Comments on: The New Fascists: The Synthesis – Part 5

By: Jason

Jason — Sat, 03 Apr 2010 13:21:32 +0000

My children are going to sit down and read this this weekend. It's explained much better than I could ever. Well done!

By: Guest

Guest — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 08:55:56 +0000

James, you may want to take another look at those Adam Curtis films, specifically "The Trap". At the end of the film Curtis does endorse a new movement founded on the idea of positive liberty, where it sounds like you're backing negative liberty. And one of his main points in the film is that turning negative liberty into a pure ideal, into an absolute, as we have, is a huge problem. If anything, it sounds like he's attacking the very foundation of what you're arguing for!

And reading these comments, it seems like it also attacks the foundation of what many of you are arguing for as well.

Some of the details you present are accurate and well researched, but I find your conclusions to be lacking and heavily influenced.

So in the end, I walk away with the feeling that this ambitious series ended in nothing more but the same talking points, spin, and propaganda. Your conclusions and arguments are for followers, not individuals.

Then again, it's just about impossible to be a pure individual, or to be truly free. It is a point Curtis has made in many of his films. He also likes to talk about the idea of elites producing unintended consequences. And that's another Curtis idea– many of those who believe they can plan everything, mold everyone in a certain light, always wind up producing unintended consequences of which they could have never foreseen or predicted.

See, Sigmund Freud was correct when he said that humanity is trash. But people have the potential to become more than that. Curtis's argument is that our current idea of democracy (the kind you seem to be partly arguing for) is a narrow, limited idea. A trap that limits humans.

What he is endorsing at the end of the film is the very same type of freedom (positive liberty) that created the French Revolution, and I highly doubt anyone on this site is going to raise their hand in support of that. He attacks the likes of Friedrich Hayek as "utopian thinkers" for crying out loud!

I mean, I do back a lot of what he (Curtis) argues; my point is that it seems as if you didn't even bother to explore what he was really talking about. You only took what you wanted out of those films. And seeing as those films do, as we say in psychology, "unlock your unconscious mind", that's quite telling. I'd go further, but that would be rude of me.

Now here comes the part where I get jumped by a gang of people who argue that they are all individuals. Right…

By: Harry_Heiny

Harry_Heiny — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 04:16:01 +0000

Book reccommendation:
If you liked this series, you'll love Jonah Goldberg's 'Liberal Fascism'. It covers much of the same ground as this series, but of course in more detail and depth. This series DOES plow a few different territories and it also places more guilt on the Republican party than Goldberg did.

By: rjcylon

rjcylon — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 09:38:04 +0000

There is no such thing as objective reality.

By: rjcylon

rjcylon — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 09:33:37 +0000

I've enjoyed this series of articles as well. About the films mentioned: I saw Centuy of Self about a year ago and thought it was pretty good. "The Trap", however, beyond the first episode, I really can't see how it's criticizing the left at all. It's all about how American ideals are wrong, how our system of "negative liberty" doesn't work (basically libertarianism) how bringing down communism was bad, how Reagan screwed up, and how we really need wise, benevolent rulers to take care of us because left to our own devices, we can't be trusted to make the right decisions. Seems to be very pro-big government, and anti American.

The stuff about psychiatry, and the "birth" of all these disorders people keep diagnosing themselves with was spot on, but the guy is way off when it comes to "negative liberty".

By: insolublog

insolublog — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 23:05:09 +0000

Queue Bill Ayers and his loving accomplice Bernadine.

By: Bastiat Fan

Bastiat Fan — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 17:52:03 +0000

Wow. How insightful.

By: James Hudnall

James Hudnall — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 16:34:03 +0000

Obviously, you didn't get my points because you were too busy sneering. Fascism and Communism are different in the details but they both involve a small group of elites at the top of a society controlling everything and reaping all the benefits. You probably didn't read the first part of my series where it explains all that in more detail.

Go ahead and laugh. Against ignorance even the gods strive in vain.

By: sagavia

sagavia — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 16:25:34 +0000

In addition, the 17th took the state governments out of the federal government as directly represented. With the state government representatives (senators) advising and consenting on the federal judiciary and top level appointments the growth in power of the federal government at the expense of the states (unfunded mandates, bureaucratic overreach, unconstitutional transfer payments etc) would not have occurred.

By: WestWright

WestWright — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 10:31:31 +0000

Thanks AB, good job James Hudnall and good commentary Cowboy & other Bigs…..the Fascist Left will have to move on the Free Internet soon, the slaves are getting too much 'learning'…I see the effort as migrating from Red China to the EUSSR to the US & Canada. This must take place soon or the 2010 election will be bloody.