I'm currently reading the book "Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, from Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning", which was recommended by Laura in the "Psychopathic God" thread. Although I'm still in the middle of it, I must say it's truly fascinating and I think it's extremely important these days - especially when read with Political Ponerology in mind. It gave me so much to think about already that I'd like to share some of it.
The author takes the fascist programs and ideologies of Mussolini and Hitler and puts them in their historical context. He cuts through all the confusing labels such as left, right, conservative, liberal, classical liberal, progressive etc. that changed their meaning over time and were used as weapons by various actors, and shows the stunning similarity between "leftism" or "progressivism" and fascism - in fact, these ARE fascist. The point Goldberg makes is not that modern liberals act like fascists, but that fascism has been a left-wing, progressive project all along.
In other words, the picture that emerges so far is that fascism is clearly not "conservative" or what you would call "right-wing" today. In fact, it is collectivist, anti-capitalist, anti-religion (except that it can use religion sometimes to further its aims), wants to control everything in the name of welfare, progress and for the "good of the people", uses science as a sort of priestly class to provide justification so that the leaders can make the "right" choices, it hates the individual and always seeks to advance the collective... yep, exactly the Orwellian nightmare we see today mostly on the left. It's really fascinating and chilling how the author (re)tells modern American history through this lens, like the story of Woodrow Wilson and Teddy Roosevelt for example, who embraced exactly this kind of thinking - these people saw the constitution as a mere obstacle in the way of the great leaders and wanted absolute power in the name of "progress". It's really astonishing to read the history of America around WWI and what Wilson and the whole progressive gang, including later FDR, had on their minds - people that have tremendous influence on progressive thinking to this day.
Anyway, here are some features of fascism that I discerned from the book so far:
1. Schizoidal decleration, i.e. "left to his own devices, man will always be stupid and cruel, so we must tightly integrate him into a top-down structure".
2. So we create a powerful state (aka. Big Government) that controls every aspect of life - as always for the "good of the people".
3. To advance our "great cause for the good of the people", we need to create a "movement", to "mobilize". It's always about action.
4. Our advanced understanding of the way towards "progress" rests on science; there's a priestly class of scientists who can tell us exactly where the problems are and what we need to do.
5. We need to break up traditional structures, allegiances, hierarchies, religions, classes etc., "only then can we reach our progressive goals" - these traditional structures obviously stand in the way of radical change.
6. We need to "educate" people, especially children. It's always the "lack of education" or that we "didn't convey the message well enough" etc. In other words, we need massive propaganda.
7. Truth is overrated - we need to be pragmatic here, often a lie will do a better job.
8. We need to boldly experiment on a grand scale, remember - it's about action. Just implement sweeping changes and see what happens.
9. Shut down opposing voices.
10. Violence, war etc. are necessary means to reach our goals - it's ultimately all for the "good of the people". You need to crack some eggs to make an omelette.
I think Goldberg comes close to fleshing out the ponerization process in the West (you might compare how he sees fascism to a pathocracy), and having the knowledge from Political Ponerology, you can see the whole ugly picture emerge - how bit by bit, we were led into a trap. In hindsight, it's really unbelievable how humanity could have let it happen - how we gave up our individuality, local communities, responsibility for our lives, traditional wisdom and so much more to the whims of a tyrannical, fascist state masked in niceties and "progressive" double-speak. Where far-reaching things are decided in some backrooms between institutions, "enlightened scientists" and big corporations tied to the state apparatus. How we lost our voices both individually and on a local community level so that "they" can do whatever they want to us, in front of our doors. How we could allow the complete re-engineering of everything from our values, our reactions, our vocabulary and so on - all in the name of "progress"!
That's also why true conservatism seems like the much needed antidote to fascism, because it's almost by definition its opposite. Granted, conservatism has been hijacked as well, for example by turning it into imperialist or Christian-fundamentalist "neoconservatism". But true conservatism that stands up and says "enough, we have deep and important values that are the basis of humanity and we see through your power games", is the right attitude towards fascism it seems. Or as Goldberg put it, it's not about being against change per se, but always asking: what change and why? At what cost? It's about questioning sweeping changes based on ill-defined concepts and looking at the details. We should keep in mind though that Goldberg himself brings his own conservative/classical liberal slant to the story, so it's understandable that as a reader, you get the impression that conservatism is the solution.
The thing is, it is all so muddled and complicated. For example, I think many people have trouble to see a truly free society as something positive because they share the view of various intellectuals who inspire these fascist movements that people are just bad. What is missing here, I think, is a genuinely religious outlook on the part of the individual - an alignment with goodness, truth and higher values. Everyone just doing what they "like" is not the answer, but neither is the alternative: a tyrannical central power. Incredibly, what we are seeing today is a combination of both: nihilism/"do what you like" AND tyrannical power that enforces this nihilism!
Another thing I thought about is our hyperdimensional perspective here, i.e. the theory that negative forces are shaping things behind history. Reading in Goldberg's book about how we got where we are seems so cruel and genius in its brutality that you really wonder if things are not subtly steered so that we end up here. It's exactly as outlined in Ponerology: it always begins with pathological ideas, or at least limited truthful concepts that are then wrongly applied universally. Then come other pathological figures and forces and take it to the next level and on it goes. At times, I feel really hopeless reading this book. What an entangled web we are finding ourselves in indeed! What an uphill battle against a devious plan spanning countless centuries, or so it seems! Maybe all this mess can be sorted out only in 4D or something, where maybe you can illuminate the world from all possible angles at once?
Also, reading about the history of the West's ponerization, it seems to me that each little step in the development of this fascist mindset and the implementation of its program were successful because even though most people didn't like it, they also looked the other way because it seemed unimportant or they thought it didn't really affect their lives that much. But taken together over the course of history, we were completely corrupted and brought to accept the total authority of the state and its priests and our total dependence on it. Look at Jordan Peterson and his pronoun scandal - people always say "it's no big deal, doesn't affect my life, maybe it's even a good idea" etc., but these things represent exactly the small steps towards ever greater fascism.
A final thought: Maybe I'm off here, but when I read this book, I wondered if we might not see a reemergence of real anti-semitism - which has a long tradition on the "progressive" side. It's a peculiar situation: you have this backlash against SJWs and "liberal fascism" by people like those from the "intellectual dark web", many of whom are Jews. Then of course there is the Israel issue and the justified disgust many on the left feel towards Israel's brutality and perhaps even more importantly that it gets away with it and calls everyone "anti-semite" who objects. Sadly, many Jews in the West have been brainwashed into accepting and justifying Israel's crimes. So all in all, this strikes me as quite an explosive cocktail - will there be a comeback of anti-semitism - the real one, not the one Israel throws at its critics? With all the pro-Israel pundits having cried "wolf" so many times, will anyone listen when real anti-semitism comes back? Maybe something to keep an eye on, don't know.
As I said, I haven't finished the book yet, and I don't know enough about American history to judge every claim Goldberg makes. I'm pretty sure that at times he pushed a little hard on the facts to fit them into his narrative. Nonetheless, he makes a compelling case with tons of quotes and references and it's quite the ride. The book really made me rethink many things about all those labels thrown around and gave me a new picture of modern intellectual and political history. I think it is a fantastic read especially when read through the Political Ponerology lens. Highly recommended!
The author takes the fascist programs and ideologies of Mussolini and Hitler and puts them in their historical context. He cuts through all the confusing labels such as left, right, conservative, liberal, classical liberal, progressive etc. that changed their meaning over time and were used as weapons by various actors, and shows the stunning similarity between "leftism" or "progressivism" and fascism - in fact, these ARE fascist. The point Goldberg makes is not that modern liberals act like fascists, but that fascism has been a left-wing, progressive project all along.
In other words, the picture that emerges so far is that fascism is clearly not "conservative" or what you would call "right-wing" today. In fact, it is collectivist, anti-capitalist, anti-religion (except that it can use religion sometimes to further its aims), wants to control everything in the name of welfare, progress and for the "good of the people", uses science as a sort of priestly class to provide justification so that the leaders can make the "right" choices, it hates the individual and always seeks to advance the collective... yep, exactly the Orwellian nightmare we see today mostly on the left. It's really fascinating and chilling how the author (re)tells modern American history through this lens, like the story of Woodrow Wilson and Teddy Roosevelt for example, who embraced exactly this kind of thinking - these people saw the constitution as a mere obstacle in the way of the great leaders and wanted absolute power in the name of "progress". It's really astonishing to read the history of America around WWI and what Wilson and the whole progressive gang, including later FDR, had on their minds - people that have tremendous influence on progressive thinking to this day.
Anyway, here are some features of fascism that I discerned from the book so far:
1. Schizoidal decleration, i.e. "left to his own devices, man will always be stupid and cruel, so we must tightly integrate him into a top-down structure".
2. So we create a powerful state (aka. Big Government) that controls every aspect of life - as always for the "good of the people".
3. To advance our "great cause for the good of the people", we need to create a "movement", to "mobilize". It's always about action.
4. Our advanced understanding of the way towards "progress" rests on science; there's a priestly class of scientists who can tell us exactly where the problems are and what we need to do.
5. We need to break up traditional structures, allegiances, hierarchies, religions, classes etc., "only then can we reach our progressive goals" - these traditional structures obviously stand in the way of radical change.
6. We need to "educate" people, especially children. It's always the "lack of education" or that we "didn't convey the message well enough" etc. In other words, we need massive propaganda.
7. Truth is overrated - we need to be pragmatic here, often a lie will do a better job.
8. We need to boldly experiment on a grand scale, remember - it's about action. Just implement sweeping changes and see what happens.
9. Shut down opposing voices.
10. Violence, war etc. are necessary means to reach our goals - it's ultimately all for the "good of the people". You need to crack some eggs to make an omelette.
I think Goldberg comes close to fleshing out the ponerization process in the West (you might compare how he sees fascism to a pathocracy), and having the knowledge from Political Ponerology, you can see the whole ugly picture emerge - how bit by bit, we were led into a trap. In hindsight, it's really unbelievable how humanity could have let it happen - how we gave up our individuality, local communities, responsibility for our lives, traditional wisdom and so much more to the whims of a tyrannical, fascist state masked in niceties and "progressive" double-speak. Where far-reaching things are decided in some backrooms between institutions, "enlightened scientists" and big corporations tied to the state apparatus. How we lost our voices both individually and on a local community level so that "they" can do whatever they want to us, in front of our doors. How we could allow the complete re-engineering of everything from our values, our reactions, our vocabulary and so on - all in the name of "progress"!
That's also why true conservatism seems like the much needed antidote to fascism, because it's almost by definition its opposite. Granted, conservatism has been hijacked as well, for example by turning it into imperialist or Christian-fundamentalist "neoconservatism". But true conservatism that stands up and says "enough, we have deep and important values that are the basis of humanity and we see through your power games", is the right attitude towards fascism it seems. Or as Goldberg put it, it's not about being against change per se, but always asking: what change and why? At what cost? It's about questioning sweeping changes based on ill-defined concepts and looking at the details. We should keep in mind though that Goldberg himself brings his own conservative/classical liberal slant to the story, so it's understandable that as a reader, you get the impression that conservatism is the solution.
The thing is, it is all so muddled and complicated. For example, I think many people have trouble to see a truly free society as something positive because they share the view of various intellectuals who inspire these fascist movements that people are just bad. What is missing here, I think, is a genuinely religious outlook on the part of the individual - an alignment with goodness, truth and higher values. Everyone just doing what they "like" is not the answer, but neither is the alternative: a tyrannical central power. Incredibly, what we are seeing today is a combination of both: nihilism/"do what you like" AND tyrannical power that enforces this nihilism!
Another thing I thought about is our hyperdimensional perspective here, i.e. the theory that negative forces are shaping things behind history. Reading in Goldberg's book about how we got where we are seems so cruel and genius in its brutality that you really wonder if things are not subtly steered so that we end up here. It's exactly as outlined in Ponerology: it always begins with pathological ideas, or at least limited truthful concepts that are then wrongly applied universally. Then come other pathological figures and forces and take it to the next level and on it goes. At times, I feel really hopeless reading this book. What an entangled web we are finding ourselves in indeed! What an uphill battle against a devious plan spanning countless centuries, or so it seems! Maybe all this mess can be sorted out only in 4D or something, where maybe you can illuminate the world from all possible angles at once?
Also, reading about the history of the West's ponerization, it seems to me that each little step in the development of this fascist mindset and the implementation of its program were successful because even though most people didn't like it, they also looked the other way because it seemed unimportant or they thought it didn't really affect their lives that much. But taken together over the course of history, we were completely corrupted and brought to accept the total authority of the state and its priests and our total dependence on it. Look at Jordan Peterson and his pronoun scandal - people always say "it's no big deal, doesn't affect my life, maybe it's even a good idea" etc., but these things represent exactly the small steps towards ever greater fascism.
A final thought: Maybe I'm off here, but when I read this book, I wondered if we might not see a reemergence of real anti-semitism - which has a long tradition on the "progressive" side. It's a peculiar situation: you have this backlash against SJWs and "liberal fascism" by people like those from the "intellectual dark web", many of whom are Jews. Then of course there is the Israel issue and the justified disgust many on the left feel towards Israel's brutality and perhaps even more importantly that it gets away with it and calls everyone "anti-semite" who objects. Sadly, many Jews in the West have been brainwashed into accepting and justifying Israel's crimes. So all in all, this strikes me as quite an explosive cocktail - will there be a comeback of anti-semitism - the real one, not the one Israel throws at its critics? With all the pro-Israel pundits having cried "wolf" so many times, will anyone listen when real anti-semitism comes back? Maybe something to keep an eye on, don't know.
As I said, I haven't finished the book yet, and I don't know enough about American history to judge every claim Goldberg makes. I'm pretty sure that at times he pushed a little hard on the facts to fit them into his narrative. Nonetheless, he makes a compelling case with tons of quotes and references and it's quite the ride. The book really made me rethink many things about all those labels thrown around and gave me a new picture of modern intellectual and political history. I think it is a fantastic read especially when read through the Political Ponerology lens. Highly recommended!