The Psychopathic God: Adolf Hitler

Turgon

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
#1
Seeing as there's no thread about The Psychopathic God: Adolf Hitler, I thought I'd start one. Laura recommended this book in order to better understand what was going in Germany prior to Hitler coming to power that allowed him and Nazi ideology to sweep across the nation, and eventually Europe.

This was the first book I've ever read about him or the Nazi's, outside of documentaries and what's known through mainstream culture, so getting this inside look into Hitler was initially very disturbing, in particular coming to understand the particulars of his personality and some of the horrible things he did, his twisted nature, and all the ominous 'fortunes' that surrounded him. As has been talked about here, the book presents a strong case that Hitler was possessed, or at least certain times was possessed of something other than himself (4D STS). And it goes into great detail his upbringing, childhood, etc. And even though I wasn't entirely convinced of some of the more Freudian psychoanalysis' of his motivations, the author presented a strong argument nonetheless of the inherent drive or impulse in him to basically do evil while also not caricaturing Hitler - which in a sense made it that much more disturbing to read. But it was very illuminating, especially showing the kind of environment that existed in Germany prior to Nazism that essentially paved the way for an ideology like Nazism to take root in Germany, and finding some parallels between that and today's SJW movement. There are a lot of differences in the method's between the two, but some things stood at as eerily similar what is happening today in the West.

Hitler's general appeal to the lower middle class was well summarized by a thoughtful German observer:

“Nazism contained an incomparable and unsurpassable combination of all those psychological elements which the masses needed... [Hitler] could not immediately give bread to the starving and wages to the unemployed but he absolved the weary, the desperate and the downtrodden from the heaviest burdens of their souls. He allowed them to gather hope and to feel superior. He released them from the loads of reason, responsibility, and morality. He led them back into the regressive paradise of irresponsibility and implicit faith. He let them relax into a precivilized, presocial, infantile stage. He allowed them to hate and believe, to strike and obey, to march and feel as the masters of the world.
This passage seems to directly mirror what we're seeing from the SJW movement, although its couched in different terms. The current radical leftist ideology promotes the chance for women and minorities to identify themselves as victims of oppressive institutions, thus negating any responsibility or culpability as to the condition of their own lives. What better way to release yourself of all responsibility and regress into an infantile state then by blaming someone else for your problems. So now they march on the 'Patriarchy', white privilege, systemic racism, etc. One example that illustrates this is what happened at Evergreen College where the college students took over the school and started forming violent mobs.

Hitler also offered concrete programs well calculated to catch the interests of the lower middle class. He was careful to stress in hundreds of electrifying speeches that he stood, point by point, for the exact opposite of everything that troubled the “little men” of Germany. Democracy was at fault, so he offered authoritarian government; class privilege and exploitation were resented, so he promised Gemeinschaft; in place of international cooperation and the League of Nations, associated with the Versailles-Diktat, he promised militant nationalism. Above all, he sensed the longing for a heroic leader, a longing as old as the Barbarossa legend, and as the current memoir of 1934 written by a high school teacher:

“I reached the conclusion that no party, but a single man alone could save Germany. This opinion was shared by others, for when the cornerstone of a monument was laid in my home town, the following lines were inscribed in it: “Descendants who these words, know ye that we eagerly await the coming of the Man whose strong hand may restore order.”
Or today it's capitalism controlled by the Patriarchy that's at fault. And instead of class privilege, we have white privilege.

“Hitler also knew the attraction that a particular kind of socialism could have in thousands of households where the inflation and the Depression had wiped out bourgeois aspirations. Hitler's socialism had great appeal, for it allowed the lower middle class to escape a desperate dilemma: economic disaster had prevented a rise to bourgeois status, but social traditions prevented them from sinking into the Lumpenproletariat. Hitler's socialism permitted the Hans Schmidts to become socialists in a national system without becoming proletariatized or internationalized. His system was one in which all racial Germans could be members of one Volksgemeinschaft, a racial community in which social distinctions were blurred and rendered unimportant.

With remarkable adroitness, Hitler adjusted socialist slogans to make them fit the needs of the lower middle class. He changed Marxist hatred for the bourgeois to hatred for the Republic and the Jews. He agreed that Germans were victims of exploitation – but by the Jews. Like the socialists he provided a vision of future utopia – not of a classless society but of a racially equal Volksgemeinschaft.”
So here we see Hitler trying to create that single 'master' race by blurring social distinctions. For the Nazi movement, there were no different classes of Germans, just Germans who were in allegiance to the Fuhrer. No rich Germans, poor Germans, German intellectuals and what not. Which makes one wonder about the intention of social constructionists that are attempting to blur the lines between male and female and human sexuality, which isn't just rendering a social distinction nonexistent, but a biological one as well. This sort of strange amalgamation of all things into this weird Chimera hybrid where what was once a sacred held truth is now done away with as people can become anything and yet nothing at the same time.

And Hitler blaming Jews for all the problems the German people faced was another simplistic scapegoat for some very complex problems in German society, the least of which was the treaty of Versailles and the failed attempt at introducing democracy to a people who at the time preferred or were used to authoritarian government, at least from my perspective, that's how the book made it out to be. But Feminists easily blame the Patriarchy and toxic masculinity, the BLM movement blames systemic racism and white privilege, etc.

He looked the part. And his very nullity was a source of his strength. The anxious and ineffective “little man” of Germany who longed for power and greatness could identify with Hitler, for he was a kindred soul; he was one of them. They could “see greatness emerging from a creature who was smaller than you or I – that is what made Hitler an experience for millions.

… None of his competitors showed a remotely comparable ability to combine ideology and propaganda or anything like his capacity to sense the psychic needs of his audiences.

….

It is inconceivable that he should have evoked so great a popular response unless he had succeeded in expressing the underlying, unconscious sentiments of large numbers of people and providing them with an acceptable solution to their … problem.

Social psychologists, psychoanalysts, and cultural anthropologists have that by 1933 the German people as a group were suffering from psychological problems which made them particularly responsive to some sort of authoritarian leader.
Which really makes me wonder when/if the next Hitler-type figure will appear. It seems like Western society has already reached the prerequisites for such a person to take stage. :-/

Some more on that:

Dr. Frenkel-Brunswick, for example, in setting forth the behaviour patterns of “authoriatarian personalities,” has accurately described the most characteristic traits of Adolf Hitler: great admiration for the strong and contempt for the weak; a tendency to demand total and unquestioning surrender to authority and to conform compulsively; glorification of an “ingroup” and rejection of “outgroups” as weak, impotent, immoral hostile or depraved; self-perception as a person with massive will-power and iron determination; conception of hardships “in the image of unmitigated brutality”; and an ego ideal of ruggedness, toughness, and hardness, with a rigid and exaggerated separation of masculinity and feminity. Such people run to extremes, with opposite personality tendencies constantly in conflict. Projection is very important to them; they feel weak, and resulting anxiety prompts them to project, that is externalize what they consider to be evil. There is “a striving for compensatory feelings of superiority” by the condemnation of others, especially outgroups...

….

His antisemitism had other political advantages. The Jew served as a safe outlet for hatred and aggression when war against an external enemy was not feasible. He could be presented as “an outsiders” and thus provide Germans with an opportunity to defend their “Germandom” from “alien” forces by attacking the Jews within the country. It was also reassuring, at a time when national effectiveness was in doubt, to assert basic racial superiority. Further, the Jews were said to be intellectuals, and in denouncing them many Germans found a convenient way to deprecate the rationalism which they had so long found suspect. There was also a moral and religious problem that anti-Semitism helped assuage. The Weimar period was not only a time of economic, social, and political confusion; it was also a decade of crisis in traditional moral values. Many Germans were shocked by what they considered to be the depravity of cinema, stage, cabaret life, and literature. It was comforting to be told that such depravity was due entirely to “Jewish influences.”



It was very important for Hitler to avoid any suggestion of feminine softness and always to appear masculine and masterful. One way of doing so was by acting the part; another was through the repetition of adjectives which he considered descriptive of masculine virtues... A man who had survived dozens of “Table Conversations” with Hitler recalled that “never once have I heard from his lips words which would show that he had a warm or feeling heart in his breast.”
These quotes in particular stood out for me, the least of which the idea of in-groups demonizing the outgroups (or outgroups now demonizing the supposed in-groups) and Hitler and the Nazis hatred of the feminine, is almost the total opposite of what's now happening with a war on masculinity. As if a prerequisite to something terrible happening is a concerted effort to shift out of balance the natural and complementary relationship between masculine and feminine as if one is more desirable (or detested) than the other. It's like some strange attempt to throw the cosmos off its axis, no pun intended.

Although, after reading the book, I find myself more unsure of what's going to happen next. I can't help but wonder if we'll see a resurgence of an extreme right-wing element in response to the SJW movement. Somehow, I don't see what's predominantly considered a 'matriarchal' tyranny being able to mobilize people under a single leader into something remotely similar to what happened in Germany. Although maybe that's not what is intended here at all and even though the goals may be the same, the methods are entirely different. The Nazis only had one head that needed cutting off, the radical leftists have many.
 

seek10

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
#2
Nice comparison Turgon of the Nazi situation to the leftists. I read the book some time back. Here are some impressions.
This was the first book I've ever read about him or the Nazi's, outside of documentaries and what's known through mainstream culture, so getting this inside look into Hitler was initially very disturbing, in particular coming to understand the particulars of his personality and some of the horrible things he did, his twisted nature, and all the ominous 'fortunes' that surrounded him. As has been talked about here, the book presents a strong case that Hitler was possessed, or at least certain times was possessed of something other than himself (4D STS). And it goes into great detail his upbringing, childhood, etc. And even though I wasn't entirely convinced of some of the more Freudian psychoanalysis' of his motivations, the author presented a strong argument nonetheless of the inherent drive or impulse in him to basically do evil while also not caricaturing Hitler - which in a sense made it that much more disturbing to read. But it was very illuminating, especially showing the kind of environment that existed in Germany prior to Nazism that essentially paved the way for an ideology like Nazism to take root in Germany, and finding some parallels between that and today's SJW movement. There are a lot of differences in the method's between the two, but some things stood at as eerily similar what is happening today in the West.
I too hadn't read much in western history (Hitler or JFK or anybody else) except what i read on sott or forum or C's recommendations.
The author was using some of the techniques of "Idea of History", parsing large volume of reading, going topic by topic, summarizing his impressions. What He finds it( in Hitler's persona (childishness to psychopathic brutality or contradictions or ideology or madness or God's providence etc.) doesn't add up to the normal 3D events. I felt, Whoever in charge from Thule society to gullible people to bankers who funded all this used him. His temperament is not good enough to be pulled through this much monstrosity to set template for todays control activity main through the zionist organization. some quotes from the book

German condition Page 382

The anti-democratic establishment

Army ... considered Hitler to be the right man to work up into fury, passions... against Versailles. Actually, he trumpeted nothing different from their own call for power.
...
At lower echelons of the Army, Hitler was supported with greater enthusiasm. One non-commissioned officer to his thousands of comrades

We... didn't join the stormtroopers for many rational considerations, or after many contemplations. It was our feeling that led us to Hitler. What.. our hearts compelled us to think was this: Hitler, you're our man. You talk like a man who'd been at the front, who's been through the same mess as we have .. like us, an unknown soldier...

page 383

The civil service, which had proved to sedulous in supporting Prussian kings and German emperors, showed no such loyalty to republic ( Wiemar aka democracy)/
...
Hitler saw no need for changing the personnel in carrying out his aggressive policies. In 1939, of nine divisional chiefs of diplomatic corps who endorsed Hitler's war, only one had been a Nazi appointee. The republic retained all the laws of the empire as well as its judges. As a leading authority on German law during the period has noted "Between the new republic and old Reich the judicial relationship is not one of succession, but one of identity"

Page 384

The bureaucracy that had helped Hitler to power proved indispensable in establishing his dictatorship. He could never have consolidated his control over Germany "Without the technical help of tens of thousands of civil servants and the acquiescence of millions... complicity and silence, not refusal and dissent" characterized the German bureaucracy in the crucial early years of Hitler's dictatorship.
...

Let father Falkan, a Catholic parish priest, speak for the colleagues:

I must admit that I was glad to see the Nazis come into power because at that time I felt that Hitler as a Catholic was a God-fearing individual who could battle communism for the Church... The anti-semitism of the Nazis, as well as their anti-Marxism, appealed to the Church... as a counterpoise to paganism which had developed after 1920.


Page 385

With a few notable exceptions, the news media opposed the Republic and welcomed Hitler.
...

he[HugenBerg] purchased a leading Berlin leading Berlin newspaper, newsreel rights and a press service which sent out stories and set editorial policies for the provincial press. In one way or other he gained control over some 1600 newspapers with millions of readers, He also owned Germany's largest and most influential film corporation, UFA, which controlled the distribution of films to scores of theaters.

Germany's educational system remained authoritarianism nationalist, and unreconciled to democracy. The attitudes school teachers must have taken into classrooms of the republic can be inferred from the alacrity with which they welcomed and supported Hitler. OF all the professions represented in the Nazi party, teachers - particularly in elementary schools -- formed by far the largest group. About 97 percent of all schoolteachers became members of the party or its affiliates, and many of them rose to positions of influence in the Third Reich, including Heinrich Himmler and Julis Streicher, along with some 3,000 local leaders of the party. Altogether, more than 30% total leadership of the party had been school teachers in the Weimar Republic.

Page 389

Most Weimar intellectuals were not so much divided left from right as they were united in opposition to the middle. The extremes had much in common, confessed Henry Pachter, as socialist in his youth: "We too romantics about the state; we too agreed that republic had no Geist; we too lacked real contact with the masses; we too saw ourselves, members of the elite,; we too ridiculed the republic as an ugly thing. We agreed: republic had no style"
...
Both left and right tended to deprecate intellect and extol Lebensphilosphie- a romantic urge which stressed emotions, instincts, and patriotic activism. Symptomatic of the attitude was a truly remarkable revival of interest in early romantic Heinrich von Kleist, who enjoyed the support of many surprisingly diverse groups: the Nazis claimed him racial nationalist; the communists called him a revolutionary; Thomas Mann enjoyed his humor; religious revivalists were attracted by the torment of Christianity.

Page 390

Nazi emphasis on the primacy of community over the individual also helps to explain how it was possible for so many German intellectuals to join the Nazi cult.
...
One is reminded of Kahn's observation that Nazism resulted from the marriage of Prussianism and Romanticism.

Page 392

The concluding chapter, "The Third Reich" is full of magic and myth. "remember" he pleads in 1923, "that the words themselves are mystery, indeterminate... charged with a feeling of this world but of the next"

page 394
Spengler, like Hitler after him, was much taken with the "Power of Blood" to form history

Page 412

In reflecting on the amazing success of Adolf Hitler, an american psychiatrist wondered why Germans followed this particular leader who was so childish; what was it in them, he asked, that responded to this immature person who was in so many ways ridiculous? It seems likely that youth cohort felt drawn to Hitler precisley because he too used the defense of regression; he too, they believed, had suffered hunger and deprivation; he too was filled with hatred and capable of furious tantrums. Like themselves, he was defensive and vulnerable, but he could also be brutal and dictatorial in his demands, a destroyer and creator who would repay the insults of versailies and built a new order. HE too practiced "Primitive idealization": the world was divided into the all good and all evil - the good, creative aryans, the evil destructive jews.

Above all, the youth cohort came to Hitler because his movement institutionalized hatred and sanctified aggression.
... 414

Hitler, an opportunist but also a man of faith, found in easy to put armor of righteousness: he would save Germany from selfishness, materialism, factionalism, moral depravity, racial corruption. The effectiveness of his propaganda lay finally in this -- he made it seem that his party's nihilism was idealism, its brutality strength, its vicious "ideology" altruism. And his converts in the name of idealism are legion. Trevor-Roper is right in reminding us that not all adherents are vicious anti-semites, sadistic brutes, bullies and neurotics. "Many young people" he has written, "bewildered by the confusion of their time, were inspired by a message of hope, the simple, crystal-clear, infectious insurance" that a nation defeated and bound could, by the exercise of faith and willpower, arise again to a position of pride and independence.

Page 480 Hitler's military mistakes and irrational decisions:
self-induced failure of Dunkirk, not attacking England, not trying to conquer Egypt to control the Mediterranean, declaring war on America ( He wanted to declare war on Roosevelt before Roosevelt could get America to declare war on him ) when he was losing against Russia, not taking help of Japan to defeat Russia etc.

page 484:
He once confessed to an aide, "on land I am a hero; but at sea, I am a coward" - infantilism to conquer England without crossing the sea.

Page 498:
Again, when one asks the obvious question about the planned holocaust, namely why, the answers are very difficult or too easy. "It was because he was evil", it is said, "Completely evil". But he had been evil all along--though never completely so. Others haver explained his conduct saying, "He was seized by demons". One must ask what kind? "Well, he was just crazy", it has been asserted by those who agree with the ancient Greeks that "whom the Gods would destroy they first made mad". But what kind of madness was his?
Although, after reading the book, I find myself more unsure of what's going to happen next. I can't help but wonder if we'll see a resurgence of an extreme right-wing element in response to the SJW movement. Somehow, I don't see what's predominantly considered a 'matriarchal' tyranny being able to mobilize people under a single leader into something remotely similar to what happened in Germany. Although maybe that's not what is intended here at all and even though the goals may be the same, the methods are entirely different. The Nazis only had one head that needed cutting off, the radical leftists have many.
Well, we have seen stupid Dubya who doesn't fit to be even to be a clerk becoming presidents controlled by "New world order" - Cheney etc. The decade of enforced "Political correctness" created of Dubya's ilk - I mean republican/democratic candidates of 2016 election, other than Trump who used his casino skill to bet on the right words for a right crowd.

I guess, How it will unfold will never be clear. 3D was never been in control of these type of things.
June 6, 1998
Q: What power structure was this?
A: The "Third Reich."
Q: And who created the Third Reich?
A: Illuminati.
Q: So Hitler thought he could find something that would enable him to take complete control...
A: Sort of like a termite trying to vanquish "Orkin."
 

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
#3
I picked up a book a week or two ago that I haven't actually read yet. I've only read the intro and hope to get into it when I get through the current reading assignments. Anyway, the intro was so interesting and relevant to this topic (and a couple other current topics, as it happens), that I asked for a scan of it. I've converted it to text and hope I got out most of the scan/conversion errors, but there may still be a few. Anyway, not vouching for the book at this point, but sure is an interesting take considering it was written back in 2008. Here's a snippet from Wikipedia:

Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, from Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning is a book by Jonah Goldberg, in which Goldberg argues that fascist movements were and are left-wing. Published in January 2008, it reached #1 on the New York Times Best Seller list of hardcover non-fiction in its seventh week on the list. Goldberg is a syndicated columnist and the editor-at-large of National Review Online.
So, without further ado, here's the intro:

Everything You Know About Fascism Is Wrong ·

George Carlin: ... and the poor have been systematically looted in this country. The rich have been made richer under this criminal, fascist president and his government. [Applause.] [Cheers.]

Bill Maher: Okay, okay.

James Glassman: You know, George... George, I think you know-do you know what fascism is?

Carlin: Fascism, when it comes to America…

Glassman: Do you know what Nazis are?

Carlin: When fascism comes to America, it will not be in brown and black shirts. It will not be with jack-boots. It will be Nike sneakers and Smiley shirts. Smiley-smiley Fascism. Germany lost the Second World War. Fascism won it. Believe me, my friend.

Maher: And actually, fascism is when corporations become the government.

Carlin: Yes.


Outside of a few academic seminars, this is about as intelligent as discussions about fascism get in America. Angry left-wingers shout that all those to their right, particularly corporate fat cats and the politicians who love them, are fascists. Meanwhile, besieged conservatives sit dumbfounded by the nastiness of the slander.

Bill Maher to the contrary, fascism is not "when corporations become the government." Ironically, however, George Carlin's conclusion is right, though not his reasoning. If fascism does come to America, it will indeed take the form of "smiley-face fascism"- nice fascism. In fact, in many respects fascism not only is here but has been here for nearly a century. For what we call liberalism:-the refurbished edifice of American Progressivism-is in fact a descendant and manifestation of fascism. This doesn't mean it's the same thing as Nazism. Nor is it the twin of Italian Fascism. But Progressivism was a sister movement of fascism, and today's liberalism is the daughter of Progressivism. One could strain the comparison and say that today's liberalism is the well-intentioned niece of European fascism. She is hardly identical to her uglier relations, but she nonetheless carries an embarrassing family resemblance that few will admit to recognizing.

There is no word in the English language that gets thrown around more freely by people who don't know what it means than "fascism." Indeed, the more someone uses the word "fascist" in everyday conversation, the less likely it is that he knows what he's talking about.

You might think that the exception to this rule would be scholars of fascism. But what really distinguishes the scholarly community is its honesty. Not even the professionals have figured out what exactly fascism is. Countless scholarly investigations begin with this pro forma acknowledgment. "Such is the welter of divergent opinion surrounding the term," writes Roger Griffin in his introduction to The Nature of Fascism, "that it is almost de rigueur to open contributions to the debate on fascism with some such observation."

The few scholars who have ventured their own definitions provide a glimmer of insight as to why consensus is so elusive. Griffin, a contemporary leading light in the field, defines fascism as "a genus of political ideology whose mythic core in its various permutations is a palingenetic form of populist ultra-nationalism." Roger Eatwell claims that fascism's "essence" is a "form of thought that preaches the need for social rebirth in order to forge a holistic-national radical Third Way." Emilio Gentile suggests, "A mass movement, that combines different classes but is prevalently of the middle classes, which sees itself as having a mission of national regeneration, is in a state of war with its adversaries, and seeks a monopoly of power by using terror, parliamentary tactics and compromise to create a new regime, destroying democracy."

While these are perfectly serviceable definitions, what most recommends them over others is that they are short enough to reprint here. For example, the social scientist Ernst Nolte, a key figure in the German "historians' dispute" (Historikerstreit) of the 1980s, has a six-point definition called the "Fascist minimum" that tries to define fascism by what it opposes-that is, fascism is both "anti-liberalism" and "anti-conservatism." Other definitional constructs are even more convoluted, requiring that contrary evidence be counted as exceptions that prove the rule.

It's an academic version of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle: the more closely you study the subject, the less clearly defined it becomes. The historian R. A. H. Robinson wrote twenty years ago, "Although enormous amounts of research time and mental energy have been put into the study of it ... fascism has remained the great conundrum for students of the twentieth century." Meanwhile, the authors of the Dictionnaire historique des fascismes et du nazisme flatly assert, "No universally accepted definition of the fascist phenomenon exists, no consensus, however slight, as to its range, its ideological origins, or the modalities of action which characterize it." Stanley G. Payne, considered by many to be the leading living scholar of fascism, wrote in 1995, "At the end of the twentieth century fascism remains probably the vaguest of the major political terms." There are even serious scholars who argue that Nazism wasn't fascist, that fascism doesn't exist at all, or that it is primarily a secular religion (this is my own view). "[P]ut simply," writes Gilbert Allardyce, "we have agreed to use the word without agreeing on how to define it."

And yet even though scholars admit that the nature of fascism is vague, complicated, and open to wildly divergent interpretations, many modern liberals and leftists act as if they know exactly what fascism is. What's more, they see it everywhere-except when they look in the mirror. Indeed, the left wields the term like a cudgel to beat opponents from the public square like seditious pamphleteers. After all, no one has to take a fascist, seriously. You're under no obligation to listen to a fascist's arguments or concern yourself with his feelings or rights. It's why Al Gore and many other environmentalists are so quick to compare global-warming skeptics to Holocaust deniers. Once such an association takes hold, there's no reason to give such people the time of day.

In short, "fascist" is a modern word for "heretic," branding an individual worthy of excommunication from the body politic. The left uses other words-"racist," "sexist," "homophobe," "christianist" for similar purposes, but these words have less elastic meanings. Fascism, however, is the gift that keeps on giving. George Orwell noted this tendency as early as 1946 in his famous essay "Politics and the English Language": "The word Fascism has now no meaning except insofar as it signifies 'something not desirable.' "

Hollywood writers use the words "fascist," "Brownshirt," and "Nazi" as if they mean no more and no less than "anything liberals don't like." On NBC's West Wing support for school choice was deemed "fascist" (even though school choice is arguably the most un-fascist public policy ever conceived, after homeschooling). Crash Davis, Kevin Costner's character in the movie Bull Durham, explains to his protege, "Quit trying to strike everybody out. Strikeouts are boring and besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls. They're more democratic." A rude cook on Seinfeld is the "Soup Nazi."

The real world is only marginally less absurd. Representative Charlie Rangel claimed that the GOP's 1994 Contract with America was more extreme than Nazism. "Hitler wasn't even talking about doing these things" (this is technically accurate in that Hitler wasn't, in fact, pushing term limits for committee chairs and "zero-based" budgeting). In 2000 Bill Clinton called the Texas GOP platform a "fascist tract." The New York Times leads a long roster of mainstream publications eager to promote leading academics who raise the possibility that the GOP is a fascist party and that Christian conservatives are the new Nazis.

More recently, the Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times reporter Chris Hedges penned a book called American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America, which is just one of many current polemics asserting that conservative or fundamentalist Christians are fascists (Rick Perlstein's otherwise quite negative New York Times review begins with the declaration: "Of course there are Christian fascists in America"). The Reverend Jesse Jackson ascribes every form of opposition to his race-based agenda as fascist. During the 2000 Florida recount, he proclaimed that survivors of the Holocaust had been targeted "again" because the Florida ballot was too complicated for a few thousand elderly voters. On Larry King Live, Jackson absurdly proclaimed, "The Christian Coalition was a strong force in Germany." He continued: "It laid down a suitable, scientific, theological rationale for the tragedy in Germany. The Christian Coalition was very much in evidence there."

Ask the average, reasonably educated person what comes to mind when she hears the word "fascism" and the immediate responses are "dictatorship," "genocide," "anti-Semitism," "racism," and (of course) "right wing." Delve a bit deeper-and move a bit further to the left and you'll hear a lot about "eugenics," "social Darwinism," "state capitalism," or the sinister rule of big business. War, militarism, and nationalism will also come up a lot. Some of these attributes were indisputably central to what we might call "classical" fascism - the Fascism of Benito Mussolini and the Nazism of Adolf Hitler. Others-like the widely misunderstood term "social Darwinism" have little to do with fascism. But very few of these things are unique to fascism, and almost none of them are distinctly right-wing or conservative - at least in the American sense.

To begin with, one must be able to distinguish between the symptoms and the disease. Consider militarism, which will come up again and again in the course of this book. Militarism was indisputably central to fascism (and communism) in countless countries. But it has a more nuanced relationship with fascism than one might suppose. For some thinkers in Germany and the United States (such as Teddy Roosevelt and Oliver Wendell Holmes), war was truly the source of important moral values. This was militarism as a social philosophy pure and simple. But for far more people, militarism was a pragmatic expedient: the highest, best means for organizing society in productive ways. Inspired by ideas like those in William James's famous essay "The Moral Equivalent of War," militarism seemed to provide a workable and sensible model for achieving desirable ends. Mussolini, who openly admired and invoked James, used this logic for his famous "Battle of the Grains" and other sweeping social initiatives. Such ideas had an immense following in the United States, with many leading progressives championing the use of "industrial armies" to create the ideal workers' democracy. Later, Franklin Roosevelt's· Civilian Conservation Corps - as militaristic a social program as one can imagine - borrowed from these ideas, as did JFK's Peace Corps.

This trope has hardly been purged from contemporary liberalism. Every day we hear about the "war on cancer," the "war on drugs," the "War on Poverty," and exhortations to make this or that social challenge the "moral equivalent of war." From health care to gun control to global warming, liberals insist that we need to "get beyond politics" and "put ideological differences behind us" in order to "do the people's business." The experts and scientists know what to do, we are told; therefore the time for debate is over. This, albeit in a nicer and more benign form, is the logic of fascism - and it was on ample display in the administrations of Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, and yes, even John F. Kennedy.

Then, of course, there's racism. Racism was indisputably central to Nazi ideology. Today we are perfectly comfortable equating racism and Nazism. And in important respects that's absolutely appropriate. But why not equate Nazism and, say, Afrocentrism? Many early Afrocentrists, like Marcus Garvey, were pro-fascist or openly identified themselves as fascists. The Nation of Islam has surprising ties to Nazism, and its theology is Himmleresque. The Black Panthers - a militaristic cadre of young men dedicated to violence, separatism, and racial superiority - are as quintessentially fascist as Hitler's Brownshirts or Mussolini's action squads. The Afrocentrist writer Leonard Jeffries (blacks are "sun people," and whites are "ice people") could easily be mistaken for a Nazi theorist.

Certain quarters of the left assert that "Zionism equals racism" and that Israelis are equivalent to Nazis. As invidious and problematic as those comparisons are, why aren't we hearing similar denunciations of groups ranging from the National Council of La Raza - that is, "The Race" - to the radical Hispanic group MEChA, whose motto - "Por La Raza todo. Fuera de La Raza nada"-means "Everything for the race, nothing outside the race"? Why is it that when a white man spouts such sentiments it's "objectively" fascist, but when a person of color says the same thing it's merely an expression of fashionable multiculturalism?

The most important priority for the left is not to offer any answer at all to such questions. They would much prefer to maintain Orwell's definition of fascism as anything not desirable, thus excluding their own fascistic proclivities from inquiring eyes. When they are forced to answer, however, the response is usually more instinctive, visceral, or dismissively mocking than rational or principled. Their logic seems to be that multiculturalism, the Peace Corps, and such are good things - things that liberals approve of - and good things can't be fascist by simple virtue of the fact that liberals approve of them. Indeed, this seems to be the irreducible argument of countless writers who glibly use the word "fascist" to describe the "bad guys" based on no other criteria than that liberals think they are bad. Fidel Castro, one could argue, is a textbook fascist. But because the left approves of his resistance to U.S. "imperialism" - and because he uses the abracadabra words of Marxism - it's not just wrong but objectively stupid to call him a fascist. Meanwhile, calling Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, Rudy Giuliani, and other conservatives fascists is simply what right-thinking, sophisticated people do.

The major flaw in all of this is that fascism, properly understood, is not a phenomenon of the right at all. Instead, it is, and always has been, a phenomenon of the left. This fact - an inconvenient truth if there ever was one - is obscured in our time by the equally mistaken belief that fascism and communism are opposites. In reality, they are closely related, historical competitors for the same constituents, seeking to dominate and control the same social space. The fact that they appear as polar opposites is a trick of intellectual history and (more to the point) the result of a concerted propaganda effort on the part of the "Reds" to make the "Browns" appear objectively evil and "other" (ironically, demonization of the "other" is counted as a definitional trait of fascism). But in terms of their theory and practice, the differences are minimal.

It is difficult now, in the light of their massive crimes and failures, to remember that both fascism and communism were, in their time, utopian visions and the bearers of great hopes. What's more, fascism, like communism, was an international movement that attracted adherents in every Western society. Particularly in the aftermath of World War I - but beginning much earlier - a fascist moment arose on the ashes of the old European order. It drew together the various strands of European politics and culture - the rise of ethnic nationalism, the Bismarckian welfare state, and the collapse of Christianity as a source of social and political orthodoxy and universal aspirations. In place of Christianity, it offered a new religion of the divinized state and the nation as an organic community.

This international movement had many variants and offshoots and went by different names in different countries. Its expression in different societies varied depending on national culture. This is one of the reasons it is so hard to define. But in reality, international fascism drew from the same intellectual wellsprings as American Progressivism. Indeed, American Progressivism - the moralistic social crusade from which modem liberals proudly claim descent - is in some respects the major source of the fascist ideas applied in Europe by Mussolini and Hitler.

Americans like to think of themselves as being immune to fascism while constantly feeling threatened by it. "It can't happen here" is the common refrain. But fascism definitely has a history in this country, and that is what this book is about. The American fascist tradition is deeply bound up with the effort to "Europeanize" America and give it a "modem" state that can be harnessed to utopian ends. This American fascism seems - and is - very different from its European variants because it was moderated by many special factors - geographical size, ethnic diversity, Jeffersonian individualism, a strong liberal tradition, and so on. As a result, American fascism is milder, more friendly, more "maternal" than its foreign counterparts; it is what George Carlin calls "smiley-face fascism." Nice fascism. The best term to describe it is "liberal fascism." And this liberal fascism was, and remains, fundamentally left-wing.

This book will present an alternative history of American liberalism that not only reveals its roots in, and commonalities with, classical fascism but also shows how the fascist label was projected onto the right by a complex sleight of hand. In fact, conservatives are the more authentic classical liberals, while many so-called liberals are "friendly" fascists.

Now, I am not saying that all liberals are fascists. Nor am I saying that to believe in socialized medicine or smoking bans is evidence that you are a crypto-Nazi. What I am mainly trying to do is to dismantle the granite-like assumption in our political culture that American conservatism is an offshoot or cousin of fascism. Rather, as I will try to show, many of the ideas and impulses that inform what we call liberalism come to us through an intellectual tradition that led directly to fascism. These ideas were embraced by fascism, and remain in important respects fascistic.

We cannot easily recognize these similarities and continuities today, however, let alone speak about them, because this whole realm of historical analysis was foreclosed by the Holocaust. Before the war, fascism was widely viewed as a progressive social movement with many liberal and left-wing adherents in Europe and the United States; the horror of the Holocaust completely changed our view of fascism as something uniquely evil and ineluctably bound up with extreme nationalism, paranoia, and genocidal racism. After the war, the American progressives who had praised Mussolini and even looked sympathetically at Hitler in the 1920s and 1930s had to distance themselves from the horrors of Nazism. Accordingly, leftist intellectuals redefined fascism as "right-wing" and projected their own sins onto conservatives, even as they continued to borrow heavily from fascist and pre-fascist thought.

Much of this alternative history is quite easy to find, if you have eyes to see it. The problem is that the liberal-progressive narrative on which most of us were raised tends to shunt these incongruous and inconvenient facts aside, and to explain away as marginal what is actually central.

For starters, it is simply a fact that, in the 1920s, fascism and fascistic ideas were very popular on the American left. ... In many respects, the founding fathers of modern liberalism, the men and women who laid the intellectual groundwork of the New Deal and the welfare state, thought that fascism sounded like a pretty good idea. Or to be fair: many simply thought (in the spirit of Deweyan Pragmatism) that it sounded like a worthwhile "experiment." Moreover, while the odor of Italian' Fascism eventually grew rancid in the nostrils of both the American left and the American right (considerably later than 1930, by the way), the reasons for their revulsion did not for the most part stem from profound ideological differences. Rather, the American left essentially picked a different team - the Red team-and as such swore fealty to communist talking points about fascism. As for the non-communist liberal left, while the word "fascism" grew in disrepute, many fascistic ideas and impulses endured.

It was around this time that Stalin stumbled on a brilliant tactic of simply labeling all inconvenient ideas and movements fascist. Socialists and progressives aligned with Moscow were called socialists or progressives, while socialists disloyal or opposed to Moscow were called fascists. Stalin's theory of social fascism rendered even Franklin Roosevelt a fascist according to loyal communists everywhere. And let us recall that Leon Trotsky was marked for death for allegedly plotting a "fascist coup." While this tactic was later deplored by many sane American left-wingers, it is amazing how many useful idiots fell for it at the time, and how long its intellectual half-life has been.

Before the Holocaust and Stalin's doctrine of social fascism, liberals could be more honest about their fondness for fascism. During the "pragmatic" era of the 1920s and early 1930s, a host of Western liberal intellectuals and journalists were quite impressed with Mussolini's "experiment." More than a few progressives were intrigued by Nazism as well. W. E. B. DuBois, for example, had very complex and mixed emotions about the rise of Hitler and the plight of the Jews, believing that National Socialism could be the model for economic organization. The formation of the Nazi dictatorship, he wrote, had been "absolutely necessary to get the state in order." Hewing to the progressive definition of "democracy" as egalitarian statism, DuBois delivered a speech in Harlem in 1937 proclaiming that "there is today, in some respects, more democracy in Germany than there has been in years past."

For years, segments of the so-called Old Right argued that FDR's New Deal was fascistic and/or influenced by fascists. There is ample truth to this, as many mainstream and liberal historians have grudgingly admitted. II However, that the New Deal was fascist was hardly a uniquely right-wing criticism in the 1930s. Rather, those who offered this sort of critique, including the Democratic hero Al Smith and the Progressive Republican Herbert Hoover, were beaten back with the charge that they were crazy right-wingers and themselves the real fascists. Norman Thomas, the head of the American Socialist Party, frequently charged that the New Deal was fundamentally fascistic. Only Communists loyal to Moscow - or the useful idiots in Stalin's thrall -could say that Thomas was a right-winger or a fascist. But that is precisely what they did.

Even more telling, FDR's defenders openly admitted their admiration of fascism. Rexford Guy Tugwell, an influential member of FDR's Brain Trust, said of Italian Fascism, "It's the cleanest, neatest most efficiently operating piece of social machinery I've ever seen. It makes me envious." "We are trying out the economics of Fascism without having suffered all its social or political ravages," proclaimed the New Republic's editor George Soule, an enthusiastic supporter of the FDR administration.

But this whole discussion misses a larger and frequently overlooked point. The New Deal did emulate a fascistic regime; but Italy and Germany were secondary models, post hoc confirmations that liberals were on the right track. The real inspiration for the New Deal was the Wilson administration during World War I. This is hardly a secret. FDR campaigned on his pledge to re-create the war socialism of the Wilson years; his staff set out with that goal, and it was heartily applauded by the liberal establishment of the 1930s. Countless editorial boards, politicians, and pundits - including the revered Walter Lippmann - called on President Roosevelt to become a "dictator," which was not a dirty word in the early 1930s, and to tackle the Depression the same way Wilson and the progressives had fought World War I.

Indeed, it is my argument that during World War I, America became a fascist country, albeit temporarily. The first appearance of modern totalitarianism in the Western world wasn't in Italy or Germany but in the United States of America. How else would you describe a country where the world's first modern propaganda ministry was established; political prisoners by the thousands were harassed, beaten, spied upon, and thrown in jail simply for expressing private opinions; the national leader accused foreigners and immigrants of injecting treasonous "poison" into the American bloodstream; newspapers and magazines were shut down for criticizing the government; nearly a hundred~ thousand government propaganda agents were sent out among the people to whip up support for the regime and its war; college professors imposed loyalty oaths on their colleagues; nearly a quarter-million goons were given legal authority to intimidate and beat "slackers" and dissenters; and leading artists and writers dedicated their crafts to proselytizing for the government?

The reason so many progressives were intrigued by both Mussolini's and Lenin's "experiments" is simple: they saw their reflection in the European looking glass. Philosophically, organizationally, and politically the progressives were as close to authentic, homegrown fascists as any movement America has ever produced. Militaristic, fanatically nationalist, imperialist, racist, deeply involved in the promotion of Darwinian eugenics, enamored of the Bismarckian welfare state, statist beyond modern reckoning, the progressives represented the American flowering of a transatlantic movement, a profound reorientation toward the Hegelian and Darwinian collectivism imported from Europe at the end of the nineteenth century.

In this sense, both the Wilson and the FDR administrations were descendants - albeit distant ones-of the first fascist movement: the French Revolution.

Given the benefit of hindsight, it's difficult to understand why anyone doubts the fascist nature of the French Revolution. Few dispute that it was totalitarian, terrorist, nationalist, conspiratorial, and populist. It produced the first modern dictators, Robespierre and Napoleon, and worked on the premise that the nation had to be ruled by an enlightened avant-garde who would serve as the authentic, organic voice of the "general will." The paranoid Jacobin mentality made the revolutionaries more savage and cruel than the king they replaced. Some fifty thousand people ultimately died in the Terror, many in political show trials that Simon Schama describes as the "founding charter of totalitarian justice." Robespierre summed up the totalitarian logic of the Revolution: "There are only two parties in France: the people and its enemies. We must exterminate those miserable villains who are eternally conspiring against the rights of man ... [W]e must exterminate all our enemies."!

But what truly makes the French Revolution the first fascist revolution was its effort to turn politics into a religion. (In this the revolutionaries were inspired by Rousseau, whose concept of the general will divinized the people while rendering the person an afterthought.) Accordingly, they declared war on Christianity, attempting to purge it from society and replace it with a "secular" faith whose tenets were synonymous with the Jacobin agenda. Hundreds of pagan-themed festivals were launched across the country celebrating Nation, Reason, Brotherhood, Liberty, and other abstractions in order to bathe the state and the general will in an aura of sanctity. As we shall see, the Nazis emulated the Jacobins in minute detail.

It is no longer controversial to say that the French Revolution was disastrous and cruel. But it is deeply controversial to say that it was fascist, because the French Revolution is the fons et origo of the left and the "revolutionary tradition." The American right and classical liberals look fondly on the American Revolution, which was essentially conservative, while shuddering at the horrors and follies of Jacobinism. But if the French Revolution was fascist, then its heirs would have to be seen as the fruit of this poisoned tree, and fascism itself would finally and correctly be placed where it belongs in the story of the left. This would cause seismic disorder in the leftist world view; so instead, leftists embrace cognitive dissonance and terminological sleight of hand.

At the same time, it must be noted that scholars have had so much difficulty explaining what fascism is because various fascisms have been so different from each other. For example, the Nazis were genocidal anti-Semites. The Italian Fascists were protectors of the Jews until the Nazis took over Italy. Fascists fought for the side of the Axis, but the Spanish stayed out of the war (and protected Jews as well). The Nazis hated Christianity, the Italians made peace with the Catholic Church (though Mussolini himself despised Christianity with an untrammeled passion), and members of the Romanian Legion of the Archangel Michael styled themselves as Christian crusaders. Some fascists championed "state capitalism," while others, such as the Blue Shirts of Kuomintang China, demanded the immediate seizure of the means of production. The Nazis were officially anti-Bolshevist, but there was a movement of "National Bolshevism" within Nazi ranks, too. The one thing that unites these movements is that they were all, in their own ways, totalitarian. But what do we mean when we say something is "totalitarian"? The word has certainly taken on an understandably sinister connotation in the last half century. Thanks to work by Hannah Arendt, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and others, it's become a catchall for brutal, soul-killing, Orwellian regimes. But that's not how the word was originally used or intended. Mussolini himself coined the term to describe a society where everybody belonged, where everyone was taken care of, where everything was inside the state and nothing was outside: where truly no child was left behind.

Again, it is my argument that American liberalism is a totalitarian political religion, but not necessarily an Orwellian one. It is nice, not brutal. Nannying, not bullying. But it is definitely totalitarian - or "holistic," if you prefer - in that liberalism today sees no realm of human life that is beyond political significance, from what you eat to what you smoke to what you say. Sex is political. Food is political. Sports, entertainment, your inner motives and outer appearance, all have political salience for liberal fascists. Liberals place their faith in priestly experts who know better, who plan, exhort, badger, and scold. They try to use science to discredit traditional notions of religion and faith, but they speak the language of pluralism and spirituality to defend "nontraditional" beliefs. Just as with classical fascism, liberal fascists speak of a "Third Way" between right and left where all good things go together and all hard choices are "false choices."

The idea that there are no hard choices - that is, choices between competing goods - is religious and totalitarian because it assumes that all good things are fundamentally compatible. The conservative or classical liberal vision understands that life is unfair, that man is flawed, and that the only perfect society, the only real utopia, waits for us in the next life.

Liberal fascism differs from classical fascism in many ways. I don't deny this. Indeed, it is central to my point. Fascisms differ from each other because they grow out of different soil. What unites them are their emotional or instinctual impulses, such as the quest for community, the urge to "get beyond" politics, a faith in the perfectibility of man and the authority of experts, and an obsession with the aesthetics of youth, the cult of action, and the need for an all-powerful state to coordinate society at the national or global level. Most of all, they share the belief - what I call the totalitarian temptation - that with the right amount of tinkering we can realize the utopian dream of "creating a better world." But as with everything in history, time and place matter, and the differences between various fascisms can be profound. Nazism was the product of German culture, grown out of a German context. The Holocaust could not have occurred in Italy, because Italians are not Germans. And in America, where hostility to big government is central to the national character, the case for statism must be made in terms of "pragmatism" and decency. In other words, our fascism must be nice and for your own good.

American Progressivism, from which today's liberalism descended, was a kind of Christian fascism (many called it "Christian socialism"). This is a difficult concept for modern liberals to grasp because they are used to thinking of the progressives as the people who cleaned up the food supply, pushed through the eight-hour workday, and ended child labor. But liberals often forget that the progressives were also imperialists, at home and abroad. They were the authors of Prohibition, the Palmer Raids, eugenics, loyalty oaths, and, in its modern incarnation, what many call "state capitalism."

Many liberals also miss the religious dimension of Progressivism because they tend to view religion and progressive politics as diametrically opposed to each other; thus, while liberals who remember the civil rights movement acknowledge that the churches played a role, they don't see it on a continuum with other religiously inspired progressive crusades like abolition and temperance. Today's liberal fascism eschews talk of Christianity for the most part, except to roll back its influence wherever it can (although a right-wing version often called compassionate conservatism has made inroads in the Republican Party). But while the God talk may have fallen by the wayside, the religious crusader's spirit that powered Progressivism remains as strong as ever. Rather than talk in explicitly religious terms, however, today's liberals use a secularized vocabulary of "hope" and construct explicitly spiritual philosophies like Hillary Clinton's "politics of meaning."

Similarly, the nasty racism that infused the progressive eugenics of Margaret Sanger and others has largely melted away. But liberal fascists are still racist in their own nice way, believing in the inherent numinousness of blacks and, the permanence of white sin, and therefore the eternal justification of white guilt. While I would argue that this is bad and undesirable, I would not dream of saying that today's liberals are genocidal or vicious in their racial attitudes the way Nazis were. Still, it should be noted that on the postmodern left, they do speak in terms Nazis could understand. Indeed, notions of "white logic" and the "permanence of race" were not only understood by Nazis but in some cases pioneered by them. The historian Anne Harrington observes that the "key words of the vocabulary of postmodernism (deconstructionism, logocentrism) actually had their origins in anti science tracts written by Nazi and proto-fascist writers like Ernst Krieck and Ludwig Klages." The first appearance of the word Dekonstrucktion was in a Nazi psychiatry journal edited by Hermann Goring's cousin. Many on the left talk of destroying "whiteness" in a way that is more than superficially reminiscent of the National Socialist effort to "de-Judaize" German society. Indeed, it is telling that the man who oversaw the legal front of this project, Carl Schmitt, is hugely popular among leftist academics. Mainstream liberals don't necessarily agree with these intellectuals, but they do accord them a reverence and respect that often amount to a tacit endorsement.

A simple fact remains: Progressives did many things that we would today call objectively fascist, and fascists did many things we would today call objectively progressive. Teasing apart this seeming contradiction, and showing why it is not in fact a contradiction, are major aims of this book. But that does not mean I am calling liberals Nazis.

Let me put it this way: no serious person can deny that Marxist ideas had a profound impact on what we call liberalism. To point this out doesn't mean that one is calling, say, Barack Obama a Stalinist or a communist. One can go even further and note that many of the most prominent liberals and leftists of the twentieth century assiduously minimized the evils and dangers presented by Soviet Communism; but that doesn't necessarily mean it would be fair to accuse them of actually favoring Stalin's genocidal crimes. It's cruel to call someone a Nazi because it unfairly suggests sympathy with the Holocaust. But it is no less inaccurate to assume that fascism was simply the ideology of Jewish genocide. If you need a label for that, call it Hitlerism, for Hitler would not be Hitler without genocidal racism. And while Hitler was a fascist, fascism need not be synonymous with Hitlerism.

For example, it's illuminating to note that Jews were overrepresented in the Italian Fascist Party and remained so from the early 1920s until 1938. Fascist Italy had nothing like a death camp system. Not a single Jew of any national origin under Italian control anywhere in the world was handed over to Germany until 1943, when Italy was invaded by the Nazis. Jews in Italy survived the war at a higher rate than anywhere under Axis rule save Denmark, and Jews in Italian-controlled areas of Europe fared almost as well. Mussolini actually sent Italian troops into harm's way to save Jewish lives. Francisco Franco, allegedly a quintessential fascist dictator, also refused Hitler's demand to hand over Spanish Jews, saving tens of thousands of Jews from extermination. It was Franco who signed the document abrogating the 1492 Edict of Expulsion of the Jews from Spain. Meanwhile, the supposedly "liberal" French and Dutch eagerly cooperated with the Nazi deportation program.

At this point I need to make a few statements of a kind that should be obvious, but are necessary in order to prevent any possibility of being misunderstood or having my argument distorted by hostile critics. I love this country and have tremendous faith in its goodness and decency; under no circumstances can I imagine a fascist regime like that of the Nazis coming to power here, let alone an event like the Holocaust. This is because Americans, all American liberals, conservatives, and independents, blacks, whites, Hispanics, and Asians-are shaped by a liberal, democratic, and egalitarian culture strong enough to resist any such totalitarian temptations. So, no, I do not think liberals are evil, villainous, or bigoted in the sense that typical Nazi comparisons suggest. The right-wing shtick of calling Hillary Clinton "Hitlery' is no less sophomoric than the constant drumbeat of "Bushitler" nonsense one finds on the left. The Americans who cheered for Mussolini in the 1920s cannot be held to account for what Hitler did nearly two decades later. And liberals today are not responsible for what their intellctual forefathers believed, though they should account for it.

But at the same time, Hitler's crimes do not erase the similarities between Progressivism - now called liberalism - and the ideologies and attitudes that brought Mussolini and Hitler to power.

For example, it has long been known that the Nazis were economic populists, heavily influenced by the same ideas that motivated American and British populists. And while too often downplayed by liberal historians, American populism had a strong anti-Semitic and conspiratorial streak. A typical cartoon in a populist publication depicted the world grasped in the tentacles of an octopus sitting atop the British Isles. The octopus was labeled "Rothschild." An Associated Press reporter noted of the 1896 Populist convention "the extraordinary hatred of the Jewish race" on display.' Father Charles Coughlin, "the Radio Priest," was a left-wing populist rabble-rouser and conspiracy theorist whose anti-Semitism was well-known among establishment liberals even when they defended the pro-Roosevelt demagogue as being "on the side of the angels."

Today, populist conspiracy theories run amok across the left (and are hardly unknown on the right). A full third of Americans believe it is "very" or "somewhat" likely that the government was behind (or allowed) the 9/11 attacks. A particular paranoia about the influence of the "Jewish lobby" has infected significant swaths of the campus and European left-not to mention the poisonous and truly Hitlerian anti-Semitic populism of the Arab "street" under regimes most would recognize as fascist. My point isn't that the left is embracing Hitlerite anti-Semitism. Rather, it is embracing populism and indulging anti-Semites to an extent that is alarming and dangerous. Moreover, it's worth recalling that the success of Nazism in Weimar Germany partially stemmed from the unwillingness of decent men to take it seriously.

There are other similarities between German and Italian Fascist ideas and modern American liberalism. For example, the corporatism at the heart of liberal economics today is seen as a bulwark against right-wing and vaguely fascistic corporate ruling classes. And yet the economic ideas of Bill and Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Al Gore, and Robert Reich are deeply similar to the corporatist "Third Way" ideologies that spawned fascist economics in the 1920s and 1930s. Indeed, contemporary liberalism's cargo cult over the New Deal is enough to place modern liberalism in the family tree of fascism.

Or consider the explosion of health and New Age crusades in recent years, from the war on smoking, to the obsession with animal rights, to the sanctification of organic foods. No one disputes that these fads are a product of the cultural and political left. But few are willing to grapple with the fact that we've seen this sort of thing before. Heinrich Himmler was a certified animal rights activist and an aggressive promoter of "natural healing." Rudolf Hess, Hitler's deputy, championed homeopathy and herbal remedies. Hitler and his advisers dedicated hours of their time to discussions of the need to move the entire nation to vegetarianism as a response to the unhealthiness promoted by capitalism. Dachau hosted the world's largest alternative and organic medicine research lab and produced its own organic honey.

In profound ways, the Nazi antismoking and public health drives foreshadowed today's crusades against junk food, trans fats, and the . like. A Hitler Youth manual proclaimed, "Nutrition is not a private matter!" - a mantra substantially echoed by the public health establishment today. The Nazis' fixation on organic foods and personal health neatly fit their larger understanding of how the world works. Many Nazis were convinced that Christianity, which held that men were intended to conquer nature rather than live in harmony with it, and capitalism, which alienated men from their natural state, conspired to undermine German health. In a widely read book on nutrition, Hugo Kleine blamed "capitalist special interests" (and "masculinized Jewish half-women") for the decline in quality of German foods, which contributed in turn to the rise in cancer (another Nazi obsession). Organic food was inextricably linked to what the Nazis then described - as the left does today - as "social justice" issues.

Are you automatically a fascist if you care about health, nutrition, and the environment? Of course not. What is fascist is the notion that in an organic national community, the individual has no right not to be healthy; and the state therefore has the obligation to force us to be healthy for our own good.
To the extent that these modern health movements seek to harness the power of the state to their agenda, they flirt with classical fascism. Even culturally, environmentalism gives license to the sort of moral bullying and intrusion that, were it couched in terms of traditional morality, liberals would immediately denounce as fascist.

As of this writing, a legislator in New York wants to ban using iPods when crossing the street. In many parts of the country it is illegal to smoke in your car or even' outdoors if other human beings could conceivably be near you. We hear much about how conservatives want to "invade our bedrooms," but as this book went to press, Greenpeace and other groups were launching a major campaign to "educate" people on how they can have environmentally friendly sex. Greenpeace has a whole list of strategies for "getting it on for the good of the planet." You may trust that environmentalists have no desire to translate these voluntary suggestions into law, but I have no such confidence given the track record of similar campaigns in the past. Free speech, too, is under relentless assault where it matters most - around elections - and it is being sanctified where it matters least, around strippers' poles and on terrorist Web sites.

In Democracy in America, Alexis de Tocqueville warned: "It must not be forgotten that it is especially dangerous to enslave men in the minor details of life. For my own part, I should be inclined to think freedom less necessary in great things than in little ones." This country seems to have inverted Tocqueville's hierarchy. We must all lose our liberties on the little things so that a handful of people can enjoy their freedoms to the fullest.

For generations our primary vision of a dystopian future has been that of Orwell's 1984. This was a fundamentally "masculine" nightmare of fascist brutality. But with the demise of the Soviet Union and the vanishing memory of the great twentieth-century fascist and communist dictatorships, the nightmare vision of 1984 is slowly fading away. In its place, Aldous Huxley's Brave New World is emerging as the more prophetic book. As we unravel the human genome and master the ability to make people happy with televised entertainment and psychoactive drugs, politics is increasingly a vehicle for delivering prepackaged joy. America's political system used to be about the pursuit of happiness. Now more and more of us want to stop chasing it and have it delivered. And though it has been the subject of high school English essay questions for generations, we have not gotten much closer to answering the question, what exactly was so bad about the Brave New World?

Simply this: it is fool's gold. The idea that we can create a heaven on earth through pharmacology and neuroscience is as utopian as the Marxist hope that we could create a perfect world by rearranging the means of production. The history of totalitarianism is the history of the quest to transcend the human condition and create a society where our deepest meaning and destiny are realized simply by virtue of the fact that we live in it. It cannot be done, and even if, as often in the case of liberal fascism, the effort is very careful to be humane and decent, it will still result in a kind of benign tyranny where some people get to impose their ideas of goodness and happiness on those who may not share them.

The introduction of a novel term like "liberal fascism" obviously requires an explanation. Many critics will undoubtedly regard it as a crass oxymoron. Actually, however, I am not the first to use the term. That honor falls to H. G. Wells, one of the greatest influences on the progressive mind in the twentieth century (and, it turns out, the inspiration for Huxley's Brave New World). Nor did Wells coin the phrase as an indictment, but as a badge of honor. Progressives must become "liberal fascists" and "enlightened Nazis," he told the Young Liberals at Oxford in a speech in July 1932.

Wells was a leading voice in what I have called the fascist moment, when many Western elites were eager to replace Church and Crown with slide rules and industrial armies. Throughout his work he championed the idea that special men - variously identified as scientists, priests, warriors, or "samurai" - must impose progress on the masses in order to create a "New Republic" or a "world theocracy." Only through militant Progressivism - by whatever name could mankind achieve the fulfillment of the kingdom of God. Wells, simply put, was enthralled by the totalitarian temptation. "I have never been able to escape altogether from its relentless logic," he declared.

Fascism, like Progressivism and communism, is expansionist because it sees no natural boundary to its ambitions. For violent variants, like so-called Islamo-fascism, this is transparently obvious. But Progressivism, too, envisions a New World Order. World War I was a "crusade" to redeem the whole world, according to Woodrow Wilson. Even Wilson's pacifist secretary of state, William Jennings Bryan, could not shake off his vision of a Christian world order, complete with a global prohibition of alcohol.

One objection to all of this might be: So what? It's interesting in a counterintuitive way to learn that a bunch of dead liberals and progressives thought this or that, but what does it have to do with liberals today? Two responses come to mind. The first is admittedly not fully responsive. Conservatives in America must carry their intellectual history - real and alleged - around their necks like an albatross. The ranks of elite liberal journalism and scholarship swell with intrepid scribblers who point to "hidden histories" and "disturbing echoes" in the conservative historical closet. Connections with dead right-wingers, no matter how tenuous and obscure, are trotted out as proof that today's conservatives are continuing a nefarious project. Why, then, is it so trivial to point out that the liberal closet has its own skeletons, particularly when those skeletons are the architects of the modem welfare state?

Which raises the second response. Liberalism, unlike conservatism, is operationally uninterested in its own intellectual history. But that doesn't make it any less indebted to it. Liberalism stands on the shoulders of its own giants and thinks its feet are planted firmly on the ground. Its assumptions and aspirations can be traced straight back to the Progressive Era, a fact illustrated by the liberal tendency to use the word "progressive" whenever talking about its core convictions and idea-generating institutions (the Progressive magazine, the Progressive Policy Institute, the Center for American Progress, and so on). I am simply fighting on a battleground of liberalism's choosing. Liberals are the ones who've insisted that conservatism has connections with fascism. They are the ones who claim free market economics are fascist and that therefore their own economic theories should be seen as the more virtuous, even though the truth is almost entirely the reverse.

Today's liberalism doesn't seek to conquer the world by force of arms. It is not a nationalist and genocidal project. To the contrary, it is an ideology of good intentions. But we all know where even the best of intentions can take us. I have not written a book about how all liberals are Nazis or fascists. Rather, I have tried to write a book warning that even the best of us are susceptible to the totalitarian temptation.

This includes some self-described conservatives. Compassionate conservatism, in many respects, is a form of Progressivism, a descendant of Christian socialism. Much of George W. Bush's rhetoric about leaving no children behind and how "when somebody hurts, government has got to move" bespeaks a vision of the state that is indeed totalitarian in its aspirations and not particularly conservative in the American sense. Once again, it is a nice totalitarianism, motivated no doubt by sincere Christian love (thankfully tempered by poor implementation); but love, too, can be smothering. In fact, the rage that Bush's tenure has elicited in many of his critics is illustrative. Bush's intentions are decent, but those who don't share his vision find them oppressive. The same works the other way around. Liberals agree with Hillary Clinton's intentions; they just assert that anyone who finds them oppressive is a fascist.

Finally, since we must have a working definition of fascism, here is mine: Fascism is a religion of the state. It assumes the organic unity of the body politic and longs for a national leader attuned to the will of the people. It is totalitarian in that it views everything as political and holds that any action by the state is justified to achieve the common good. It takes responsibility for all aspects of life, including our health and well-being, and seeks to impose uniformity of thought and action, whether by force or through regulation and social pressure. Everything, including the economy and religion, must be aligned with its objectives. Any rival identity is part of the "problem" and therefore defined as the enemy. I will argue that contemporary American liberalsim embodies all of these aspects of fascism.
 

genero81

Dagobah Resident
FOTCM Member
#4
And though it has been the subject of high school English essay questions for generations, we have not gotten much closer to answering the question, what exactly was so bad about the Brave New World?

Simply this: it is fool's gold. The idea that we can create a heaven on earth through pharmacology and neuroscience is as utopian as the Marxist hope that we could create a perfect world by rearranging the means of production. The history of totalitarianism is the history of the quest to transcend the human condition and create a society where our deepest meaning and destiny are realized simply by virtue of the fact that we live in it. It cannot be done, and even if, as often in the case of liberal fascism, the effort is very careful to be humane and decent, it will still result in a kind of benign tyranny where some people get to impose their ideas of goodness and happiness on those who may not share them.
Now, maybe we are seeing how 4D STS works it's 'magic' within the human psyche. Also, I can't help but think about the C's remark about coming to understand the futility of 3rd density. No ideology is ideal.
 

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
#5
Now, maybe we are seeing how 4D STS works it's 'magic' within the human psyche. Also, I can't help but think about the C's remark about coming to understand the futility of 3rd density. No ideology is ideal.
I've tried many thought experiments trying to work out the problems of humanity at large and in specific and I swear, there isn't anything that would work for very long mainly because of the arising of pathological individuals that act as agents of 4D STS or the "General Law" or whatever you want to call it. And ANY attempt to legislate utopia is subject to this kind of infection and subversion just as described by Lobaczewski.

What is so interesting is putting this information together with the work of Jonathan Haidt, the revelations about Postmodernism, Jung, and so forth.
 

genero81

Dagobah Resident
FOTCM Member
#6
What is so interesting is putting this information together with the work of Jonathan Haidt, the revelations about Postmodernism, Jung, and so forth.
Yes, Haidt did come to mind while reading the entire excerpt. The effort is to paint conservatives as being more prone to Fascism. But conservatives make decisions from a greater number of 'moral taste buds.' So, I just had a thought; could it be that, in truth, a person who uses more moral codes is harder to sway into a radical ideology than who who uses fewer?
 

fabric

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
#7
So, I just had a thought; could it be that, in truth, a person who uses more moral codes is harder to sway into a radical ideology than who who uses fewer?
If I were to guess I'd say yes. Having more moral to codes to guide them, there is more likely the chance that aspects of said ideology will transgress on those moral codes thus making it less desirable to adopt. So in order to fully adopt the ideology means more of oneself to 'sacrifice' to it, and moral codes aren't easily given up. However, it wouldn't make one immune as people have all sorts of cognitive biases to contend with as well. We are all masters at rationalizing our way out of almost everything! ;-)
 

whitecoast

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
#8
I've tried many thought experiments trying to work out the problems of humanity at large and in specific and I swear, there isn't anything that would work for very long mainly because of the arising of pathological individuals that act as agents of 4D STS or the "General Law" or whatever you want to call it. And ANY attempt to legislate utopia is subject to this kind of infection and subversion just as described by Lobaczewski.

What is so interesting is putting this information together with the work of Jonathan Haidt, the revelations about Postmodernism, Jung, and so forth.
It's kind of funny how all these early radicals (think Calvinists and Dissenter Puritians) were all about building the New Jerusalem on earth, and how that grew into all the enlightenment era thinkers like Locke and Rousseau who had dreams of basically writing a constitution describing how everyone was going to behave. It seems like the Enlightenment era people missed the chief component in that the New Kingdom could only be created in people's hearts, not coerced from without by a constitutional document that magically ironed out all the flaws in human nature. Can we blame materialism?

Re: Liberal Fascism... his observation that it's "simply the fusion of corporation and state" is bunk is a huge breath of fresh air (I use it as a marker to determine if an author even knows what they're talking about, akin to looking for signs of a belief in the cholesterol myth in dietary literature).

While I disagree with some of what was quoted (especially calling the French Revolution Fascist), I *sort* I get what the author is saying. Fascism, Liberalism, and Socialism/Communism try very hard to differentiate themselves from one another as natural enemies, but in the end they have much more in common with one another than the prevoius forms of government, namely those with a legitimist basis in either divine right, the estate system, and other residual elements of the ancient regime / warrior caste of Europe. The big 3 in particular seem to share the idea of rulers being legitimized by the popualr will of either civic citizens (liberalism), the race or folk culture (fascism), or the working class (socialism).

As for Fascism being a "religion of the state"... I'd say that's definitely true, but virtually all these 20th century forms of government have their own metaphysical views, and the western liberal states are no different. They just emphasize a teleology of growth toward material abundance, increased personal freedom/expression, and personal happiness. You can't really govern without having some kind of moral compass, which requires one to have metaphysical views. So the whole notion of secular government is kind of a sham IMO. The fact that liberals don't need to use God for their moral claims to equity and the like doesn't mean they have any more a rational basis for those claims than those who do.
 

luc

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
#9
It's kind of funny how all these early radicals (think Calvinists and Dissenter Puritians) were all about building the New Jerusalem on earth, and how that grew into all the enlightenment era thinkers like Locke and Rousseau who had dreams of basically writing a constitution describing how everyone was going to behave.
Funny that you mentioned the protestants. I'm currently looking into the whole Reformation business, and it doesn't look pretty at all. I'm also reading a German book called "Enough with Luther: On the Errors of a Radical" ("Schluss mit Luther - Von den Irrwegen eines Radikalen"), in which the author - a secular journalist - makes an astonishing and damning case for the sheer insanity and destructiveness of this (possibly "possessed") fanatic character Martin Luther who, it might be argued, radically changed the course of history and in a sense shaped the world we find ourselves in today. I will post about my findings in a new thread once I have finished the book.
 

nicklebleu

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
#10
And then there is Calvin, who belonged to the “second wave” of reformation in the early 16th century. The book by Stefan Zweig Castello gegen Calvin describes the resistance by Castello (a catholic monk) against the scheming Calvin, who at that time was one of the most influential and powerful figures in Europe. Calvin was most likely a fullblown psychopath.

The book is available in English here. It’s called The Right to Heresy: Castello against Calvin. Interesting read.
 

luc

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
#11
And then there is Calvin, who belonged to the “second wave” of reformation in the early 16th century. The book by Stefan Zweig Castello gegen Calvin describes the resistance by Castello (a catholic monk) against the scheming Calvin, who at that time was one of the most influential and powerful figures in Europe. Calvin was most likely a fullblown psychopath.

The book is available in English here. It’s called The Right to Heresy: Castello against Calvin. Interesting read.
Very interesting nicklebleu! Stefan Zweig also wrote some interesting, not-so-charming things about Luther.

I'm currently working on a long post about Luther and the Reformation - the deeper you look into it, the more you realize we have been sold a huge bunch of lies about all that. Martin Luther reminds me a lot of Hitler actually; the guy was paranoid, incoherent, vulgar, filled with hate and out to destroy - and destroy he did! There's also a direct link between Luther's incredible anti-semitism and the Nazis - not only was Hitler full of praise for Luther, some argue he was directly influenced by him in his ideas. Also, Germany has a big protestant majority, and the early Nazi-supporters were largely protestant - no wonder given that their religion's founder wanted to "kill 'em all". Not to mention Luther's pathological theology that says you are saved by faith alone - no good works/deeds are needed whatsoever, just accept Jesus and that's it; he also denies that there is free will (against catholic doctrine), proclaims the only authority is the bible (except that Luther's interpretation is the one and only and that he can even meddle with the text at will) and that using your brain is a sin... I don't want to get ahead of myself here, but you really do wonder how very different the world would look like if it wasn't for Luther and the other pathological "revolutionaries" he inspired who came up with their own "one and only" bible interpretations... To get a first taste of what I'm talking about, you can start with this article: The Dark Side of Martin Luther – Shameless Popery
 

msante

Dagobah Resident
FOTCM Member
#12
I picked up a book a week or two ago that I haven't actually read yet. I've only read the intro and hope to get into it when I get through the current reading assignments. Anyway, the intro was so interesting and relevant to this topic (and a couple other current topics, as it happens), that I asked for a scan of it. I've converted it to text and hope I got out most of the scan/conversion errors, but there may still be a few. Anyway, not vouching for the book at this point, but sure is an interesting take considering it was written back in 2008.
Thank you Laura, the book certainly looks VERY interesting. One thing that has always been a problem for me is to understand why Fascism and Communism are formally said to be contrary or antagonistic. From my point of view (perhaps somewhat simplistic) both are (paraphrasing the author) "totalitarian, terrorist, nationalist, conspiratorial, and populist". The feeling I have always had is that ideologies per se are not the basis on which these ways of conceiving an ideal society are built. On the other hand, what seems to be the basis is a thought pattern that transcends the ideologies used to anchor it to a particular historical and cultural context. This thought pattern could be summed up in conceiving reality in terms of "they" versus "us", where they can be foreigners, Jews, corporations, capitalism, and so on. The central dynamic seems to be, initially to give free rein to victimization (the figure of the oppressor is highlighted here), and then to a subsequent justification of any form of violence and persecution as a means of destroying the enemy. Ideologies in this sense, rather than the basis of these social utopias, seem to be the skeleton on which they are supported once thought patterns have begun to run.
 

Pashalis

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
#13
Very interesting nicklebleu! Stefan Zweig also wrote some interesting, not-so-charming things about Luther.

I'm currently working on a long post about Luther and the Reformation - the deeper you look into it, the more you realize we have been sold a huge bunch of lies about all that. Martin Luther reminds me a lot of Hitler actually; the guy was paranoid, incoherent, vulgar, filled with hate and out to destroy - and destroy he did! There's also a direct link between Luther's incredible anti-semitism and the Nazis - not only was Hitler full of praise for Luther, some argue he was directly influenced by him in his ideas. Also, Germany has a big protestant majority, and the early Nazi-supporters were largely protestant - no wonder given that their religion's founder wanted to "kill 'em all". Not to mention Luther's pathological theology that says you are saved by faith alone - no good works/deeds are needed whatsoever, just accept Jesus and that's it; he also denies that there is free will (against catholic doctrine), proclaims the only authority is the bible (except that Luther's interpretation is the one and only and that he can even meddle with the text at will) and that using your brain is a sin... I don't want to get ahead of myself here, but you really do wonder how very different the world would look like if it wasn't for Luther and the other pathological "revolutionaries" he inspired who came up with their own "one and only" bible interpretations... To get a first taste of what I'm talking about, you can start with this article: The Dark Side of Martin Luther – Shameless Popery
Well, in the history section of "the Psychopathic God", towards the middle of the book, Luther is discussed in some details and his contributions to the rise of Hitlers-Germany and his enormous influence on the thinking of western society in general. Well worth the read. Waite tries to explain what laid some of the groundworks on what germany went through in the third Reich, and makes the argument it seems, that this was a very long process, that started, at least as early as in the middle ages. I'm just at that part in the book, so I though I should mention it.
 

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
#14
Well, in the history section of "the Psychopathic God", towards the middle of the book, Luther is discussed in some details and his contributions to the rise of Hitlers-Germany and his enormous influence on the thinking of western society in general. Well worth the read. Waite tries to explain what laid some of the groundworks on what germany went through in the third Reich, and makes the argument it seems, that this was a very long process, that started, at least as early as in the middle ages. I'm just at that part in the book, so I though I should mention it.
It is definitely an excellent book for understanding what "led to Hitler" as well as making comparisons to the troubles of our own time. That's something that was glaringly evident to me as I read it. Waite's take on Hitler's psychology is less interesting though his digging up of data is extremely interesting! If you put his work together with that of Percy Schramm, you see a fairly complete Hitler.
 

Voyageur

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
#15
Great thread, and that was a fascinating read (including the highlights), Laura, on 'Everything You Know About Fascism Is Wrong'

There is an early book by Stanley G. Payne which is archived here;

https://archive.org/stream/StanleyG...ne+-+A+History+of+Fascism,+1914-1945_djvu.txt

A History of Fascism,
1914-1945

Stanley G. Payne
He writes at the end - Epilogue. Neofascism: A Fascism in Our Future? 496, yet the author (Historian) seems to focus on the right.

I've a book by J. S. Barnes named 'Fascism' first published in 1931 (dedicated to his wife) and it might have been written much earlier. Anyway, that book has sat on the shelf for all these years - reading only as a scan before. Had a quick look again and he makes ties to Rome, including symbols (Axe/Rod/Bundles).
 
Top Bottom