Thought for today: "Progressives" are facists.

It was rather suprising when I realized this. Consider:

Economic control: Someone, I forgot who, once described the difference between "fascists" and "communists" in the following manner: When the Communists came to power, they had all the businesspeople arrested or short. When the Facists took power, they invited the business community out to lunch, and then explained that would do as they would told, or would be arrested or shot.

Modern "progressives" disown historical communism. But they're nonetheless constantly agitating for more state control over business and private property. Ask yourself if the following statement is from a Republican or Democratic politician:

I want everyone to keep the property he has acquired for himself according to the principle: benefit to the community precedes benefit to the individual. But the state should retain supervision and each property owner should consider himself appointed by the state. It is his duty not to use his property against the interests of others among his own people. This is the crucial matter.

Sounds like a standard Democratic campaign speech: We all need to use our resources for the common good. But, as you've probably guessed, those are words of Adolph Hitler.

Religion: The prime difference, I am told, between Facism and Communism had to do with the treatment of religion. In contrast, thought it was hostile to biblical Christianity (and certainly towards Judaism) Facism didn't attack religion directly. As Hitler wrote:

So it's not opportune to hurl ourselves now into a struggle with the churches. The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death. A slow death has something comforting about it. The dogma of Christianity gets worn away before the advance of science. Religion will have to make more and more concessions. Gradually the myths crumble... When understanding of the universe has become widespread, when the majority of men know that the stars are not sources of light but worlds - perhaps inhabited worlds like ours - then the Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity...

Certainly Hitler's own personal view of Christianity wasn't far from that of many secular atheists and liberals who come to my blog. But outwardly, he professed that religion was a good thing, while trying to integrate it with the state. Ultimately, he became frustrated that Christianity was not an appropriate vehicle for mass control, and thus the Nazis were deeply interested in (and drew on) beliefs which would be considered "New Age" today, including many themes being explored books like "The DaVinci Code".

As "Victor and Victoria Trimondi", both German Buddhists, write:

The Nazi "myth makers" were especially fascinated by the Far East. It was there - more so than in the cultural roots of Europe - that they hoped to find the foundations of a "political theology", which the gigantic regime which was the Third Reich could use as its metaphysical basis. In the philosophies, mythologies, visions and dogmas as well as in the religious practices and texts of the spiritual traditions Asia had to offer they found the models for glorifying war, for the deification of the "Führer" and the white race. They discovered the spiritual remnants of a long-lost indo-Aryan and anti-Semitic primeval religion which they now wanted to reconstruct in the sign of the swastika.

And:

It was not just the ideologists and theoreticians of national socialism who were closely concerned with Tibet, but also high-ranking intellectuals and scholars closely linked to Italian fascism. First of all, Giuseppe Tucci, who attempted to combine Eastern and fascist ideas with one another, must be mentioned (Benavides 1995).

A further example is the work of the Italian, Julius Evola (1898-1974), for a time Benito Mussolini’s chief ideologist (mainly in the forties). In numerous books and articles he has investigated and further developed the relationship between tantric rituals and power politics. He has followed “tantric trails” in European cultural history and come across them everywhere: among the Cathars, the troubadours, the Knights Templar, in the work of Alighieri Dante, the mysticism surrounding the holy grail, European knighthood, alchemy.

I am NOT trying to say that US Democrats are currently this deeply into the occult. They are still a bit closer to the Communist dictum -- that all religious sentiment (well, at least those of Christians, not those of atheists) should be kept out of the state, as should those whose religion is allowed to taint their political thought.

But I am trying to make a point that where traditional Christians such as myself, rightly or wrongly, are simply convinced of the truth of Christianity, modern Democrats approach the matter as one of political utility: "We need to learn to speak the language of faith" [in order to be elected] -- faith is a seen as a political tool and servant. Although I don't see the danger as immediate, this is the start of the path which leads down the dangerous road described above.

So Democrats are not identical to fascists in this respect, but generally they are much, much closer to it than political conservatives.

Patriotism, nationalism: One of the claims is that fascism was intensely nationalistic. And indeed, it obviously was. So US conservatives, being patriots, it is argued, are fascists.

There are several problems with this model. The first is that US Democrats publicly bristle at an implication they are less patriotic than conservatives. So perhaps some aren't patriotic, but for those who are, it's then not argument they can use against their opponents.

The other problem is historical: Germany had been divided among many Princes and tribes (and also between many religious sects) and was seeking to be united into a country. So a giving the people a vision of a glorious, mythical Germany, as a united whole, was important for overcoming tribalism.

Here's the problem: Today, the world is a group of rival nations. Thus, we are told nationalism is "the problem", just like tribalism or sectarianism was in Germany. So the "answer" is to unite everyone as a whole -- as a larger whole. In Germany, this meant warring different ethic groups and sects into a common nation. In Europe, this means uniting differing nations into one "superpower". And on a global scale, a vision of a united whole -- under one government, natch -- is held up. ("And the world will live as one," warbled John Lennon.)

So the problem wasn't "loving a country" -- the problem was political unification -- this need to accumulate all power in a small group of hands where it could be centrally be controlled and exploited. Just as German tribalism and sectarianism would have thwarted Hitler's plans, so today nationalism is a thorn in the sides of those who want to control the lives of ever-larger swaths of humanity.

There is ever this idea that if everyone just lived under the same government, we'd all get along. The truth is that when power is put in a few hands, they drive out all opposition and conflict. Harmony results, but it is the harmony of the totalitarian state, where there is no visible evidence of conflict or dissent.

Just as German national socialists wanted everyone to "unite" under one power at a national level, so Democrats wish the same thing at an international level. The idea is the same -- we will just all get along if we are "unified" as "one race" (be it the Aryan one or the human one).

Race: In one sense, Democrats and Nazis are polar opposites. Where the national socialists (and many others) believed that whites and men were better, and blacks and women were inferior, modern "liberals" frequently seem to indicate the opposite: Whites and males (as oppressors) are morally stained, and thus inferior, blacks women, Muslims -- the whole multicultural stew -- are all superior. (Strangely, at the same time, they argue that blacks are less capable and cannot get along without the help of whites.)

The problem is this: In my view, the right view is that no race nor grouping is inherantly morally inferior nor superior to another. Seen this way, all such group-based distinctions are racism, no matter which way it plays out, and, from this perspective, liberal policies appear quite racist. And the same can be argued about relations between the sexes.

A Caveat: No doubt "progressives" will be offended by what I am saying here. I want to be clear, since people tend to lose their vision when they hear the word "Nazi": I am NOT saying "progressives" are all personally bad people, or Nazis -- not at all. Some are quite wonderful, generous, friend and kind people.

But if we want to look at the broadest outlines of what defined fascism -- no open confrontation nor public hostility to religion, state authority over industry, rather than direct control, private religious tendencies involving hostility to JudeoChristian beliefs and tendencies towards atheism or Eastern religions, a view of religion as support to political power rather than personal conviction or betterment, claims to patriotism and a relentless drive for increasing political unification, and obsession with race -- the modern "progressive" movement fits quite snugly into the definition of 'facism'.

Finally, and most chillingly: Remember that Nazis took over the country by claiming incessantly that a small traditional religious minority in their midst was trying to take over their country.

Sound familliar?