p******0
发帖数: 1 | 1 2011年在媒体上还可以看到这样的文章。过了不到9年，主流媒体上就成天只有对作弊
的赞美与对右派的攻击了。造谣与宣传已经彻底取代了客观报道与理想探讨。一切感谢
作弊的cancel文化！
https://www.forbes.com/sites/billflax/2011/09/01/obama-hitler-and-exploding-
the-biggest-lie-in-history/#276e5b5b47a6 | p******0
发帖数: 1 | 2 "The line between fascism and Fabian socialism is very thin. Fabian
socialism is the dream. Fascism is Fabian socialism plus the inevitable
dictator." John T. Flynn
Numerous commentators have raised alarming comparisons between America’s
recent economic foibles and Argentina’s fall "from breadbasket to basket
case." The U.S. pursues a similar path with her economy increasingly
ensnared under the growing nexus of government control. Resources are
redistributed for vote-buying welfare schemes, patronage style earmarks, and
graft by unelected bureaucrats, quid pro quo with unions, issue groups and
legions of lobbyists.
In Argentina, everyone acknowledges that fascism, state capitalism,
corporatism – whatever – reflects very leftwing ideology. Eva Peron
remains a liberal icon. President Obama’s Fabian policies (Keynesian
economics) promise similar ends. His proposed infrastructure bank is just
the latest gyration of corporatism. Why then are fascists consistently
portrayed as conservatives?
In the Thirties, intellectuals smitten by progressivism considered limited,
constitutional governance anachronistic. The Great Depression had apparently
proven capitalism defunct. The remaining choice had narrowed between
communism and fascism. Hitler was about an inch to the right of Stalin.
Western intellectuals infatuated with Marxism thus associated fascism with
the Right.
Later, Marxists from the Frankfurt School popularized this prevailing
sentiment. Theodor Adorno in The Authoritarian Personality devised the "F"
scale to demean conservatives as latent fascists. The label "fascist" has
subsequently meant anyone liberals seek to ostracize or discredit.
Fascism is an amorphous ideology mobilizing an entire nation (Mussolini,
Franco and Peron) or race (Hitler) for a common purpose. Leaders of industry
, science, education, the arts and politics combine to shepherd society in
an all encompassing quest. Hitler’s premise was a pure Aryan Germany
capable of dominating Europe.
While he feinted right, Hitler and Stalin were natural bedfellows. Hitler
mimicked Lenin’s path to totalitarian tyranny, parlaying crises into power.
Nazis despised Marxists not over ideology, but because they had betrayed
Germany in World War I and Nazis found it unconscionable that German
communists yielded fealty to Slavs in Moscow.
The National Socialist German Workers Party staged elaborate marches with
uniformed workers calling one another "comrade" while toting tools the way
soldiers shoulder rifles. The bright red Nazi flag symbolized socialism in a
"classless, casteless" Germany (white represents Aryanism). Fascist central
planning was not egalitarian, but it divvied up economic rewards very
similarly to communism: party membership and partnering with the state.
Where communists generally focused on class, Nazis fixated on race.
Communists view life through the prism of a perpetual workers’ revolution.
National Socialists used race as a metaphor to justify their nation’s
engagement in an existential struggle.
As many have observed, substituting "Jews" for "capitalists" exposes
strikingly similar thinking. But communists frequently hated Jews too and
Hitler also abhorred capitalists, or "plutocrats" in Nazi speak. From afar,
Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany each reeked of plutocratic oligarchy. Both
were false utilitarian Utopias that in practice merely empowered dictators.
The National Socialist German Workers Party is only Right if you are
hopelessly Left. Or, ascribe to Marxist eschatology perceiving that history
marches relentlessly towards the final implementation of socialist Utopia.
Marx predicted state capitalism as the last desperate redoubt against the
inevitable rise of the proletariat. The Soviets thus saw Nazis as segues to
communism.
Interestingly, almost everywhere Marxism triumphed: Russia, China, Cuba,
Vietnam, etc., all skipped the capitalist phase Marx thought pivotal.
Instead, they slid straight from pre-industrial feudal conditions into
communism; which essentially entailed reversion back to feudalism
supplanting the traditional aristocracy with party cronyism – before
dissolving into corrupted variants of state capitalism economically similar
to fascism.
As usual, Marx got it backwards.
It’s also ironic that even as orthodox Marxism collapsed due to economic
paralysis, cultural Marxism predicated on race, sex and identity politics
thrives in "Capitalist" America. The multiculturalists substituted race
where the Soviets and Maoists saw only class. America’s civic crusade has
become political correctness, aka cultural Marxism, preoccupied with race.
Socialism wheels around again.
While political correctness as manifest in the West is very anti-Nazi and
those opposing multiculturalism primarily populate the Right, it’s false to
confuse fascism with conservatism. Coupling negatives is not necessarily
positive. Because the Nazis would likely detest something that conservatives
also dislike indicates little harmony. Ohio State hates Michigan. Notre
Dame does too, but Irish fans rarely root for the Buckeyes.
America’s most fascistic elements are ultra leftwing organizations like La
Raza or the Congressional Black Caucus. These racial nationalists seek gain
not through merit, but through the attainment of government privileges. What
’s the difference between segregation and affirmative action? They are
identical phenomena harnessing state auspices to impose racialist dogma.
The Nation of Islam and other Afrocentric movements, like the Nazis, even
celebrate their own perverse racist mythology. Are Louis Farrakhan and
Jeremiah Wright conservatives? Is Obama?
Racism does not exclusively plague the Right. Many American bigots manned
the Left: ex-Klansman Hugo Black had an extremely left wing Supreme Court
record, George Wallace was a New Deal style liberal – he just wanted
welfare and social programs controlled by states. Communists always
persecute minorities whenever in power.
The Nazis’ anti-Semitism derived indirectly from Karl Marx, who despite
Jewish ancestry was deeply anti-Semitic. Bankers and other capitalists were
disproportionately Jewish. Elsewhere, Jews played prominent roles. Before
falling under Hitler’s sway, Mussolini’s inner circle was overly Jewish.
Peron was the first leader to let Jews hold public office in Argentina.
Franco, a Marana, welcomed Jews back into Spain for the first time since
1492 and famously thwarted Hitler by harboring Jewish refugees.
Very little of Hitler’s domestic activity was even remotely right wing.
Europe views Left and Right differently, but here, free markets, limited
constitutional government, family, church and tradition are the bedrocks of
conservatism. The Nazis had a planned economy; eradicated federalism in
favor of centralized government; considered church and family as competitors
; and disavowed tradition wishing to restore Germany’s pre-Christian roots.
Despite Democrats’ pretensions every election, patriotism is clearly a
conservative trait so Nazi foreign policy could be vaguely right wing, but
how did Hitler’s aggression differ from Stalin’s? The peace movement
evidenced liberals being duped as "useful idiots" more than pacifistic
purity. Note the Left's insistence on neutrality during the Hitler/Stalin
pact and their urgent switch to militarism once Germany attacked.
After assuming power, Nazis strongly advocated "law and order." Previously,
they were antagonistic thugs, which mirrored the communists’ ascension. The
Nazis outlawed unions perceiving them as competitors for labor’s loyalties
, i.e. for precisely the same reason workers’ paradises like Communist
China and Soviet Russia disallowed unions. To Nazis, the state sustained
workers’ needs.
Even issues revealing similarity to American conservatism could also
describe Stalin, Mao and many communists. This is not to suggest liberals
and fascists are indistinguishable, but a fair assessment clearly shows if
any similarities appear with American politics they reside more on the Left
than Right.
On many issues the Nazis align quite agreeably with liberals. The Nazis
enforced strict gun control, which made their agenda possible and highlights
the necessity of an armed populace.
The Nazis separated church and state to marginalize religion’s influence.
Hitler despised biblical morality and bourgeois (middle class) values.
Crosses were ripped from the public square in favor of swastikas. Prayer in
school was abolished and worship confined to churches. Church youth groups
were forcibly absorbed into the Hitler Youth.
Hitler extolled public education, even banning private schools and
instituting "a fundamental reconstruction of our whole national education
program" controlled by Berlin. Similar to liberals’ cradle to career ideal,
the Nazis established state administered early childhood development
programs; "The comprehension of the concept of the State must be striven for
by the school as early as the beginning of understanding."
Foreshadowing Michelle Obama, "The State is to care for elevating national
health." Nanny State intrusions reflect that persons are not sovereign, but
belong to the state. Hitler even sought to outlaw meat after the war;
blaming Germany's health problems on the capitalist (i.e. Jewish) food
industry. The Nazis idealized public service and smothered private charity
with public programs.
Hitler’s election platform included "an expansion on a large scale of old
age welfare." Nazi propaganda proclaimed, "No one shall go hungry! No one
shall be cold!" Germany had universal healthcare and demanded that "the
state be charged first with providing the opportunity for a livelihood."
Obama would relish such a "jobs" program.
Nazi Germany was the fullest culmination of Margaret Sanger’s eugenic
vision. She was the founder of Planned Parenthood, which changed its name
from the American Birth Control Society after the holocaust surfaced.
Although Nazi eugenics clearly differed from liberals’ abortion arguments
today, that wasn’t necessarily true for their progressive forbears.
Germany was first to enact environmentalist economic policies promoting
sustainable development and regulating pollution. The Nazis bought into
Rousseau's romanticized primitive man fantasies. Living "authentically" in
environs unspoiled by capitalist industry was almost as cherished as pure
Aryan lineage.
National Socialist economics were socialist, obviously, imposing top-down
economic planning and social engineering. It was predicated on volkisch
populism combining a Malthusian struggle for existence with a fetish for the
"organic." Like most socialists, wealth was thought static and "the common
good supersede[d] the private good" in a Darwinist search for "applied
biology" to boost greater Germany.
The Nazis distrusted markets and abused property rights, even advocating "
confiscation of war profits" and "nationalization of associated industries."
Their platform demanded, "Communalization of the great warehouses" (
department stores) and presaging modern set aside quotas on account of race
or politics, "utmost consideration of all small firms in contracts with the
State."
Nazi Germany progressively dominated her economy. Although many businesses
were nominally private, the state determined what was produced in what
quantities and at what prices. First, they unleashed massive inflation to
finance their prolific spending on public works, welfare and military
rearmament. They then enforced price and wage controls to mask currency
debasement’s harmful impact. This spawned shortages as it must, so Berlin
imposed rationing. When that failed, Albert Speer assumed complete power
over production schedules, distribution channels and allowable profits.
Working for personal ends instead of the collective was as criminal in Nazi
Germany as Soviet Russia. Norman Thomas, quadrennial Socialist Party
presidential candidate, saw the correlation clearly, "both the communist and
fascist revolutions definitely abolished laissez-faire capitalism in favor
of one or another kind and degree of state capitalism. . . In no way was
Hitler the tool of big business. He was its lenient master. So was Mussolini
except that he was weaker."
Mussolini recognized, "Fascism entirely agrees with Mr. Maynard Keynes,
despite the latter’s prominent position as a Liberal. In fact, Mr. Keynes’
excellent little book, The End of Laissez-Faire (l926) might, so far as it
goes, serve as a useful introduction to fascist economics." Keynes saw the
similarities too, admitting his theories, "can be much easier adapted to the
conditions of a totalitarian state than . . . a large degree of laissez-
faire." Hitler built the autobahn, FDR the TVA. Propaganda notwithstanding,
neither rejuvenated their economies.
FDR admired Mussolini because "the trains ran on time" and Stalin’s five
year plans, but was jealous of Hitler whose economic tinkering appeared more
successful than the New Deal. America wasn’t ready for FDR’s blatantly
fascist Blue Eagle business model and the Supreme Court overturned several
other socialist designs. The greatest dissimilarity between FDR and fascists
was he enjoyed less success transforming society because the Constitution
obstructed him.
Even using Republicans as proxies, there was little remotely conservative
about fascism. Hitler and Mussolini were probably to the right of our left-
leaning media and education establishments, but labeling Tea Partiers as
fascists doesn’t indict the Right. It indicts those declaring so as
radically Left. | c******2
发帖数: 4019 | |
|
