-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Google Redefines The Word ‘Fascism’ To Smear Conservatives, Protect Liberal Rioters
- Thread starter Revmitchell
- Start date
First, let me say that defining fascism as a right-wing phenomenon is no recent development, it's been that way for decades.
The reason for this is largely that fascism tended to appeal to conservatives; it considered itself as restoring a primeval golden age based on tradition, race and religion. Thus Nazis embraced Wagner's Teutonic sagas, promoted a mythical Aryanism and eliminated only the religious who were an obstacle to them.
Communists, at the beginning, would have none of this. The goal was not some golden age from the past but the creation of entirely new structures that swept away the detritus of the past and created a new socialist man unbeholden to anything that had come before. Thus it was intensely internationalistic and opposed to religion, which Marx described as the "opiate of the masses." This was exactly what occurred with the Bolshevik Revolution. The old order and religion were relentlessly suppressed. Trotsky believed in "continuous revolution," which which not only was international in scope but also posited that socialist constructs must be continuously updated. So to survive, socialism had to be adopted or imposed everywhere.
That's all fine for political science, which, of course, is not all that scientific. Odd thing about human events is that they cross all kinds of artificial lines.
"National socialism," of course, is not at all the kind of socialism the Bolsheviks had in mind. It was an economic system confined only to Germany, home of the master race. It is true that early Naziism had radical planks, and they were not finally expelled until the Night of the Long Knives. For most Germans, "national socialism" most resembled the "state socialism" of Bismarck, which introduced a social safety net to reduce activism among the working class.
Where this gets dicey is in the rise of Stalinism, which rejected Trotsky and drove him out of the country. Stalin found it expedient to decide that, yes, socialism could be established in once country. He also decided that it would be expedient to wrap himself in the robes of the Tsars and Russian history (metaphorically, of course). The Great Patriotic War, in the end, had little to do with social or communism, per se, but an appeal to the very nationalism that true communists abhorred. He rehabilitated Peter I, surely no friend of workers, to appeal to a glorious Russian past. He was, in fact, the new tsar, the Little Father, something the Russians could understand.
As to Hegel, his proposition of thesis, antithesis and synthesis led him to pronounce that the end of history had arrived with the arrival of the Prussian monarchy. Marx postulated that it would arrive with the ascendancy of the proletariat. Both refused to believe that their favorite historical method might not correctly describe what actually occurs in human history.
The reason for this is largely that fascism tended to appeal to conservatives; it considered itself as restoring a primeval golden age based on tradition, race and religion. Thus Nazis embraced Wagner's Teutonic sagas, promoted a mythical Aryanism and eliminated only the religious who were an obstacle to them.
Communists, at the beginning, would have none of this. The goal was not some golden age from the past but the creation of entirely new structures that swept away the detritus of the past and created a new socialist man unbeholden to anything that had come before. Thus it was intensely internationalistic and opposed to religion, which Marx described as the "opiate of the masses." This was exactly what occurred with the Bolshevik Revolution. The old order and religion were relentlessly suppressed. Trotsky believed in "continuous revolution," which which not only was international in scope but also posited that socialist constructs must be continuously updated. So to survive, socialism had to be adopted or imposed everywhere.
That's all fine for political science, which, of course, is not all that scientific. Odd thing about human events is that they cross all kinds of artificial lines.
"National socialism," of course, is not at all the kind of socialism the Bolsheviks had in mind. It was an economic system confined only to Germany, home of the master race. It is true that early Naziism had radical planks, and they were not finally expelled until the Night of the Long Knives. For most Germans, "national socialism" most resembled the "state socialism" of Bismarck, which introduced a social safety net to reduce activism among the working class.
Where this gets dicey is in the rise of Stalinism, which rejected Trotsky and drove him out of the country. Stalin found it expedient to decide that, yes, socialism could be established in once country. He also decided that it would be expedient to wrap himself in the robes of the Tsars and Russian history (metaphorically, of course). The Great Patriotic War, in the end, had little to do with social or communism, per se, but an appeal to the very nationalism that true communists abhorred. He rehabilitated Peter I, surely no friend of workers, to appeal to a glorious Russian past. He was, in fact, the new tsar, the Little Father, something the Russians could understand.
As to Hegel, his proposition of thesis, antithesis and synthesis led him to pronounce that the end of history had arrived with the arrival of the Prussian monarchy. Marx postulated that it would arrive with the ascendancy of the proletariat. Both refused to believe that their favorite historical method might not correctly describe what actually occurs in human history.
Last edited:
I think I've got it!
Since Lenin said that the goal of socialism is communism, we can assume that the American left really wants to be a communist dictatorship. But if we find socialism not to our liking, we turn to capitalism and eventually to a fascism. After all , everyone on the left knows capitalism is evil. And if it's that evil it has to be called fascism. The problem here is the dadgummed old Constitution, it gets in the way of having a fascist, or a communist dictator, for that matter.
That's fortunate. It kept a far left wacko like Obama from being a communist dictator and it will also keep a right wing capitalist/fascist like Trump from being one as well.
...or something like that...
But the truth won't stop the name calling of the wannabe communist left. So there we have it.
Trump is a fascist. The wannabe communist left says so. He's 11 out of 14, just like Obama, but, by golly, he's a fascist and Obama's not.
Like it matters.
Since Lenin said that the goal of socialism is communism, we can assume that the American left really wants to be a communist dictatorship. But if we find socialism not to our liking, we turn to capitalism and eventually to a fascism. After all , everyone on the left knows capitalism is evil. And if it's that evil it has to be called fascism. The problem here is the dadgummed old Constitution, it gets in the way of having a fascist, or a communist dictator, for that matter.
That's fortunate. It kept a far left wacko like Obama from being a communist dictator and it will also keep a right wing capitalist/fascist like Trump from being one as well.
...or something like that...
But the truth won't stop the name calling of the wannabe communist left. So there we have it.
Trump is a fascist. The wannabe communist left says so. He's 11 out of 14, just like Obama, but, by golly, he's a fascist and Obama's not.
Like it matters.
Last edited:
Of course. And they paid the government for the use of forced labor.
I genuinely liked your post. No insult intended.
But then, I don't think I've ever seen you just have a little fun.
Got it. No, I don't generally have fun on the political forums, having been called everything from a traitor to a liberal to a communist sympathizer. It's a character flaw, I guess.
Pretty much. Like gypsies and slavs. And religious protestors and anyone who didn't like the Nazis.
Please read up on history and political philosophy. At the least watch the Yale lecture on fascism I referenced in this thread. Thanks.
- There are two major groups of people in the world today, the socialists and the Iĺl capitalists today. I'll be honest here, the capitalists are the nations work force and the socialists are the ones standing around or they are still in bed but all of them have the givemes Today, the under or not properly exucated man believes the Rich Mans, Democratic, party freed the slaves and cares about them. That is not true, Abe Lincoln was a Republican, the common man's Party.
The Dems are the root of the KKK and they are lying themselves into hell. - My dad taught me a thing I have found to be true, these past 72+ years and he taught me, "When loke upon by others, you are viewed as one of them and if you hang in there long enough, you become one of them."
By what standard?
You were taught BS. A government is control. The degree of control is the true classification. So you design a scale where total control is at both ends?
Do you measure liberty the same way?
A true and rational scale of government measures total control at one end (we'll call it the left end), and no control at all at the right end.
Has Google, the world’s most popular search engine, changed the definition of the word “fascism” to protect liberal mobs using violence to silence those who disagree with them politically? The evidence suggest they have.
You see it on signs at every protest or riot — liberals accuse President Donald Trump of being a fascist. The word’s association with Adolf Hitler and its use now is no accident, it’s meant to strike fear in people’s hearts of tyranny.
Merriam-Webster defines the word “fascism” as “a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.” The secondary definition is “a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control.”...........
...................
But if you type the word into Google, the definition they provide is quite different.
The world’s largest search engine pins fascism on the political right, not the left.
Google defines fascism as, “an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.” (emphasis added)
The secondary definition is, “(in general use) extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice.”
That’s a striking difference from how the word has been defined for decades.
Google Redefines The Word ‘Fascism’ To Smear Conservatives, Protect Liberal Rioters
The Term Fascism was coined to reflect the views of Italian dictatorial leader Benito Mussolini ~
To understand the FULL truth about "Fascism" would require one to understand Mussolini's philosophy about governing and the people governed.
The governing - complete control - thus Dictatorship
Liberty for the people - no
Right for people to choose a leader - (ie Democracy) - no
Need for people to be told what they want and must do - yes
Diplomacy - (ie discussion with opposition) - no
Destroy your opposition - yes
Free Press - yes, with the condition it agrees with the Dictatorial Leader
Control the governed with fear - yes
Pro-socialism - no
Pro-faith in God - no
Pro-War to anyone who opposes and interferes - yes
Considered his regime right - yes
Tolerant - no
Racist - yes
Dictatorship ruling power - yes
No. Google has not redefined "fascism". And no, the Liberals in America have not redefined "fascism".
It is simply a matter of a taking (bits and pieces) of a "coined termed" philosophy of one man, whom the world does not hold in high esteem, and applying that "term" (fascism) to an opposition in an attempt to discredit the opposition, BY ASSOCIATION, to a world renown man "without" high esteem; WITH HOPES the general public is IGNORANT of what the FULL TRUTH of the term (fascism) means.
No. Google has not redefined "fascism". And no, the Liberals in America have not defined "fascism".
What they have done IS - implied they are AGAINST "fascism" - thus preach those in disagreement with "THEM" are Pro-fascism.
Mussolini's promotion of FASCISM is a mix of what American Conservatives AND Liberal are FOR and AGAINST.... So, per the usual, half truths prevail to eager ears waiting for someone else to tell them what to think and believe.
A few quotes of Mussolini should one care to let him tell you some tid-bits of his philosophy that apply to his view of what Fascism is.
TOP 25 QUOTES BY BENITO MUSSOLINI (of 128) | A-Z Quotes
"Lecture 22 - Fascists
Overview"
"While Nazi Germany's crimes were unprecedented, Adolf Hitler himself was in many respects a typical figure. An idle youth, of seemingly mediocre talents, his political career and passionate hatreds were formed by the experience of World War I. The rise of fascism in Germany, as elsewhere, must be understood in the context of a postwar climate of resentment and instability."
Fascism is effected by one WHO is successful to become the SOLE POWER over a NATION and its PEOPLE.
To teach ABOUT fascism truthfully, should NOT begin by who "adopted" fascism, but by WHO "began" such "type' of Dictatorship. The one WHO "began" and coined FASCISM and those WHO adopt such "type" of Dictatorship ARE those WHO, in a nutshell CRAVE and SEEK "complete control".
War, does not FORM their craving for POWER. War, simply gives one who CAVES POWER an OPPORTUNITY to elevate himself into a position of POWER to effect his craving to Totality, Dictatorial Power.
And what does this have to do with fascism's placement on the left/right political spectrum?
I guess I don't understand the OP--Donald Trump is not right wing. So if Google defines fascism as an extreme right-wing political philosophy, what does that have to do with The Donald?
"the fact the fascism is right-wing"
Absolutely, the Italian DICTATOR Mussolini declared "HIS" philosophy of "FASCISM" for governing "right-winged".
What does that have to do with an American Republican form of Government?
Shall we pick a single or two points out of what LEFT-WING broadly refers to in a foreign political climate and CALL YOU by those terms?
How about it....LEFTY ~ Left-wingers will include the communists, feminists, anarchists, egalitarians, secular, atheists etc. Is there a particular name here you would like attached to you, or shall we follow your lead and pick one for you?
Seriously? Do you require the toddler version?
Mr M has an idea.
Mr M calls his idea by a name.
Mr M gives a list of what things are going to be known about his idea, called by the name he calls it.
Mr M does not have a monopoly....oops to complicated.
Mr M does not own every word that refers to his idea.
People around the world hear about Mr M's idea.
People around the world hear Mr M's name he calls his idea.
People around the world hear about what "things" encompass...oops
People around the world hear about what "things" are included in his idea.
Some people around the world Like Mr M's idea and try it out for themselves.
Some people around the world are stupid and think Mr M's idea applies to the world.
Some people around the world do not comprehend "a political spectrum" may or may not apply to the ideals of a nation or its people.
Some people around the world do not comprehend for a PARTICULAR "term", such as Fascism TO Apply, ALL of the "little list of things" must "apply".
Fascism was formed AS A POLITICAL philosophy of a man RISING to Dictatorial power, and "he" called it Fascism.....and ONE of the "things" he included in Fascism is "right wing".....as well as other "things".
That is what it has to do with the political spectrum!
If background information of WHEN, WHO, HOW, the term fascism seeped into the "political spectrum", and WHAT is included in the list of things that MAKE it "fascism", is beyond your interest, who cares? I don't.