April 11, 2009
Source: Jonah Goldberg
Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left
Source: The Christian Solution
The Truth about Hitler
I already knew from the title of the book, "Liberal Fascism" that Jewish media-Scribe Jonah Goldberg was not going to properly identify and label the group who really are fascists.
But he makes an insightful beginning -- Liberals generally have no problem with dictators, fascists or communists.
Think of Stalin, Kim Jong-Il, Khmer Rouge leaders, Castro, Mao, Chavez, Obama....OK, perhaps it's a little premature for Obama.
The only exception being -- dictators who hate Jews.
Well, with the noted exception, that certainly narrows down who these mysterious liberal fascists could be.
The title of Goldberg's book should have been "Pharisee Fascism".
Goldberg explains that Hitler actually practiced "national socialism" to distinguish himself from the "international socialism" of the Soviets.
Hitler wanted a national socialism, that would emphasize the German culture and traditions.
The Soviets under Stalin practiced an international socialism that would subjugate Germans as well as Russians, and Hitler correctly felt that the NT Jews favored their international socialism over his national socialism.
Was that your "mother" or your "father" imposing Fascism?
Both Stalin and Hitler practiced a patriarchal form of socialist fascism, where we, the citizens, are mere children under the care and protection of the father figure in the father land, and as any child must do, we must obey our father or else he will punish us. The state would control the means of production, as children cannot be trusted with something that grown-up.
In other words, socialism tells us that we have a virtual extended family in the government. As opposed to old-time Americanism which says "we already have our families thank you very much big government, just do not forget that you are nothing more than a security guard, working for us."
Hitler did not nationalize industry, he socialized them. And our health-care being nationalized is also socialism.
In neo-Socialist Fascism, we have a Matriarchal form of Socialist Fascism.
Both America and Europe has recently succumbed to this fascism.
In this form of matriarchal socialism, government dictates our lives just as much as they did in the father model, except now they do it by treating us as our mother would -- telling us "children" to buckle up our seat belts, do not smoke, do not eat too much, do not use too much gasoline, do not use too much water in your toilet, be nice to everybody even if they act strange as in a boy being too nice to another boy, be nice to the animals in the forest, and on and on.
The macho international Stalinist Patriarchal Socialism was going to be spread internationally through manly bloody revolution.
But the new motherly international Obamacist Matriarchal Socialism will be spread through a global nanny-on-your-case guilt-trip.
It is being achieved through endless nanny-state apparatuses -- a global "Law of the Sea" treaty that promises to protect the whales, and a coordinated global attack on "Global Warming" that promises to protect the environment, and a coordinated global fix to the world's financial systems that promises to help you parents stay in your home with your children.
American Christians fiercely fought off Stalin and Mao's blood-soaked communism, but today's communists have us literally feeding out of their hands today.
With a big club in the other hand hidden behind their back.
-- God-given --
for Right and Wrong
In our American revolution, freedom was based on the idea that "each individual" will be one who decides what is right and wrong for himself. Of course, there was a minimal amount of government to guarantee that the others' "freedom" did not deprive you of your life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness, especially by or through the government itself.
Benjamin Franklin said our system could only work with a God-fearing people. That is because only a devoutly religious people will self-govern themselves and only a devoutly religious people can be counted on to make the right decisions in determining right and wrong.
America used to be a country of families, by families and for families
In the America of old, a man was expected to marry in his church and was expected to provide for his family thereafter.
He was expected to love them more than himself and UNQUESTIONED presumption was that the father and husband loved his family more than his neighbors did or even his government did.
Mainly, he was expected to love his wife and children as Jesus had loved him.
Of course there were exceptions of brutality and depravity, but in those days, unlike what we have today, America did not create a society based upon exceptions to the common rule.
In the early days of America, the prospective wife was expected to be the judge of the worthiness of a man to have a family. It was her sole duty and her sole responsibility, in respect of the judgement of the father of the young lady, to thouraghly checkout the love, compassion, family backround, character, morality, religion and ambition of the man she was to marry.
If the yong lady chose wrong, there was no one to blame but herself, or her family.
And the motto for the man was, "You borke it, you bought it". There was no return policies.
And there were certainly no governmental 911 operators waiting to second guess his family skills, or to second guess his love for his children, by calling child protective services or by calling the police.
In return for raising morally outstanding children, the parents were rewarded with the children loving the parents enough to take care of them in their old age.
In government, this would be called "Checks and Balances". Grown children will love and respect their parents to the degree that the parents loved and respected them as children.
This "family-style" of living was allowed to permeate the entire country. Our families were our only "government" back in those days.
And the method of enforcement of family laws was shunning.
If a man did not have a decent family, an employer was not interested in helping him get a job.
If an American faced injustice, he was not expected to go crying to a politician to fix his problem. Instead, he was expected to engage in man-to-man problem resolution, as in the Hamilton-Burr dual or in the "Wild West" with a gun-fight.
If a boy had impregnated a man's daughter, that father was expected to get his shotgun, in order to insure the proper outcome for his daughter and his future grandchild.
If cattle rustlers stole his cattle, a rancher was not questioned by authorities when he got a few neighboring ranchers to go after his cattle and return it, often with the cattle rustlers on the end of a rope.
Today, in some jurisdictions, we can still grab a gun if someone should try to enter our homes illegally. We know enough Christian right from wrong to know that a man entering our home through a broken window at 2:00 AM, is in the wrong and we are in the right to defend ourselves and our families. We know we will not be prosecuted for a crime.
One of the most important principles Americans had was virtue.
A virtuous man did not lie, steal, murder or any other violation of the Ten Commandments. When dealing with his family or neighbors, he followed the Christian short-hand version of the Golden Rule. Going further than not stealing from a neighbor, neither would he impose himself on a neighbor who wanted to be left alone. If a bigot despised him for his beliefs or a landlord would not rent to him for his lifestyle, he did not call a higher authority to intervene and force the other to change, for their already was a higher authority that everyone was answerable to.
A virtuous man would not steal, neither would he ask his government to steal from others in taxes, to give to him as welfare.
A virtuous man would respect the property that his neighbor owned, neither would he ask his government to make zoning rules to dishonor his neighbor's ownership rights to his property, simply because it would help him resell his own property.
A virtuous man would not murder an innocent child, neither would he allow his government to allow abortion murders of innocent babies.
A virtuous mane would not lie, neither would he allow his government to lie for him.
Thus, in the American Revolution, power was decentralized down to the individual or to the family unit. Not so with socialism.
-- Government-given --
for Right and Wrong
Their French Revolution on the other hand was on the socialist principle of a flat out equality of "the masses", to be guaranteed by the government.
It was government's responsibility to correct "wrongs" in society, not individuals.
It was government's responsibility to decide what was "right" for society, not for selfish individuals only thinking of themselves.
In socialist systems, priests, ministers and other religious men just get in their way. Socialist systems usually end up eliminating the competition. That happened in the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, and the Spanish Civil War, all socialist attempts to take over.
This is the subtle, but major difference between the French and American Revolutions.
In America, freedom was granted directly to the individual to rule himself, in the hope he would use his God-given sense of right and wrong, based upon his own God-given "free-will".
In France, freedom had a middlemen -- the government. The government was a centralized, nanny-state tyranny trying to determine and guarantee a universal freedom, a universal right and wrong, over a people who could not be trusted to have a God-given free-will.
Power was centralized in the nebulous entity called "society", but not decentralized amoung individuals.
Pharisees and Sadducees
, socialism guarantees that Jews have an "equality" to compete.
, in fair competition, they know Jews will always rise to the top of every organization.
, in all socialist systems, the ones at the top of organizations will always be the ones who decide what is right and wrong for all society.
, once they are the ones deciding right and wrong, they have had a bloodless coup d'etat.
Pharisees and Sadducees
As long as the dictator is not anti--Semitic like Hitler, Jewish Pharisees and Sadducees ALWAYs love dictators.
You will never hear a Jewish media-Scribe complain of Stalin. At least not the way he complains of Hitler.
The reason they love dictators is because even dictators have to have a minimal amount of support to keep his power. And since the Jews ALWAYS rise to the top of power in organizations, they know they will ALWAYS be in the thick of that minimal support he needs.
In other words, if there are a small percentage of Jews in a society AND if the dictator is not anti-Semitic, then it goes without saying that:
"Behind every Dictator is a Jewish Supporter"
-- The Christian Solution
The reason is simple. Liberalism is a Pharisee-controlled operation and be it Socialism or Dictatorship, both allow the Pharisees to run the show.
Russia was communist, but it also had a harsh dictator -- Stalin.
China was communist, but it had the worst dictator ever -- Mao.
Cuba was communist, but it has always had a dictator -- Castro.
A word about China. Seems that it does not fit the model. After all, few Pharisee look oriental. But Communist China's original power was very dependant upon the heavily Pharisee-controlled Russian communists and now it depends upon the heavily Pharisee-controlled American Pharisees.
Article located at: