Tuesday, February 11, 2025

Stalin's fascist lingo

Our intro

When someone, in the 21st century, calls someone else a "fascist" (s)he is doing Stalin a favour. That is the typical rhetoric of leftists, marxists and dictator types in general every time they are faced with someone that does not abide by their narrow minded judgment.

So Stalin invented this use and from then on all leftist opinion makers and housewives used it as an equivalent of "you naughty boy or girl."

Just consider the following instances...

"The first time Stalin misused the term fascist was the German elections in which he ordered all German reds to raise money for, campaign for and vote for, wait for it, Hitler!..."

"Stalin called the German Social Democratic Party the liberal fascist threat..."

"Hitler outlawed the German Social Democratic Party (SPD) as a thank you to Stalin..."

"Stalin next misused the term fascist when he declared that Leon Trotsky was one. Party members were told to repeat it..."

"The third time Stalin misused the term was when he was working with Hitler after the signing of the The Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact... also known as the Hitler–Stalin Pact and the Nazi–Soviet Pact..."

"Hitler was acclaimed by Stalin for creating a brand new form of socialism. FDR and Churchill were now the real fascists."

...||...

So you see: for Stalin, Hitler was a socialist... the others were all fascists. But when actions were not to his liking... he fixed it immediately.

"... Once Hitler went into Poland without Stalin’s approval Stalin had a problem. After years of saying Hitler was a socialist, how could he then hide all that?"

"Easy! Party members were ordered to stop saying Hitler was a socialist."

"There was no argument or debate (...) dissenters had to accept and spread the party doctrine."

"This has led to people not actually knowing what fascism is."

...||...

You will have noticed above that Stalin used another word - "liberal" - that has also been mistreated in more recent times, specially in the U. S. and he even used them together... "liberal fascist."

So "liberal" is used nowadays left and right but far from its primordial meaning just like "fascist" became the easy go-to epithet of the decadent left.

J. C.

...||...

next go here:

https://galeriavantag.blogspot.com/2025/02/the-false-definition-of-fascism.html

Fritzi Ritz

Liberal Imperium is Dead

The Liberal Imperium is Dead

Caixa de entrada

Philip Pilkington from Postliberal Order postliberalorder@substack.com
Anular subscrição

13:46 (há 8 minutos)

para mim

The Liberal Imperium is Dead

Philip Pilkington examines why the unipolar liberal-internationalist can no longer open the doors, and shows why Secretary of State Marco Rubio sees a new way through our new multi-polar reality.

Philip Pilkington

Feb 11

∙

Preview

∙

Guest post

READ IN APP

When a magician reveals how his trick his done, that trick instantly ceases to hold its original power of fascination. This is why magicians guard their secrets so closely, to the extent that they formed secret societies like The Magic Circle and the52. Why would a magician break with his colleagues and reveal some of his tricks? One can only think that he would engage in such heresy only when he feared that the public was losing interest in the illusions that he was peddling. If the public refuses to buy tickets to a magic show, maybe they will fork over a few bucks to see how the tricks are done.

Something similar seems to be happening in so-called liberal internationalist circles. Faced with global chaos, rising non-Western multilateralisms like BRICS, and a second term for President Trump – all phenomena that their own failed policies played a large role in creating – they are inviting the public to line up and watch how the old tricks were done. The most standout example of this is an essay entitled ‘Trump’s Antiliberal Order’ published in Foreign Affairs by political scientists Alexander Cooley and David Nexon.

Cooley and Nexon effectively argue that the liberal internationalism was merely the packaging for pragmatic policies aimed at preserving a globalist order that operated in America’s self-interest. They seem to be arguing that this order can be stripped of its liberal form, but its practicalcontent should be allowed to remain intact. So, presumably, an enlightened Trumpist bureaucrat, after reading Cooley and Nexon’s essay, would remove the word “liberal” from a variety of institutions and let them carry on their work in the service of the American people. The problem, however, is that liberal internationalism is all form and no content.

Postliberal Order is a reader-supported publication. To continue reading this essay, please support our work by becoming a paid subscriber. An annual subscription costs less than buying one cup of coffee per month for some of the world’s leading postliberal authors.

Upgrade to paid