Meryl takes on the "brownshirts"!

And of course there's this to consider--pertaining not just to Meryl Streep, but all "liberals"*:

http://moonbattery.com/?p=80544]

*And by "liberals" I mean of course "tax-happy, coercion-addicted, power-tripping State fellators."

Agreed. This ash hole is good at saying words that screenwriters put in her mouth, but not those that our liberal newspapers put in her mouth. Naturally she has no original words of her own, because she's a brain dead parrot.

The state does ultimately run the economy. But that's not what fascism is about. Fascism is about mixed economy - as far as economy is concerned - whereby there are elements of both public and private ownership. However, the brownshirts were Hitler's thugs in the NSDAP formative years, and had nothing to do with fascism as a form of government as such - I think you are perhaps thinking of Mussolini's blackshirts, the paramilitary wing of the PNF. The brownshirts were Hitler's equivalents, but they were only "fascist" in the informal, colloquial sense - nothing to do with fascism as such.

Anyway, once Hitler was in power, he quickly dismantled the SA - because they were showing signs of subversiveness - and replaced them with the SS. Hence the brownshirts had no part in the formation of the nazi government. The brownshirts had no real agenda beyond anti-communism and anti-immigration.

Oh, and Jonah Goldberg is a disingenuous SoB. Both Mussolini's and Hitler's fascism were conservative, not liberal.

"Oh, and Jonah Goldberg is a disingenuous SoB. Both Mussolini's and Hitler's fascism were conservative, not liberal." Not that I care, because all statists are scum . . . but could you elucidate?

"Oh, and Jonah Goldberg is a disingenuous SoB. Both Mussolini's and Hitler's fascism were conservative, not liberal." Not that I care, because all statists are scum . . . but could you elucidate?
You are certainly right about statistics. As for Jonah Goldberg, his admitted intent of writing that book was because he was fed up with the fascist label being stuck to the right wing. His very premise is therefore biased, rather than to conduct some objective research.

I have only read excerpts, but it seems that he falls victim of placing Hitler on the left simply because his party was the "national socialist party - even though a cursory reading will reveal that the NSDAP was socialist in name only. One of the first things Hitler did when he got to power was to ban unions, as well as cut welfare to all except war veterans. He was deeply opposed to unemployment benefits, as he was a staunch believer in a "be useful or be gone" doctrine. Indeed, when Hitler was confronted with the fact that his party wasn't particularly socialist, the response was that their's was a "deeper" socialism, a "socialism of the heart", rather than socialism of material wealth. Of course, as the doctrine of socialism only deals with the material (and not of matters of the heart), that excuse was pretty moot. And yet Goldberg pegs Hitler as a socialist.

"Statists"/"Statistics"! Ha! This guy is clearly a genius! Gold, Jerry, gold!

"I have only read excerpt . . ." I could have guessed this.

" . . . but it seems that he falls victim of placing Hitler on the left simply because his party was the "national socialist."" Nope--sorry, but you'll have to read the whole book. Or for a more scholarly work you could try the classic LEFTISM, by Erik von Kuennhelt-Leddhin, which is very good for the radical-socialist philosophical roots of both Nazism and Italian fascism.

Nope--sorry, but you'll have to read the whole book. Or for a more scholarly work you could try the classic LEFTISM, by Erik von Kuennhelt-Leddhin, which is very good for the radical-socialist philosophical roots of both Nazism and Italian fascism.
Gee, that doesn't sound biased at all. I would like to point out that any factual volume dealing with the radical-socialist philosophical roots of nazism is bound to be very, very thin.

Well, as there's no arguing religion--especially not with religionists of this
"church": https://grrrgraphics.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/shrine_of_the_statists1.jpg
Back to the cocoon, Karl.


"Political tags — such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth — are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort.”
--Robert Heinlein