Further to my “Defense of Fascism” post, below.
Since these days even educated people often think “Fascism” means little more than “something not desirable,” I though it would help to include a little pop quiz.
Here, for instance, is a Fascist economic proposal. Are you clear why this is Fascist? Could you explain why, to a disinterested observer, in a short paragraph?
Here is a cultural one. Same question (it’s a bit easier, but not quite the slam dunk it appears).
How about here — who is the Fascist in this little dustup?
There’s apparently a fight on the left about the following proposition:
Is Bernie Sanders a racist, white-priveleged, mansplaining monster for only pushing hardcore socialism rather than, as the Hillary Maenads would prefer, a toxic brew of both hardcore socialism and war-of-all-against-all identity politics?
See, the SJW set doesn’t want to talk about socialism; they really just want to talk about how they’re Aggrieved. (It doesn’t occur to them that socialism is nothing but butthurt economics for the malignantly aggrieved and economically useless.)
They don’t like how Bernie Sanders pushes socialism without adequately talking up Black Lives Matter and White Skin Priveledge.
Again, not quite a layup, if you haven’t been doing a little extracurricular reading.
None of this is meant to insult anyone’s intelligence. I posted it because, given the woeful state of the American educational system and 70+ years’ preaching by Leftists (BIRM), most people don’t know what they don’t know when it comes to contentious topics like this.
Have fun!
Loading Likes...
The first step is to define what I mean by fascism. I’ll go with the following, from Jonah Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism:*
The first link (“a Fascist economic proposal”) was to an article proposing mandatory tariffs on US companies that “off-shore” “production” to China and third-world countries, fooling consumers with “Western branding” while they “fob off cheap third world crud on us.”
This coercive, paternalistic proposal assumes that the aims of the state on behalf of “consumers” and workers (ie the “common good”) trump the freedom of individuals to buy whatever they want and the freedom of companies to do business as they see fit. This action “takes responsibility” for a large chunk of economic life and “seeks to impose uniformity of thought and action” “through regulation.” These are the similarities I see to the above definition.
———-
BTW, their whining about the “tiny label reading ‘Made in China’ gets lost on them [US consumers] because of the Western branding” sounds a whole lot like leftist whining on behalf of “consumers.” Oh boo-hoo. I learned long ago to look for the “Made in China” label at the bottom of the back of the packaging. It’s there, and it’s not that hard to find.
And yes, it is cheap crud. I’m amazed at how awful the quality of this junk is. Everyone talks about the Chinese economic juggernaut, but how can this be if all they can do is produce cheap, horrible shit? And BTW, it’s not even particularly cheap anymore. I avoid buying it whenever I can.
It seems to me there are two possibilities here:
1) There’s actually a big opportunity for American companies to make all sorts of decent-quality stuff (especially electronic wires, connectors, etc which seems to be 100% Chinese crap) right here in the US, for 25% – 200% above the price of the useless third-world crud. Much of this crud is so bad I’d happily pay double or triple the price just to get something of moderate quality.**
2) Existing paternalistic regulation (such as environmental, safety, ADA, medical insurance, financial and high corporate taxes) and high wages (also regulated) have made it simply impossible to manufacture such things here in the US.
——-
* BTW, do you agree with this definition? Do you have a shorter one?
** I have an old-style land-line phone with a wire that connects the phone to the handset. This wire was never a problem prior to the early 2000s; they’d last for maybe 7-10 years. Now they’re ALL made in China and last about 1 – 8 months! I would gladly pay at least 2-3 times the cost of the Chinese POS wire (about $5-$6 at Rite Aid) for a decent one I didn’t have to replace every few months. My solution for now is this: I found the crappy Chinese ones selling for a buck at a bargain basement store, so I bought 5 of them and just keep replacing it every few months.
BTW, their whining about the “tiny label reading ‘Made in China’ gets lost on them [US consumers] because of the Western branding” sounds a whole lot like leftist whining on behalf of “consumers.”
Yep. Fascists are Leftists. I doubt Hitler read Gramsci, but he ran Gramsci’s playbook like Vince Lombardi. The idea of protective tariffs isn’t Fascist in itself, but the petulant whiny jingoism most definitely is.
BTW, do you agree with this definition? Do you have a shorter one?
Yes; Goldberg’s definition is pretty spot-on. But while he advocates the State part of the equation, I usually emphasize Culture, since that’s how Fascism gains power. Consider China — Fascist state, rapidly fascist-izing culture… but because they’re still officially communist and have half a century’s worth of Mao’s cultural baggage to deal with, they haven’t gone all-in yet culturally (to the detriment of their economy and state). American Fascism, like German, will come to power talking almost exclusively about cultural issues.
But not entirely. Which is why the short-short definition I use is just “Fascism is national socialism.” Small n, small s, to alert the kind of person who actually reads the words and isn’t just looking for a goodfeelz freakout (which is to say, virtually nobody on the internet) to the fact that I’m not talking about the Nazi Party. It’s socialism in one country, for one country. Which, if you look at our retarded political culture, is exactly what Americans want. Honestly — how many people do you think would be out there protesting Obamacare if it weren’t that 95% of the new “coverage” is going to illegals and ghettopotami?
Sorry about the length of this. I found the linked article very evocative.
OK, let’s move on to the cultural part of this quiz. The linked article shows a series of 4 photos taken over the course of 3-4 years illustrating “the corruption of the American Woman.”
I find this is quite interesting in a morbid, trainwreck sort of way, but it’s also sadly tragic. The rather pretty, fresh-faced, 17 year old Allison, looking fine and wholesome in photo #1, has degraded significantly in just 3 years (photo #3). Then, prior to her 21st birthday (photo #4), she appears pretty worn and skanky (though her body still looks good, despite the 4 naval piercings, the unidentifiable tattoo scrawling near her right hip and the dubious, helium-filled “undertits” she’s exposing in a slutty pose).
The caption above the last photo says, “Her corruption is complete.” but I believe Chateau Heartiste is being uncharacteristically naive here. Her trajectory is pointing downward and there’s no reason to believe she cannot still fall a long way before hitting rock bottom (she’s not even 21 yet). This situation is already pretty bad, so I hope I’m wrong.
Unfortunately, I understand this kind of transformation is not unusual these days, and possibly is the norm.* The perverse force corrupting young Allison is the PC dictatorship that rules over academia and other major strongholds with an iron fist (I assume she was at some university during the time the photos were taken). To be more specific, I’d lay the blame on feminism, multiculturalism and possibly some postmodernism.
In photo #1, she glows with a appealing traditional femininity, and perhaps even harbors some antiquated notions of sexual modesty. The feminist police on campus will soon browbeat and shame her out of her retrograde, brainwashed mentality. They’ll mock her traditionally feminine appearance and teach her that it’s just one way The Patriarchy controls and abuses women. Maybe she’ll even attend a Slut Walk, but she’ll certainly learn that sexual modesty is just another Patriarchal shackle to be thrown off. She must “explore her sexuality” in the weird and/or slutty ways approved by PC regulation.**
Multiculturalists will hector her about the mistreatment of “people of color” long ago by whites, make her ashamed of her race and embarrassed about her undeserved white privilege. Hence the ridiculous, unsightly cornrows blighting her formerly attractive hair, the clownishly overdone make-up and what CH claims are ghetto-style nails.
Finally, postmodernism denies the existence of any solid, objective truth–which implies there is no such thing as objective morality. Bamboozled by this pernicious nonsense, Allison cannot see any reason why she should prefer honest, disciplined, restrained, respectful behavior over indulging in slovenly, deceptive, crude, vulgar debauchery.
Finally, we get to the original question of why this situation is Fascist. Referencing Goldberg’s definition, I’ll give the following answers:
1) The PC Brownshirts at Allison’s university (and in entertainment, Facebook, MSM, etc) are totalitarian, viewing everything as political and any action they take as being justified to achieve the common good.
2) In the above situation we see that political correctness “seeks to impose uniformity of thought and action,” mostly through social pressure, but sometimes through raw force. Everything “must be aligned with its objectives.”
3) We also see that any individual or group that disagrees with PC is seen as part of the problem and is “therefore defined as the enemy.”
———————
* Through a strange synchrony, yesterday I stumbled across an eerily similar concept, a sequence of six engravings depicting the ghastly degeneration of one M. Hackabout, a young woman who arrived in 18th-century London, fetching and innocent as Miss Allison in photo #1–before succumbing to the forces of depravity and becoming thoroughly debased (I highly recommend perusing these fine illustrations by William Hogarth, the same artist whose excellent Gin Lane was featured in a post awhile back.)
So this is nothing new. It reminds me of a previous round of social dissolution, a casualty of which was a 1960s Allison described in the Grateful Dead’s anthem, Truckin:
Perhaps Allison has a modernized array of intoxicants like Vicodin, Oxy, Ecstasy, crystal meth and others, but it wouldn’t surprise me if she trades sex for drugs.
——
** As far as I can tell, the feminist-approved sexual behavior for women is, in order of acceptability: lesbianism, mono-sexuality (vibrators, dildos, etc), bisexuality (with grudging allowance for occasional crude sex with males), asexuality and finally–if the woman is incorrigibly heterosexual–a series of sordid, indiscriminate sexual encounters with random men. Though frowned upon, heterosexuality done in this way advances feminist goals by creating an anything-goes, sex-carnival swamp, a ground upon which it is nearly impossible to build a solid foundation for a stable, monogamous heterosexual relationship.