It's all so odd to me. How can a small/limited government ideology possibly be "fascist?" It cannot. There is no overlap. In fact, I don't see how an individual arguing for government power, nationalization of industry, or imperial expansion could be any sort of conservative at all. To say nothing of setting and rigging markets, choosing…
It's all so odd to me. How can a small/limited government ideology possibly be "fascist?" It cannot. There is no overlap. In fact, I don't see how an individual arguing for government power, nationalization of industry, or imperial expansion could be any sort of conservative at all. To say nothing of setting and rigging markets, choosing winners, and protecting favored businesses.
So, when the NYT and other low IQ propagandists use the term, it's nothing more than name-calling. And you are correct, it is also a direct call to violence against those being called the name.
But Fascism is an actual thing and it has an actual definition. Somewhat ironically, as Thomas Sowell has pointed out, Fascism is a leftist ideology. Mussolini was a Socialist. The Nazis referred to themselves as the Socialist party. The goal of Fascism was to protect government power by shifting the focus to ostensibly "private" companies that just so happened to be doing the government's bidding for the legal, financial, and regulatory rewards. Work with "private" companies to set in motion the agenda. IOW, pretty much exactly the same arrangement that defines our current system in the West.
So, Fascism is not "right wing." Nor is it about mean people doing bad things. It's an economic arrangement designed to advance leftist ideals. Unfortunately, in the West, it's been incredibly successful. Hopefully we are nearing the end of its nearly 100 year-long reign.
But, as you pointed out, a large segment of our mentally ill population (many of whom are mentally ill b/c of our fascist system, which has resulted in their suffering Rx-related harms) cannot see this obvious truth. Their leaders are the IRL fascists. Their system is fascist in nature. Their misbeliefs and their mental illnesses are the result of that system. All very sad.
well put; Rightwing would tend to be pro-Royalist and Monarchist with a subservient legislative body (House of Lords and Commons?) to give voice for people and interests and also administrate lesser burdens of governance. The King (accountable under God) primarily is the State and maintains all ultimate authority, sovereignty, and property--
Fascism made window-dressing of this arrangement and all Royalists were subservient to The Ruling National-Socialist Party Council, rendered mostly powerless and viewed as a nostalgic, necessary steppingstone of National history, with Churches made to heel in similar fashion.
It seems the more I learn/read about the history of these ideas, the more I conclude the labels are mostly useless. There are different systems/arrangements that serve differing goals/regimes, but they just do not cleanly align with our modern labels like liberal, conservative, libertarian, etc., except in isolated cases where the players are highly ideological (like everything related to Marxism).
And the more I come to think the structure doesn't matter that much. It's more about authoritarian regimes vs. non-authoritarian regimes. In the US, our Founders seemed to attempt to set up a system that would be inherently non-authoritarian, and by design, combat the eternal impulse of the ruling class toward authoritarianism. Fairly successful so far, but starting to bend under weight of the ruling class' desires.
It's all so odd to me. How can a small/limited government ideology possibly be "fascist?" It cannot. There is no overlap. In fact, I don't see how an individual arguing for government power, nationalization of industry, or imperial expansion could be any sort of conservative at all. To say nothing of setting and rigging markets, choosing winners, and protecting favored businesses.
So, when the NYT and other low IQ propagandists use the term, it's nothing more than name-calling. And you are correct, it is also a direct call to violence against those being called the name.
But Fascism is an actual thing and it has an actual definition. Somewhat ironically, as Thomas Sowell has pointed out, Fascism is a leftist ideology. Mussolini was a Socialist. The Nazis referred to themselves as the Socialist party. The goal of Fascism was to protect government power by shifting the focus to ostensibly "private" companies that just so happened to be doing the government's bidding for the legal, financial, and regulatory rewards. Work with "private" companies to set in motion the agenda. IOW, pretty much exactly the same arrangement that defines our current system in the West.
So, Fascism is not "right wing." Nor is it about mean people doing bad things. It's an economic arrangement designed to advance leftist ideals. Unfortunately, in the West, it's been incredibly successful. Hopefully we are nearing the end of its nearly 100 year-long reign.
But, as you pointed out, a large segment of our mentally ill population (many of whom are mentally ill b/c of our fascist system, which has resulted in their suffering Rx-related harms) cannot see this obvious truth. Their leaders are the IRL fascists. Their system is fascist in nature. Their misbeliefs and their mental illnesses are the result of that system. All very sad.
well put; Rightwing would tend to be pro-Royalist and Monarchist with a subservient legislative body (House of Lords and Commons?) to give voice for people and interests and also administrate lesser burdens of governance. The King (accountable under God) primarily is the State and maintains all ultimate authority, sovereignty, and property--
Fascism made window-dressing of this arrangement and all Royalists were subservient to The Ruling National-Socialist Party Council, rendered mostly powerless and viewed as a nostalgic, necessary steppingstone of National history, with Churches made to heel in similar fashion.
It seems the more I learn/read about the history of these ideas, the more I conclude the labels are mostly useless. There are different systems/arrangements that serve differing goals/regimes, but they just do not cleanly align with our modern labels like liberal, conservative, libertarian, etc., except in isolated cases where the players are highly ideological (like everything related to Marxism).
And the more I come to think the structure doesn't matter that much. It's more about authoritarian regimes vs. non-authoritarian regimes. In the US, our Founders seemed to attempt to set up a system that would be inherently non-authoritarian, and by design, combat the eternal impulse of the ruling class toward authoritarianism. Fairly successful so far, but starting to bend under weight of the ruling class' desires.