Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg View Post
Quote Originally Posted by Krig the Viking View Post
Um... you do realize that, on Mitchell's chart, the Tea Party is mostly Paleolibertarians, and ******'s brand of statist fascism most closely resembles "Communitarianism" -- i.e., the polar opposite of Paleolibertarianism? Objectively speaking, Obama as a Progressive is far closer to ******'s National Socialism than the Tea Party's right-wing libertarianism could ever even theoretically be.

If you're going to insult the people you pathologically loathe, at least do it accurately.
The Tea Party isn't on Mitchell's chart. Its essence is mentioned only at the end of his book as "postmodern Populism". The Tea Party caucus in Congress is not representative of the real Tea Party, which has been brainwashed electorally by the ubiquitous Murdoch press machine.

I think you should read that book a little more carefully.

****** didn't have a gripe with Communitarian philosophy... most paleoconservatives don't. You're right though that he did use their techniques a lot. Might it have been to control the left? It may well have reflected that he did in fact integrate the center-right Nationalists, who had a Communitarian MO, into the Nazi party. Perhaps he relied on them to keep the social peace. The matter deserves further investigation.
From what I know when ****** rose to power germany had just gotten out of the WWI and was experiencing bad economic conditions. The basic premise of the national social movement (NAZIs) etc was that the private sector couldn't be counted on to restore conditions and that democracy had failed, instead they needed a powerful central government to rescue the economy that served the interest of the workers.

While this is similar to left wing policy in the regards of the government attempting to involve themselves with business, a few things should be noted.

1 - Roosevelt in the united states at the same time was undergoing poor economic conditions through the depression and was equally advocating the government to take charge over big business to help the working man... so associating this economic paradigm to something fascist and unamerican is a huge fallacy.

2 - 2nd fascism is about a totalarianistic state... in the liberal paradigm, there is not totalarianistic state.... one of the key features of nazism was the idea that "democracy" had failed the german people-- hence instead there should be a strong authoritarian state. Liberalism doesn't advocate a strong authoritarian state, it advocate government regulation for fair business practice through a democratic process. That's a key difference from nazism

3 - the association between liberals and nazis is mainly drawing upon emotional content. Most people hated the nazis because of the human rights atrocities of the holocaust and their imperialistic penchant to dominate all other societies of the world. These two aspects have made them a symbol for one of the most hated social paradigm in the modern era. When people compare things to the "nazis" they are attempting to associate all this emotional content to whatever they are comparing things to, but sometimes this emotional content doesn't follow logically. Most people aren't upset over the economic policies of the nazis, but their social and foreign policies... an imperialistic genocidal totalarianistic state.