitude to children as expressed by him which the author(s) deemed to be sinister and reflecting his totalitarian ambitions, rather than something of which they(s) approved?

42nd, yes, probably. Or maybe it was a poorly chosen expression of a general truth, that controlling education is a good way to control everything else. Lots of other sources for that idea, most of whom are NOT Hitler. Including the Bible: "train up a child . . ."

42nd that is correct.

When we had a high degree of cultural unity -- when I was growing up, back in the 1950s -- public education worked fairly well at providing a lot of common experiences and ideas and values. For example, I think most American kids read Shakespeare's JULIUS CAESAR in 8th grade or so, and then ROMEO AND JULIET and/or MACBETH and /or HAMLET.

The fracturing /splintering of our culture means there is now little to no agreement as to what kids should learn, and so curricula have become a battleground. With sharply increasing alternatives to public education such as home schooling. So Hitler's idea -- or Loyola's, or any of a thousand other political figures, good or evil or in between -- is simply a statement of reality. Who controls the schools will, in a generation or two, control the society.

So the attempt to tar the MOMS as Hitler-lovers is, in my view, invalid and not made in good faith.

…or Loyola's…

'Ignatius never spoke of learning mathematics, playing musical instruments, or fostering physical talents. Unless your education allowed you to better serve God, Ignatius would not deem that education very important. It was only through necessity that Ignatius received his formal schooling.'

Quite different from the Hitler quotation. And anyone who quotes Hitler on any subject is guilty of ignorance.

Further, comparing Hitler and the Nazi education 'system' with a Jesuit education is preposterous.

link

link

And the Jesuit universities in the US are also excellent NCAA basketball schools. 😁

Kevin, the Jesuits basic strategy was to build schools and make them the best available, so that the rich and powerful would send their sons. Do that twenty years and you have huge influence. Do that 40 years you own the place. Georgetown U is precisely that idea.

I had a fine student went to Georgetown. I knew him to be an atheist so I asked him, Christmas break, whether the Jesuit influence was felt. He exclaimed, No, but the Jesuits are cool, the one who lives on the hall with us is a really neat guy.

See Paul Johnson's History of Christianity for a lengthy discussion of Jesuit schools as a cultural influence. For example, they stressed drama, and were responsible for important innovations in stage management. This was at a time when powerful men needed to be able to carry themselves well, to speak commandingly, to lie convincingly, etc. (still true today, of course)

My eldest brother went to a Jesuit university for a year before going to West Point.

I don't care for Paul Johnson as an author at all. Thanks anyways.

I expect you'd find his HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY of interest, in any case. He describes medieval Christendom as a totalitarian system, culturally, though of course with feudalism it was politically fragmented. That was an interpretation that would never have occurred to me, but he makes a strong case. And he has immense respect for the Jesuits. (He was, I believe, a RC himself.)

More on Fascism: Definitely a right-wing movement and ideology.

link

link

link

Looking at the history and the common elements, it's hard not to agree. The move to redefine it is political, I think. And it's over use by both sides has muddied the waters. But it should be noted that it is an extreme right wing ideology. It doesn't fit with conservative or liberal views of most Americans, IMO.

Sigh, Yeah, SURE, because totalitarian dictatorships are right-wing ideology. What a load of complete nonsense.

Tort, WHY is it extreme right wing? Be specific: what elements are right wing? Try to name some that are not shared by Soviet or Chinese Communism.

Single party? Secret police? curtailment of civil liberties? total control of culture? How is any of that RIGHT WING?

Tortorella is entirely correct. And the definitions of fascism have been posted.

It seems that the far right is claiming that fascism is left wing in order not to feel guilty for their flawed ideology as well as their actions and support for actions by the far right.

Right wing ideology is essentialy complacent, if not pessimistic, as to human nature and therefore economically laissez faire and elitist, and so potentially anti-democratic.

Left wing ideology is theoretically optimistic about human society, egalitarian but interventionist and therefore potentially anti-democratic.

Totalitarian rule is essentially about means not ends.

42, you are right to emphasize views of human nature as basic to political ideologies. I would restate your summary of rw views:

We are not exactly "complacent" about the flaws of human nature; rather, we accept them as an irremediable evil. See Madison in FEDERALIST 51: "If men were angels, no government would be necessary; if angels were to govern men, no restraints on government would be needed. If drawing up a constitution for men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed, and then oblige it to control itself."

The mixed and balanced federal system ASSUMES that men will be ambitious and greedy. The ambition of the president is to keep congress in check, and vice versa. We don't WANT an efficient government, because what it can do FOR us is dwarfed by what it can do TO us.

But how anyone gets from that view to totalitarianism is unexplainable.

Kevin, your posted definitions are flawed and unacceptable. And you rely far too much on other's thinking.

Doc, you don't really believe China or the Soviet Union are/were Communist , do you? Did anyone ever make nationwide Marxism work as an economic system? China and the Soviets, now the Russians, are far right fascist dictatorships.

I admit, when I read Marx long ago, I did not get how it would actually work. It was a tough slog just getting through it. But it has made a great cover story for authoritarian dictatorships, window dressing for the masses, Some of the greatest propaganda even created.

I disagree that authoritarians allow cultural freedom. Albert Speer might help us out with this.

The traits of fascism, including nationalism, authoritarianism, egotistical and narcissistic cult leadership, social/tribal bonding, loyalty oaths, grievances and scapegoats. The means of production is capitalistic, bribed or nationalized to serve a single cult driven political party using government money, ultimately controlled by one national leader.

You are right that Hitler and Stalin were much the same. Their leadership was based on the same things. When things get extreme left, there is anarchy which leads it to meet and become the far right coming around the other way.

But this is all a bunch of rambling. Every ideology has been getting a PR makeover. You can fool a lot of the people a lot of the time these days.

Tort, if you want to equate Stalin and his successors, and Mao and his, with Hitler, I think that is appropriate. Calling them "fascists" is problematical. The Khmer Rouge are fascists? Castro? How about Robespierre and the Jacobins? Fascists? Well then, how about the Sun King? How about the New Deal?

You would make the term so broad that it becomes useless. Which it largely has become. Today it simply means "a political group I do not like" and is a club with which the Left beats the Right. To hell with it.

I do agree that "true marxism" has never existed, and cannot, as it is contrary to human nature. Any regime justifying its existence by appeal to unworkable ideas must eventually either collapse or eliminate freedom so as to prevent its failures from being discussed. That works for a few decades.

Tort, I expect you are familiar with the Pilgrims' experiment with primitive communism. They almost starved before they wised up and distributed the land to families to grow their own. And as Bradford pointed out, if communism could not work with THOSE people, being sober middle class and united and passionate in their religious beliefs, then it cannot work with anyone.

So they began to consider how to raise more corn, and obtain a better crop than they had done, so that they might not continue to endure the misery of want. At length after much debate, the Governor, with the advice of the chief among them, allowed each man to plant corn for his own household, and to trust themselves for that…. This was very successful. It made all hands very industrious, so that much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could devise, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better satisfaction. …

The failure of the experiment in communal service, which was tried for several years, and by good and honest men, proves the emptiness of the theory of Plato and other ancients, applauded by some of later times, –that the taking away of private property, and the possession of it in community, by a commonwealth, would make a state happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God. For in this instance, community of property (so far as it went) was found to breed much confusion and discontent, and retard much employment which would have been to the general benefit and comfort. … Let none argue that this is due to human failing, rather than to this communistic plan of life in itself. I answer, seeing that all men have this failing in them, that God in His wisdom saw another plan of life was fitter for them. …