Talk:Neo-fascism/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Previous redirect

The previous redirect to neo-nazism talk page was in error.

Deleting entire list of parties now

The list of "allegedly" fascist parties is nothing but POV.

The Republican Party (US) has been *alleged* to be a fascist party quite a lot in the last two years. Yet it keeps getting deleted from the list.

The British National Party (UK) would strenuously deny that it is fascist. It has been alleged to be fascist just about as often as the Republican Party (US). However, it tends to stay in the list.

I think this disparity is sufficient proof that the list is hopeless. I am deleting it now. 69.202.69.24 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 14:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Chomsky and Zinn

I was kind of surprized to see both Chomsky and Zinn refered to as marginal in opposition to "more established scholars". These are both among the most well known, quoted, and taught scholars today in Universities. Chomsky himself is one of the most politically active scholars out there, and that fact only adds to his "established position" more than detract from it, as all scholars are have political affinities, but not all are as candid about their affiliations. As such, doesn't that make them "well established", if not among the "most well established" scholars? I'll be taking out the sentence that reads: "Few established scholars take these claims seriously." --Pascale000 5:52 6 March 2006

They are both self-proclaimed anarchists. By that fact alone they are outside of the political mainstream generally, and I would hope within Acadamia. Since the fact that they are them selve on the "Radical Left" then their judgements whether people in what most of us would consider the political center have to be view in light.

Remember Patrick Buchananon - who has about as much credibility as Chomsky or Zinn, calls Bill Clinton a Quasi-Communist. Does that mean there is a legitimate argument that BC was a Communist? Of course not, because the person making that statement did it from a perspective far outside the mainstream--Dudeman5685 10:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Noam Chomsky is as well-established an authority as any.

Saying that, for simply being anarchists (anarchosyndicalist, in Chomsky's case) Chomsky and Zinn should not be taken seriously is a blatant show of bias. First of all, there is no question as to anarchism's relevance in history and modern thought. Anarchists played vital roles in the 1848 revolutions all around Europe, the organization and defense of the Paris Commune, the Russian Revolution (they were later unfortunately killed off by the "ARCP(b)" totalitarians) the Spanish Revolution (the early 20th century was all about anarchism, of course, everywhere save in the U.S., and, acknowledging the influence of anarchists on the Republican side, who dares to call Lorca, Orwell, and Hemingway [who always struck me as more of a fascist, Ezra Pound style] as "outside of academia" simply because of their political views?), and the Mexican Revolution (which everyone recognizes of having heavy socialist-anarchist overtones, as shown by the constitution that resulted from it).

Also, the most superficial overview of Chomsky's carreer shows how inconceivable it is to even pretend like he's not part of the "mainstream" or "well-established." He's been interviewed by La Jornada, Mexico's second-largest newspapers, by Libération, one of France's top four newspapers, and by El País, Spain's most-widely read newspaper, all of which were apparently more than willing to ask his radically out-of-touch-with-the-mainstream opinion of September 11th. He's also published articles in the Los Angeles Times and (here's a hardcore anarchist publication that no one reads) the New York Times. Not taking into consideration that he's a professor at MIT, a fellow at the National Academy of Science and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, that he's the "leading living public intellectual" and, "according to the Arts and Humanities Citation Index, between 1980 and 1992 Chomsky was cited as a source more often than any other living scholar, and the eighth most cited source overall." (from the Wikipedia article on him.)

Atomsprengja 00:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, then. If Chomsky and Zinn can be cited as legitamite authorities on that basis, why can't Pat Buchaanon? He has been interviewed by some leading foreign newpapers, not as an oddity, but as a legitimate political philosopher, many publications have taken him seriously and given him awards etc. Yet Buchanon is a punch line, nobody, even in the Right takes him seriously. If we are to take Chomskys theories seriously. why not Buchanon and Ann Coulter?

I am not a supporter of Buchannon or Coulter, and I don't like it when conservative or mainstream media give them legitamacy. The fact that so many publication give legitamacy to self proclaimed anarachists ( or communist like Rage against the machine, or Nazis like David Duke) should tell you more about their editorial biases and decrease their legitamcy rather than increase that of the extremist--Dudeman5685 17:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Buchanan should be considered as valid a source as Chomsky. Both give their opinions however, and neither should be considered more reputable than a scholar of fascism but both are noted political thinkers that we have source material from. If their material is relevent to the article and it adds something useful to it it should probably be included in it. - DNewhall

As for the earlier part of your response -- simply because an ideology has played a major role in history doesn't give it legitamacy. The 1848 revs didn't go anywhere, and neither did the Paris Commune. The "success" of the Mexican Revolution is obvious to any who are familier with the country;

The Catholic reactionary views promoted by Buchannan and the knee jerk vitriol associated with Coulter have long histories, just as inglorious as anarchism.

What I am trying to say is -- if you use another extremist ideology (anarchism) to couter Neo-fascism, you are, in effect, legitamizing fascism itself as an acceptable political ideology--Dudeman5685 18:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, what gives an ideology legitimacy? Many thinkers made the case that democracy is absolutely absurd and should be abolished completely. So, is democract a legitimate ideology then? - DNewhall

The whole concept of "extremism" is being challenged by sociologists such as Jerome Himmelstein at Amherst. It is a label that defines the center as ideal, and demonizes dissidents on the political left and political right. Chomsky and Buchanan represent well-established and well-published viewpoints. The mainstream is featured in an encyclopedia, but the margins should not be deleted. I agree with DNewhall.--Cberlet 21:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

First of all, maybe Buchanan shouldn't be taken seriously because he's so unknown that people can't even spell his name right. What do you mean by "legitimate"? Obviously, Mussolini thought it was legitimate, and so did the Japanese military in the 40's. Forza Italia may not seem legitimate to me, but that doesn't mean it isn't. If "a major role in history" doesn't make something worthy of being mentioned, then what does? Official government approval? To take a random example, does the fact that the right-wing coup in the Soviet Union didn't manage to depose the Communist Party mean that the entire anti-communist movement in Russia, or its leaders, should be ignored? Maybe Wikipedia should erase all references to the Prague Spring because hey, the tanks managed to end that too.

I've never seen any poll calling Buchanan the most important living politician, or saying that Coulter, with her "raghead talks tough, raghead faces consequences" gems is the eight most-cited source. It'd be pretty difficult, considering how most intellectuals are still radical enough to believe in evolution.

Atomsprengja 23:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Neo-Fascism & U.S.

Note to JJ4sad6: Please try to balance this page in terms of the amount of material you are adding. Most of it should be sumarized and linked to offsite articles. Please try to draw a distinction between repression and fascism, militarism and fascism, government regulation and fascism, and corporate power and fascism. Most of what you are adding could be said of numerous non-fascist goverments and countries. Also, I do not believe that Zinn has ever argued the U.S. was fascist in the sense you are attributing to him. Please provide a quote. Also please cite exactly who has called Clinton a fascist other than the militias and some left-wing conspiracy theorists. There may be a few reputable libertarians you can cite, but otherwise the claim floats without sourcing. Please do not let your enthusiasm create a situation where others will just start to revert all your text due to the volume and POV stridency. The current material is presented in a much better form and with cites, but it still needs much work.--Cberlet 13:24, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

• • "Please try to draw a distinction between repression and fascism, militarism and fascism, government regulation and fascism, and corporate power and fascism." However, in just about every source on Fascism, it states that such aspects are part of fascism. In other words, they are not mutually exclusive. For example, mammals have hair, mammary glands, and are warm blooded. Fascism is made up of repression, militarism, government regulation, and corporate power. Discussion of fascism requires discussion of its component parts, especially when it remains debated and disputed.15:58, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

• RE: "Corporate Power" - Please tell me what economic systems other than sustenance farming function without the organizations which socialists smear with the loaded term "corporate power"? Banding together for economic efficiency is the byproduct of specialization and an indicator of an economy that has moved beyond serfdom. It is not a signpost for fascism. 208.115.200.62 09:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)MBM

• RE:RE: "Corporate Power" - Lifted from Definitions of fascism. F.D. Roosevelt: "The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power".

I read the underlying Chomsky and Zinn quotes, and they were taken totally out of context. I preserved that one Chomsky quote that was even vaguely related. --Cberlet 14:26, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

• CBerlet: Why would this article even rely on the opinions of a rhetorical bomb-thrower/professional malcontent like Chomsky? He is a Professor of Linguistics. His famous political works are diatribes that would never survive peer scrutiny in *relevant* liberal arts disciplines like history, political science, or national security studies. Relying on Chomsky for a definition of fascism is like relying on Der Sturmer for a definition of Capitalism. 208.115.200.62 09:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)MBM

The discussion of Fascism in the United States has also been brewing on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Fascism pages. The Republican Party has been added and removed from the list numerous times. It seems that there is a great deal of disagreement on what exactly constitutes fascism, and when to draw the line. This article is probably the most well written example of the evidence that the US is becoming a fascist state. What other evidence could be presented to convince editors not to remove the United States GOP from the list of fascist parties? It seems some people are never satisfied. --Dschor 20:59, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• Dschor: Yes, some people are never satisfied, like those who are so politically illiterate as to earnestly conflate pro-capitalist political platforms with fascism, or think that the economic collectivism at the point of a gun that underpinned last century's human slaughterhouse regimes can and should be tried again once the right "man on horseback" is found to straighten out all those upitty bourgeoisie. 208.115.200.62 09:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)MBM

The previous user appears to be describing the spurious reason why the US Republican Party was removed from the list. Its fascist characteristics (authoritarianism, election theft, aggressive wars, support of torture, demonization of and attacks on minority groups, etc.) have very little to do with "pro-capitalist political platforms".

Putting it back now. 69.202.69.24 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 13:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

At least part of the confusion over what constitutes fascism and where to draw the line stems from a tendency for Americans to think of fascism only in terms of Nazism. If we are seeing the rise of something more akin to the Italian fascismo that Mussolini called 'corporatism', but our only template for fascism is German Nazism, our template fails us and we are confused. There is more than one flavor of fascism. - Mark Dixon 15:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• Dixon: "Corporatism" has virtually nothing to do with a legal mechanism of organizing capital and managerial talent for an economic purpose. Corporations don't generally try to round up their potential customers for speedy extermination, (It's terrible for repeat business opportunities and shrinks the marketshare). The claims that fascism as practiced anywhere in the 20th century was somehow compatible with economic liberty are just specious. (Pinochet's Chile was ruled by an authoritarian military junta that was smart enough to reverse disasterous socialist economic policies, not a fascist state trying to impose some phony national identity.) The article specifically declaims this common misconception of the anti-capitalist persuasion. 208.115.200.62 09:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)MBM

Britt

Why does there seem to be such a problem with this Britt guy? Can someone explain to me why he seems to be not very well liked? He is a political scientist who has studied fascist governments, I would think his work would fit very appropriately on this page. If we had a page about Cats, you would want to include information from cat researchers. Why the hostility towards Britt? JJ4sad6 00:18, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Britt is not a political scientist, nor an academic, nor a Ph.D. He has never claimed to be. It is an Internet hoax. He has said so himself. He wrote one interesting and controversial article. He deserves to be mentioned, and he was already mentioned. --Cberlet 14:48, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, Berlet, but I want a link showing that he actually said it was a hoax. I have tried to find this on Google and have found others calling it a hoax, but have not found it straight from his mouth. There was an article by Umberto Eco along the same lines (possibly plagerized by Britt), would that be worth including on this page? JJ4sad6 12:49, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Not all information is on the Internet. Britt says he did not plagiarize the Umberto Eco article because he had not read it before he wrote his article. I take him at his word. He also has never claimed to be an academic or have a PhD, and has corrected that assumption. He is a retired businessman and writer. While I disagree with his analysis, I believe he has acted in an appropriate and principled way in this matter. As for Eco, there was a link here I think, but it has vanished. At one point I posted a summary of the Eco essay, but it, too, has vanished. Sigh. Anyway, I have added the link to the only sanctioned page for the Eco essay, and moved in several more from the Fascism page.--Cberlet 14:20, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I edited and moved Britt because his piece does not accuse the Bush administration itself. Also, it only implies that the US exhibits fascistic characteristics, not that it is in fact fascist. I felt that this piece was better off in the general fascism section. However, we could always move it back to the bottom in its own section once again. I'm personally fine either way. But the point of my moving/editing it was that he does not accuse the Bush administration, nor does he flat out state that the US is fascist. OH, I also added a second link because it appears that the first link is archived on a regular basis, making it a broken link quite often. JJ4sad6 02:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Recent POV edits

I am very concerned that recent edits have simply tossed out conservative and libertarian views. I am a lefty, but this is an encyclopedia. How about some fairness. Let's discuss matters. I plan to restore most of the recent deletions unless there are substantial reasons offered here for why that is a bad idea.--Cberlet 19:16, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I've reverted User:Revolución's edits. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 21:53, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Cberlet: How is it that an article that strives for NPOV manages to waste so much time on an idiotic GWB == Hitler binge, but somehow fails to investigate whether people who will saw off your head to advance a political & ideological agenda may be accurately described as fascists? How is it that the Iranian Revolutionary Council, (the world's sole state-proponent of bringing about a Shite Caliphate, forcibly ending the Sunni-Shiite scism, and exterminating the jews of Israel) also escape attention? Finally, shouldn't any list of "regimes which may have been fascist" include the only two contemporary regimes which are/were dominated by a political party which espouses "national socialism"? i.e., the Baathist Party which runs Syria and which ran Iraq until 2003? What more do these regimes/movements have to do to get on the list? This double standard is just appalling. 208.115.200.62 20:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)MBM

Neo Fascism in Italy

I think that the inclusion of Lega Nord and Alleanza Nazionale among the Neo Fascist Movements. Lega Nord is a right-wing independentist party but not neo fascist. Neo Fascist parties in Italy often blamed Lega Nord for its indipendentists issues. Alleanza Nazionale is a post fascist party now turned into a conservative party. I apologize for English.--Brandoale

Fascism (United States)

I think that any new content in this article should be merged with this article. The editors here would be a better balance to discuss the subject, and ATM the article seems mostly to be original research. PPGMD 18:22, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

This is not the first article created to address the issue of American fascism. Fascism in the United States is a large enough topic to warrant a distinct article. Merging the article into Neo-fascism makes the information more difficult to access. Furthermore, there is more to fascism in the united states than can be addressed in the Neo-fascism article. --Dschor 22:20, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

The Fascism (United States) article no longer exists. Was it merged with this article? If so, most of the content has been edited down. Furthermore, several generations of content (some well-thought-out and cited, others not) have come and disappeared on this topic. I fear the tendency will be toward removal unless editors 1) take care to add well-sourced, balanced content, 2) vigilantly guard well-sourced content from being removed wholesale without justification or discussion, and 3) participate in forums and mediation where necessary to maintain content. A high school student looking for information on fascism in the US, even if seeking to disprove it, shouldn't have to dig through years of content and reversion wars to find source material or opposing arguments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.173.193.102 (talk) 18:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

FDR Sources and Information

I was disappointed to see that someone had removed the information I first placed here about FDR. I certainly hope it was an accident. --JJ4sad6 23:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Bush and Clinton

I came here because this was linked from Fascism. The sections on the Clinton and Bush administrations strike me as near-hogwash. As far as I can tell this really demonstrates is that people like to call their enemies fascist, and that any government in modern times has some things in common with any other government in modern times, so you can always find "facsist" elements, "socialist" elements, "free market" elements, etc. By this logic you could probably prove that Yasser Arafat was a Zionist. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Arafat had two legs--just like zionists! --Silverback 08:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I concur on this. I'm no fan of Bush, but this is mere conspiratorial crypto-propaganda to say he's "neo-facist" in the context used to speak of neo-naziism etc. To claim it of Clinton is abject absurdity. Duckmonster 08:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I think this misuse of fascism and nazism by the left is defense through a strong offense. The are embarassed by the the state oriented solutions they propose to nearly every social problem and know it leaves them vulnerable to comparison with the true fascists and national socialists, so they attack first with these name calling attacks, to shift the focus to other elements of the prototype regimes and away from those elements that they share with those regimes and they also defang any of the more important (from a marxist perspective) economic comparisons with those regimes by pre-emptively rendering the terms meaningless through overuse and misuse.--Silverback 08:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Neither the left nor the right are immune from using "Nazi" and "Hitler" to label their opponents. But inasmuch as fascism was a political ideology before it became a slur, properties of fascism that are exhibited by any party, movement, legislation (or individual?) may be legitimately discussed (in a non-foaming-at-the-mouth sort of way). That doesn't mean fascism should be used as a bugaboo to frighten the casual reader against the author's enemies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.173.193.102 (talk) 18:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Fascism (United States) AfD

Fascism (United States) has been nominated for deletion here. keith 10:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The vote has concluded, and the result was no consensus. The page remains. --Dschor 11:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Clean-up of United States Section

I think that the US section needs a bit of a clean up, there has to be a way to bring the two sub-sections together, perhaps a section on how each side views fascism, and do a chronological section of fascist moves by each administration? PPGMD 16:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• • Well, I set it up the way I did to preserve balance, as C Berlet and I sparred at the beginning over first making a separate entry for the United States, and then keeping it on this page, but at the time I had only recent examples of neo-fascistic behavior of the government. I did more research and found more information on FDR and Clinton and included that information as well for balance.
  • As far as how each side views fascism, well, I'm independent so I feel no qualms about pointing out the fascistic tendancies of both political parties here in the US. However, my view of fascism closely mirrors the definitions given by Eco, Britt, and Flynn, which is why we have included them on this page already. But if we included definitions by side, this page would likely become POV at that point. As it stands now, it is simply "Here's the definition, and here's what people on the left/right view as fascistic."
  • I do like your chronology idea though, and I may work on something like that. Of course, I would like input on how to set that up. Maybe by decade, I assume? JJ4sad6 01:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking something along the lines of first a section of how each side views the other as Fascist, any differences in what they believe is Fascist and such. That followed by a section by decade of not only Fascist administrations, but other fascists such as the business plot and others. I think that would make it a bit more orginized. PPGMD 02:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

• • My question then becomes, is there some definition of Fascism we can all agree to? Perhaps several different aspects? Then what I can do is go through the last century or so and point out all the activities taken by our government that match that definition, regardless of political party or ideology. My personal view is that the Flynn definition or the Eco definition is usable. However, others may have a different view point on what determines "Fascism". So once we get a definition most of us can agree to, I can then go through the history and point out various activities matching that definition. JJ4sad6 22:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• • However, as far as how one side views the other as fascist, I don't think we can really accomplish that here on Wikipedia. Because it would involve EVERYONE on the left agreeing to a single viewpoint, and EVERYONE on the right agreeing to a single counter-viewpoint, and I don't think that will ever be possible. But I do think we can at least find a workable definition that we can all agree to. JJ4sad6 22:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Definition of Fascism

I am going to try to get some sort of consensus on a workable definition of Fascism. I know we'll never agree to a definition 100%, but I want to see if we can at least get most of the particulars agreed to. So I would like to submit Flynn's definition of Fascism for discussion. If there is any item on his list you disagree with, please say so and provide a reason why you disagree. Perhaps provide an alternative item.

• • Flynn's Fascism:
    • 1) unrestrained government;
    • 2) an absolute leader responsible to a single party;
    • 3) a planned economy with nominal private ownership of the means of production;
    • 4) bureaucracy and administrative "law";
    • 5) state control of the financial sector;
    • 6) permanent economic manipulation via deficit spending;
    • 7) militarism;
    • 8) imperialism

Now, add your take on this list, provide your opposition to any of these items, or provide additional items for discussion. Again, my goal is to find a workable definition of Fascism most of us can agree to. JJ4sad6 22:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

An admirable goal, but original research is not appropriate on Wiki. The Flynn definition was written as a conservative/libertarian/isolationist polemic against the "welfare state" and foreign wars, and thus Flynn is not considered a serious scholar of fascism. This definition is similar to the work of Hayek, and von Mises who are conservative/libertarian economists and also not scholars of fascism. See the discussion at Fascism and Ideology and join the debate there if you want to discuss the issue of alternative definitions of fascism. Meanwhile, the Fascism page offers a good start.--Cberlet 14:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Well then, are there any serious scholars of Fascism? It seems to me that for every scholar someone presents, another will denounce them as a real scholar. So have there been any scholars who are taken seriously who have studied fascism and come up with a definition? JJ4sad6 15:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Are you a serious scholar, Mr. Berlet? Here is what you've written before:

Fascism and Nazism as ideologies involve, to varying degrees, some of the following hallmarks:

• Nationalism and super-patriotism with a sense of historic mission.
• Aggressive militarism even to the extent of glorifying war as good for the national or individual spirit.
• Use of violence or threats of violence to impose views on others (fascism and Nazism both employed street violence and state violence at different moments in their development).
• Authoritarian reliance on a leader or elite not constitutionally responsible to an electorate.
• Cult of personality around a charismatic leader.
• Reaction against the values of Modernism, usually with emotional attacks against both liberalism and communism.
• Exhortations for the homogeneous masses of common folk (Volkish in German, Populist in the U.S.) to join voluntarily in a heroic mission--often metaphysical and romanticized in character.
• Dehumanization and scapegoating of the enemy--seeing the enemy as an inferior or subhuman force, perhaps involved in a conspiracy that justifies eradicating them.
• The self image of being a superior form of social organization beyond socialism, capitalism and democracy.
• Elements of national socialist ideological roots, for example, ostensible support for the industrial working class or farmers; but ultimately, the forging of an alliance with an elite sector of society.
• Abandonment of any consistent ideology in a drive for state power.

I appears to me that you can find several common threads in all the definitions from which we can start. For example, between you and Flynn, there is agreement on:

• 1. Militarism
• 2. An absolute ruler

Unfortunately, neither yourself, nor none of your associates at PRA discuss the economic aspects of Fascism and only addresses the social aspects. You associate Mr. Lyons does mention imperialism can be another aspect. However, the platform on the American Fascist Party does elaborate on the economic:

Fascism recgonizes the nation as an organism with a purpose, a life and means of action transcending those of the individuals of which it is composed. To limit such an organism to a purpose within itself, to the mere service of its constituent parts, would be a denial of the whole philosophic concept of the corporate state. People of worth will sacrifice their immediate welfare to the needs of their careers. Similarly, the Corporate state must not be considered solely as a means of good government. It is also the means of self-expression of the nation as a corporate whole in the attainment of its national destiny.

I find it interesting that scholars of the left (as far as I've seen) do not address the economic factors of Fascism, with the exception of Choamsky, who apparently is not "scholarly" enough to include as a source. Perhaps this oversight is the reason why right says that Fascism is a left ideology and vice versa? JJ4sad6 16:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I took the information from the Fascism page and condensed it to include on this page as a definition of Fascism, with the caveat that there may be different characteristics for Neo-Fascism. Otherwise, wouldn't it just be Fascism too?JJ4sad6 15:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I cannot comprehend how you think your summary in any way reflects the text on the current Fascism page. I have moved in two paragraphs that cover the basic definition. We do not have to reinvent the wheel on this page.--Cberlet 20:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

If you are interested in the debate on the political economy of fascism that you seem unable to locate, see: Fascism and ideology.--Cberlet 20:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Cberlet, here is what I added:

• 1. Nationalistic
• 2. Militaristic
• 3. Powerful Single Ruler (with often a Centralized Government or Single-Party)
• 4. Collectivism & Conformity (ie. Anti-Individualism)
• 5. Suppression of Opposition
• 6. Business combined with State power, Corporatism
• 7. Anti-Liberalism

And here is what the fascism page says under definition (my condensations are in bold):

Merriam-Webster defines 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"[1].

ergo, Nationalism, Centralized Government, Single Leader, and Suppression of Opposition

The American Heritage Dictionary instead describes it as "A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism."[2].

ergo, Business combined with state power and Nationalism

Mussolini defined fascism as being a right-wing ideology in opposition to socialism, liberalism, democracy and individualism. He said in The Political and Social Doctrine of Fascism:

"Granted that the 19th century was the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy, this does not mean that the 20th century must also be the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy. Political doctrines pass; nations remain. We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the 'right', a Fascist century. If the 19th century was the century of the individual (liberalism implies individualism) we are free to believe that this is the collective century, and therefore the century of the State." [3]

ergo, anti-liberalism, anti-individualism, and collectivism

Fascism is associated by many scholars with one or more of the following characteristics: a very high degree of nationalism, economic corporatism, a powerful, dictatorial leader who portrays the nation, state or collective as superior to the individuals or groups composing it.

ergo, nationalism, corporatism, dictatorial leader

Stanley Payne's Fascism: Comparison and Definition (1980) uses a lengthy itemized list of characteristics to identify fascism, including the creation of an authoritarian state; a regulated, state-integrated economic sector; fascist symbolism; anti-liberalism; anti-communism [4]. A similar strategy was employed by semiotician Umberto Eco in his popular essay Eternal Fascism: Fourteen Ways of Looking at a Blackshirt[5]. More recently, an emphasis has been placed upon the aspect of populist fascist rhetoric that argues for a "re-birth" of a conflated nation and ethnic people[6].

ergo, centralized government, business and state power combined, anti-liberalism

The only thing on my list not accounted for is the militarism, but most scholars, including yourself, count that among the traits of fascism.

But if you are fine with my recent revision, I will let it stand, I just wanted something that wasn't a big block of text and rather a list of characteristics.JJ4sad6 01:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Merge discussion

I think the page Fascism (United States) should be merged onto this page, the issues and text sorted out, and then non-duplicative text segments dealing with the post-WWII era moved to a page on Neo-fascism and the United States. All the Bush material that survives would go there.

We also need to keep an eye on the page Nazism in relation to other concepts, especially the section Nazism_in_relation_to_other_concepts#Nazism_and_socialism[1]. At some point we should then move all of the debate over fascism, socialism, and the welfare state relationship to corporatism to the page Fascism and ideology. The FDR material would go there, along with the theories of Flynn, Hayek, and von Mises.

Otherwise we just keep having the same discussions on multiple pages, which is a gigantic waste of time and energy that could be better put to use by adding and improving articles.--Cberlet 15:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I also agree, ATM that article contains only two sections that aren't in Neo-Fascism, the first is a two sentence section, the other is the introduction. A number of the voters on the AfD agreed also, any pre-WWII content could stay, but it's barely a stub. PPGMD 16:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I am leaving open the possibility that someone can make a case to grow several sections of this page until they deserve their own pages, but I think the discussion here will demand more cites and more careful crafting of language--all of which is a good thing and a proper process for Wiki.--Cberlet 16:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I think everything in Fascism (United States) after World War II should be merged in here. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

If this proves to be a better place to get some real work done, I am all for it, but I feel that this level of detail is simply not appropriate in the Neo-Fascism article. Fascism in the United States is a distinct topic, and it would be wise to treat it that way, IMHO. Splitting it into multiple articles makes following the history that much more difficult. --Dschor 09:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm no historian, so I speak subject to correction. I think the fascism of the twenties and thirties, whether European or American, was a distinctly different thing from the neo-fascism since the war. Neo-fascist movements in Germany and America seem to have more in common with each other than either does with the fascism 1935. It makes sense to me to have seperate pages for them, with each page prominently mentioning and linking to the other. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

If you want to put up a page of POV and OR like you did with the article in question, then there will be no better place then a user page sandbox. Here you will be forced to cite everything you put up, and that they must conform to all the standards of wikipedia, we let you play around with that page for long enough. By merging the content it will be on a much more high traffic page on the subject where more editors can NPOV it and check your references. If the United States section does become too long then a split with a link would be possible, Neo-Fascism in the United States would probably be the title. PPGMD 14:58, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

There really is a credibility issue here, as well as the historic issues. The merge is a better way to sort those out. So I agree with User:Tom harrison and User:PPGMD.--Cberlet 15:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Bill Crews Link

Is Bill Crews notable? Unless he is quoted in the text I just don't think he is, I never even heard of him until I read the page. I did a little google research. Search Bill Crews gave a crap load of page, but most were not about this particular Bill Crews so I put in quotes and added Iowa, I got 295 google hits. I also went to Google news, there just "Bill Crews" got 4 hits, of which only one was about this particular Bill Crews. It is my opinion that he is not notable and the link should be removed unless he is quoted. PPGMD 15:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Bill Crews has a wikipedia page. I think the link should be returned as he was an elected official of the state of Iowa. JJ4sad6 15:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Seems that the Bill Crews (properly identified) has something interesting to say on the subject and a political background that makes his views on topic. Let's be a little bit flexible on this material until it gets sorted out more thoroughly. --Cberlet 15:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, I can't even find a source for the quote that is used on his Wikipedia page, and put next to the link to that page. Though I agree with him in some areas, the only reason he is linked is because he called the Republican fascist, and I can't find anywhere where he attempts to back up those claims. He seems to be only using the fascist remark as the usual epitaph. PPGMD 15:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

The criteria cannot be that you, or me, or anyone disagrees with the use of the term. The criteria must be that it has been made by a reputable person and published someplace. Otherwise I would just cut out all the right-wing claims that I disagree with. (that would be a whole chunk of this page). I agree that much of the material on Bush refers only to political repression and authoritatiranism, and as such is not an example of neo-fascism. Perhaps we could start by summarizing some of this uncited material and putting it in an NPOV context rather than challenging a cited quote.--Cberlet 15:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I challenge this because he doesn't seem notable, and that I can't find a citation for the only reason that he is linked is because he said:

"I was a Republican from before the fascists took over. I believe in limited government, but I'm on one side of the Democratic party. I'm pro-choice; I've always been."

I can't even find a source for that quote, to see if he attempted to back it up with evidence of why he feels that the current Republican party is fascist. Anyone can spout off about something, it's evidence to back it up that makes it a credible source for Wikipedia. PPGMD 16:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

To me, Mr. Crews is referring to the fact that he is for limited government and the main stream Republican party is not (at this time). And pervasive (authoritarian) government is one of the hallmarks of Fascism. However, I too have searched exhaustively for this quote, and I cannot find an original source. But we do know, at least, that he is a notable figure, just that this quote cannot be backed up at the present time. If someone can find an original source, I think it should be included. JJ4sad6 17:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Merged in section on the United States

OK, let's start editing, and be nice! Can we first find notable published material that rejects the notion that the Bush II Administration is fascistic before we enage in wholesale cutting? After we have that material, NPOV balancing, summarizing, and trimming will be much easier to do. Patience please--and assume good faith. :-) --Cberlet 23:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Why the need for material that rejects the notion that Bush II is fascistic? It might be hard to find given the recent actions of the administration. --Dschor 23:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

You are undermining your own case with this POV rhetoric.--Cberlet 23:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

NPOV does not mean we have to say something nice about everybody. --Dschor 12:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

• Dschor: My friend has a secret ambulet that he claims is an excellent tiger repellent. He knows it works because he hasn't seen a tiger all day. I accept everything he tells me despite the total absence of credible evidence, so I oppose the introduction of evidence that I am in fact a barking moonbat. I wouldn't know fascism if it sawed off my head with butcher knife (use of violence) on a video (for political ends to terrorize and cow the opposition) to further a pseudo-religious interpretation of Islam (a totalitarian, political identity movement) that will span the Umma (imperialist aspirations to build an empire for one's people) to avenge centuries of grievances (phony justification about some great "betrayal" to demonize the other) and restore the greatness of a super Caliphate (that never actually existed) which will control all aspects of life (totalitarian regime) through the imposition of draconian legal reforms (islamic courts) that will include the destruction and/or abolition of the legistlature (Islamic prohibition on legistlative bodies Cf. Fascist disdain for democratic institutions such as the Reichstag) in favor of a permanent dictator (the coming Caliph) who will bring about an apocalyptic conflagration and set everything in line with their world view. 208.115.200.62 10:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)MBM

I agree with Dschor. NPOV means that if there are alternative views, we should in good faith include them, but fact is, how many academics and reputable scholars have written analysis in defense of the Administration, specifically that it is not fascistic? Might be able to find some articles from the Heritage folks or maybe AEI. Interesting thing is, search Google for "Bush is a fascist" and you get 11,000 hits. Search Google for "Bush is not a fascist" and you get about 584. I'd suggest you folks start there for NPOV balance. But keep in mind, if someone like Choamsky or Zinn is not a reputable or "mainstream" scholar, then Joe Blogg likely isn't either. JJ4sad6 18:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

NPOV mean that we make a good faith effort to locate balancing material. Also, the majority opinion of scholars of fascism is that the charges against Bush are largely overblown rhetoric; so why write a defense when you think the charge is outlandish POV? Also, many of the claims on this page about Bush relate to political repression, spying, authoritarianism, election fraud, etc. None of this necessarily adds up to fascism. That is the main weakness of the Britt essay (in which he coyly never claims the Bush Administration is fascist). At least the Neiwert article explains the connections and relationship to fascist ideology.--Cberlet 14:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I would love to see your evidence that "the majority opinion of scholars of fascism is that the charges against Bush are largely overblown rhetoric". Short of Bush declaring "I am a fascist", the only evidence that is available is his record - as you note, this includes political repression, spying, authoritarianism, election fraud, and more. If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, I have to assume that it is a duck. JJ4sad6 provides a telling Google stat, that indicates that your claim about the opinion of scholars may not fall on the side you claim. I, for one, would love to see some evidence that this administration is not fascist, but at present it seems unlikely to surface. --Dschor 21:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

A Google search establishes the opinion of scholars? What planet are you logged in from? Prove a negative? That gets an "F" in logic class. If it walks like a duck? That's the argument style of fascism, not proof of fascism. Logic 101: If milk is white and chalk is white then chalk is milk. That's called a logical fallacy. Stop complaining and do some real research to back up your OR and POV claims. Real books. Real journal articles. Real newspaper articles. Less whining and more editing. PLEASE!--Cberlet 21:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

No, A Google search does not establish the opinion of scholars, and your POV is even less helpful. I just don't see the need for your baseless assertion that the majority of scholars of fascism would consider the charge that GWB is fascist to be outlandish POV. If you don't want to be called out for making baseless assertions, then don't make them. --Dschor 21:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Cberlet, most scholars knowledgeable about this subject wouldn't say that Bush is a fascist, they would say that this administration has tendencies like many recent administrations, but few would call the administration fascist.PPGMD 22:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I just finished a research project on this question for a chapter in a scholarly book. In the course of that research I really did contact a number of scholars of fascism. I also asked a number of scholars at a recent conference at Boston University. The overall sentiment was that you could see bits and pieces of elements of fascism in some apocalyptic and repressive aspects of the Bush Administration and the Christian Right, (and even the secular apocalyptic militant foreign policy of the Neocons), but that none really met the criteria for actual fascism. The failure of scholars to write on a subject is not evidence of anything. Compare the Paxton book criteria for fascism (a really good summary) with the Britt essay, and you can see the difference. One explains the key elements of fascism (and the Bush administration has echoes of a few); while the other merely sets up a false analogy by comparing what is alike in Nazi Germany and Bush USA. That's is an inherently flawed analytical methodology--one which Dschor embraces. That's the problem. Dschor is asserting that fallacies of logic are evidence. --Cberlet 22:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Just quote from any published work of any one of the scholars that you met with. Don't accuse me of embracing a flawed methodology, when I have done no such thing. I have tried to add material that is relevant and topical, and as you are aware, the Bush Administration is fascist under any definitions that can be offered - including the (unusual) definition offered by Paxton. --Dschor 22:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Well lets rephrase that, your a scientist doing experiments on gravity (something that is well known), if your experiments simply backup what is a known fact, what is the chance that it will be published, or that it will be distributed broadly? PPGMD 03:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

<----Everyone! Here is the thing though. We KNOW what happens to academics who publicly question the status quo. Look at Ward Churchill at CU for an example. The thing is, if there is an academic who speaks out against this administration and calls it Fascist, one of two things will happen. 1. He/she will be dismissed as a quack and not considered mainstream (although, who defines "mainstream"?) or 2. He/she will be vilified and brutally attacked (either their reputation and/or their employment). So I think there is a good reason why many so-called "mainstream" scholars and academics have refused to go out on a limb, take into account the actions taken by this Administration, and write a position that this administration has become fascist. This doesn't even require that we take into account the other two branches. The Administration is ONE of the three branches, and can be in and of itself, fascist. It has a certain amount of support in the other two branches, but certainly, enough to carry out most of its desires. Yes, we do not have stormtroopers marching in the streets and we don't have "re-education" camps for dissidents, but do we really have to go that far before people will sit down and say "Ya know what? I think we have become fascist here in America"?

CBertlet, I respect your work, especially when you have written to expose the theocratic right. Theocracy requires a certain amount of fascistic control over the population, I'm sure you will agree. Certainly the old Catholic Church wasn't 100% Fascist, but it had many of the hallmarks. Likewise, America is not 100% Democratic, yet we call it a Democracy. Does something really have to be 100% to be called a term? Consider the fact that if we wait until we ARE 100% fascist, there will be no opportunity then to call it so.

But I want to get back to a more important question. Who defines "mainstream"? Does an academic have to have a PhD from Stanford, or Harvard, or Yale, or Columbia to be "mainstream"? Do they have to be accepted by ALL within the academic circle to be "mainstream"? Do they have to have hundreds of published articles and books to be "mainstream"? Or do they have to be so tame that they refuse to rock the boat one way or the other, or risk going out on a limb with their position to be "mainstream"? Who determines if Mr. or Ms. Soandso is "mainstream" or a quack? Seems rather arbitrarily based on whether you agree with their views or not. JJ4sad6 16:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I am reading Wiki policies in an odd way, and I am happy for others to offer their views, but I think there are essentially five levels.

1. The majority view of the recognized experts in a field, and reputable authors in "mainstream" edited publications.

1. Minority views of published scholars in a field, and authors in "mainstream" edited publications.

1. Minority views of published scholars and authors in marginal but edited publications.

1. Minority views of authors in marginal publications and websites that nonetheless provide valuable insights or which have received public attention.

1. Idiosyncratic views that are essentialy self-published, overly conspiracist, or lunatic.

In regular encyclopedias, the focus is on detailing the first category, with some small mentions of the second category, and sometimes a brief discussion of publicized controversies in any of the categories. Here on Wikipedia, there is more latitude, and more room for detailing the lesser categories.

But I do not believe that minor theories should displace majority scholarship on main pages. And since there are plenty of websites, I do not think that every minority view needs to be detialed here. That's what search engines provide. The goal of a universal online encyclopedia such as Wiki is to help readers find the most reliable majority views on a subject, important minority views, with pointers to lesser views.

The claim that dissident scholars and authors are "censored" in the United States is hyperbolic. Attacked, vilified, sometimes not rehired or even fired, yes; but not censored. Take an example of the political left, with publishers such as Routledge, The New Press, South End Press, Common Courage Press, etc, and magazines such as the Nation, In These Times, Z Magazine, Mother Jones, etc. there are plenty of edited published sources for dissident minority views. This is also true on the political right, with numerous book and periodical publishers.

The problem is with Wiki editors who insist that every one of their pet theories, and the blobs of original POV research they have stumbled across while surfing the Web, deserves extended text entries on Wikipedia. This is a false--and frankly irritating and disruptive--notion that demonstrates that there is an endless supply of people whose egocentrism and sense of self importance vastly exceeds their competance and intellect.----Cberlet 17:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Neo-Fascist Timeline

Taking into account PPGMD's suggestion of a Neo-Fascist Timeline, I'd like to start working on that with the help of you folks. How far back should we go? Should we include FDR or start at Truman? Should it be done by administration or decade? We will go by the definition currently available as to whether it is a fascist action or not. I would also like at least one (preferrably two) verifiable sources to include for each item on the timeline. We need not limit ourselves to the US mainland, as I know there were quite a few actions taken in Central America, Korea, and other locations under our advice and instruction that would fit the "fascist" definition we have worked out.

Again, that definition includes:

*Totalitarian attempts to impose state control over all aspects of life: political, social, cultural, and economic.

*The fascist state regulates and controls (as opposed to nationalizing) the means of production.

*Fascism exalts the nation, state, or race as superior to the individuals, institutions, or groups composing it.

*Fascism uses explicit populist rhetoric; calls for a heroic mass effort to restore past greatness;

*Demands loyalty to a single leader, often to the point of a cult of personality.

Fascism is associated by many scholars with one or more of the following characteristics:

1. A very high degree of nationalism,

2. Economic corporatism,

3. A powerful, dictatorial leader who portrays the nation, state or collective as superior to the individuals or groups composing it.

I know some editors on Wikipedia will want any items to meet ALL parts of the definition. However, as this timeline is to show the development of fascistic tendancies in the US (and as we are not 100% fascist now) it is logically impossible to have an item in this timeline that covers all aspects of Fascism. This will rather be an combination of various facts of history that meet one or more of the items above. Be they acts of Congress, Executive Orders, military actions, foreign policy, domestic policy, government blunders and triumphs, etc.

Again, my main concern is that the item meets one or more of the aspects above and has one or more verifiable (reputable) source, such as the encyclopedia, major newspapers, major journals, etc. Basically, as Mr. Berlet pointed out, it should meet one of the first two items on his list. I know this may be difficult, but we can rely on foreign news sources as well. I recommend the Economist, for example.

And in closing, once this timeline is complete for the most part, we would finally have enough information to make a separate stand-alone page for "Fascism in the US" (or Neo-Fascism). I'd prefer the term Fascism as "Neo-Fascism" has yet to be properly classified and agreed to by anyone. It is for that reason I think we should go all the way back to FDR to start our Timeline. JJ4sad6 01:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

The entire project would fail as being original research, and also would be problematic because it is built around the logical fallacy that if one finds elements of fascism in tendencies in the U.S. government or some political movement, then it belongs on a timeline of fascism in the U.S. There are numerous separate threads here for allegations of fascism: the liberal corporate welfare state, political repression, Christian theocracy, and neo-corporate trans-national corporations. This is a really bad idea.--Cberlet 00:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I respect your objections. I'll leave the decision open however, and I'd like to hear what PPGMD has to say, along with the other folks who frequent this page. First off, it would not be original research as original research would be me writing an article based solely on my views and experiences. This, as I stated, would be based on a collaborative effort and backed by well established fact. We could get information from encyclopedias, newspapers, etc.

Wikipedia itself says of OR, "Original research is a term used on Wikipedia to refer to material added to articles by Wikipedia editors that has not been published already by a reputable source. In this context it means unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, and ideas; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments that, in the words of Wikipedia's founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation".

So again, this would be facts collected from already published reputable sources. Therefore it does not fall under Original Research. Worst case scenario, it will allow us to expand the US section following the pattern of the Clinton and Bush sections for other periods of recent US history. We can add things like Joe McCarthy, events in Korea before the Korean War. Events in the Phillipines. Events in Central America, etc. We can also include Executive Orders and Congressional Acts that grant some expanded power to the President/Congress and the critisism and support of the action from detractors and supporters of that era.

Secondly, you call it a logial fallacy. That is true, assuming that we find NO evidence that the US has acted in a fascistic manner and is not becoming fascistic. Perhaps we will find no evidence, however, considering the amount of information on this page at this point, I think we have proven that false. All that this attempts to accomplish is document the actions that are considered fascistic. And if you are referring to a logical fallacy in making it a separate page eventually (I fail to see the fallicious line of thinking in that, but all right), then perhaps eventually all those other pages you listed can be linked to this potential page. In fact, you gave us a great place to start with working on this timeline.

Now, of course, to avoid any NPOV issues, this Timeline will have to include the caveat at the beginning that the included items may be indicative of Fascism (following the accepted definition at the beginning of the page). Of course, anyone who works on such a timeline should include opposing views (if available). For example, if we include an item stating that the PATRIOT Act is fascistic (and why), we should also include the counter-argument that it is not and why. Basically, so long as we are mindful of the requirements that have been laid out for Fascism, we will be fine in this Timeline. JJ4sad6 01:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

What you just wrote makes no sense to me at all. Sorry.--Cberlet 02:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Simply put, I respect your input, but I still want to hear from other posters what they think of the idea. I especially want to hear from PPGMD since it was PPGMD's idea originally. JJ4sad6 03:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I am cognizant of your energy and zeal, but a first step might be to defend the material moved to this page by providing more citations and substance, rather than assume most editors think the current material deserves to remain unedited. --Cberlet 03:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, fron what you and I have seen over the last several months, most of the people who DO remove information from this page do so out of political bias and not because of citation issues. In any event, this Timeline would not be added to the mainpage (of Neo-Fascism) until it is fully completed, cited, and well founded.

I am weary of adding more "substance" to this page, as any new information is quickly revised or removed (due to political bias most often). I am more comfortable adding more items and backing them up with sources as I come across them. Often, other writers on here tend to editorialize, which is why their substance is removed. I try to be cautious by always including "some people" or "allegedly" or "lends credence" or "may indicate". I hate to be vague, but unfortunately on this page it is required, or else my addition will be quickly deleted.

On another matter, why "Neo-Fascism"? The more I investigate it, the more it appears to be simply "Fascism after WWII". That, I suppose, is one of my main sticking points in trying to ascertain whether Neo-Fascism has a different definition than "Fascism". I know a few researchers have also called it "proto-Fascism".JJ4sad6 05:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

<----It would really help, JJ4sad6, if you actually went to a library and read some of the major books on fascism and neo-fascism, before deciding to launch major research projects on a topic. Failing that, re-read the entries here on Fascism, Fascism and ideology, Nazism, and Corporatism. They are really quite informative. Most scholars use the term "Fascism" to refer to matters up to the end of WWII, while calling everything after that "neo-fascism." They offer a variety of reasons for doing this, and it has become the standard. "Proto" simply means "in the process of becomming." So as a term in this discussion "proto" is used to describe a claimed movement of the U.S. toward fascism. Vagueness is not acceptable. Cites are required, and maybe some actual quotes, but otherwise your claims will be regarded as Original Research, and, franky, many of us here are "weary" of removing personal opinions and vague claims from this and other pages related to fascism, neo-fascism, and the United States. What is especially frustrating, is that with a little effort, and maybe a visit to a library, you could find published authors who agree with some of what you are claiming. That's called research. Surfing the web for essays that support your particular POV is not research.--Cberlet 15:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and it appears you're missing my point. Of course this would be well researched, so have no fear of that. My point about being vague comes straight from the Wikipedia guidelines on NPOV. It suggests to write a statement as "Some people believe X" rather than simply "It is believed that X", or worse (according to them) "X". Of course, they want to know who those "some people" are, and that is why I would prefer to back up this timeline with sources from item 1 or 2 on your list.

What I am asking other posters for is hints at what directions to look into. They can throw out any idea they like, any vague pet theory they may have. But I will take the time to research it and try to find sources to back up the assertion (using items 1 and 2 from your list) before including it on this timeline. Again, this timeline won't even go up until it is 100% complete and well founded.

Regarding "proto" I realized after that I used the wrong term, I meant "pseudo". The thing about this particular issue is that there will always be those who oppose this assertion that the US is becoming fascist. As I said before, obviously we are not 100% fascist. It is logically impossible to require that we be 100% fascist before documenting how we are becoming fascist, as at that point there would no longer be such an open forum as Wikipedia (but perhaps editors in other nations would continue the work).

In researching this issue more and more, I understand the point of view that calling the US fascist is hyperbolic... however, in my opinion, it is worthwhile to remain vigilant and cautious, as there are many documented indications that the US is not as democratic and free as our government alleges. In other words, on a scale of 1 to 10 (1 being fascist and 10 being democratic), the US (in my view) probably falls somewhere around 5. We still maintain many personal freedoms, however, we have also lost many in the recent decades, or if not completely lost, they are severely weakened. JJ4sad6 18:40, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

This is a much deeper and more complicated analysis of the situation. Thanks for taking the time to dig into the subject matter and explain your views more cogently here.--Cberlet 18:54, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous edit questioning Rhodesia's inclusion

It "is similarly considered by some.." and refers the reader to South Africa, above. There it says, "Many scholars have labeled...". Both those phrases are too vague. I want to know, and include, who specifically said Rhodesia's and South Africa's racial systems were fascism. I'm adding requests for citation, and hope to be able to include references supporting the statements.

If a formal system of racial discrimination is the basis for South Africa's listing as fascist, I would also want to know if any other countries have or had a formal system of racial discrimination. The anonymous editor's comparison with the confederate states in 1860 implies, I guess, a connection to slavery. Is slavery still legal anywhere in the world today?

Academic Question

This may or may not ultimately pertain to the development of this page, but I wanted to spark a bit of an academic discussion. During my research on this subject, I have come to the conclusion that Fascism is likely the most effecient form of government known to humanity. Now, this is not to say I condone fascism, merely that, for all intents and purposes, it appears to be the most efficient, especially in Domestic matters.

Consider that it creates an atmosphere of fear to repress dissent while at the same time creates an outpouring of awe to some singulary ruler. So in time, all come to love "the leader" or risk ostracism or worse. This means that changes in policy (when needed) are easily made because there is no opposition. Likewise, there is no fear of failure, because supporters will rationalize government failure through cognative dissonance, while opponents will not be free to point out that failure. So even when the government makes a mistake, it is easily rectified because a fascistic government has the ability to quickly change policy to both cover the mistake and recover from it.

The only downside I see to fascism, from merely a historical observation, is its militancy. It seems that a fascist government tends to over-extend itself and lose a successive number of battles until the enemy is so strong that it overwhelms the fascist state. If a fascist state did not engage in militancy, I forsee no reason it could not exist in perpetuity.

For example, if America were to become fully fascistic, and cease to engage in nation-building and other militant foreign policy, the US would likely remain fascist, because such a system is based on a self-perpetuating chain that feeds on itself. The citizens love the leader, and the leader presents the appearance that the citizens are loved. So long as an inept ruler never rises to power, or a ruler that oppresses his supporters, fascism can last forever.

Again, this is merely a preliminary conclusion I have reached, and it in no way means I condone fascism. Fascism may be effecient, but it is ultimately counter the ideals of personal liberty that I support.JJ4sad6 15:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

The domestic repression required by fascism to stay in power is not efficient but quite costly, and it generates resistance that ultimately would lead to revolutionary revolts or gradual transformation--as is true with all totalitarian govenments.--Cberlet 16:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but if the opposing citizens practice self-censorship and rationalization through cognative dissonance while the pro-leader/regime majority citizens also practice intimidation of the opposing minority. The trick would be to ensure that your supporters were always in the majority. Special machiavellian tricks could also be used, such as "pseudo-coups" that look like a new face when the opponents become a larger group than the proponents, but in reality it is simply a new leader supported by the new majority to maintain the regime/fascistic state. The ultimate trick is to find the perfect balance between minority opponents and majority proponents. A balance where the majority still believes they are free while the minority knows they are not, but where the minority is too afaid to speak out about the oppression or where (ideally) they rationalize it away.JJ4sad6 00:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Repression, if self-imposed, need not be costly to the state's ends. The generation of resistance is minimized, and the tendency to revolution or transformation diminishes with time as more of the population learns to accept the self-imposed repression. --Dschor 08:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, look at the American Revolution. Most people in the Colonies were against it, or didn't care either way. Only a small minority actually wanted the revolution. And likely the only reason it suceeded was because that small minority was of the rich land-owner class, who were influential enough to sway the underclasses. Had the small minority been tradesmen or some other lower class, we'd likely still be English.

And like I said before, if the opposition minority does one day become powerful enough to overthrow the fascist regime and/or becomes the majority, the leadership can always perform a "pseudo coup" and install a new puppet who matches the desires of the opposition, at least superficially. It could even be done "democratically" through elections, where the regime takes into account what the opposition wants, creates a candidate that acts like they fit that mold, and the opposition elects them, only to later have a candidate much like the previous regimes. And people in general have too short a memory to hold that against the regime, so if it is done once every decade or so, there is no suspicion that the people are being played for fools.

But as you suggested, most citizens will come to accept their self-imposed repression, which is exactly what a fascist state would desire. The ultimate goal of any such regime would be to have an opposition that excepts their repression by rationalizing through cognative dissonance. In other words, if the opposition excepts their repression because they believe they somehow deserve it, or that it is for the greater good they aren't as free as others, the the regime could potentially last forever.JJ4sad6 15:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

The long inidctment of the Bush administration having neo-fascist tendencies is not NPOV. It takes up a substancial part of the article for its relative merit.

Clinton

The stuff about Clinton did not actually name who was making the accusations, so that it appears the author themselves was making the case. I believe this violates one of Wiki's rules.

Ok, added some sources. Its late, and I need to get to bed. I will add more later. You're fine with the Bush segment?JJ4sad6 07:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Bush and the Republicans

What connection between alleged wrongdoing by Bush and the Republicans and neo-fascism is being alleged here? If there is no cite to reputable published text making claims linking activities by Bush and the Republicans to fascist tendencies or neo-fascism then it all has to be deleted. Such claims do exist, but this page is riddled with original research an unsubstantiated claims. I am no fan of Bush and the Republicans, but most of the claims on this page regarding them have no connection to fascist ideology or neo-fascism. Wikipedia is not a blog site. It is an encyclopedia.--Cberlet 04:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree. The Fascism WikiProject has run into this problem before where broad "bad" "right-wing" things have been used as evidence that the Reps are fascist but haven't cited reputable sources and haven't been able to link the "bad things" to fascism specifically (or used an incorrect definition of fascism). - DNewhall

Neiwert essay

David Neiwert is a published author and his essay has been cited in scholarly treatments of the subject. Please do not cut material simply because you disagree with it. --Cberlet 14:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I did not cut the Neiwert section because it was improperly cited or because of a conflict with my own POV.

4 paragraphs of block quotes from David Neiwert is not relevant or NPOV. Neiwert, a virtually unknown blogger, is given 4 paragrahps of block quotes while the far more notable Noam Chomsky is only given a one-sentence summary supported by a couple of links. To my knowledge, Neiwert's expertise on this subject goes only as far as having authored some book-length journalism about northwestern militia groups, a topic of doubtful relevance to the subject of the article.

Neiwert's book and clippings from his blog belong in the external links section. There is no practical advantage to duplicating hundreds of words in block quotes from his blog other than to unecyclopoedically color the section with his own less than neutral POV. rehpotsirhc 03:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. That section seems to go off on a tangent a bit and that amount of text isn't necessary since the first paragraph says what he's warning against. The others are just eloborations that can be found at the link given if more clarrification is needed. - DNewhall

Cberlet, this is the third time you've reverted this huge block of Neiwert's text over the objections of another editor. You've never answered the objections of DNewhall or Silverback or myself outside of the terse irrelevancies in your edit summaries. (You might as well stop asserting that he is a "published author." While true, it's totally insubstantial as to whether or not the text is appropriate for the balance of the section.) --rehpotsirhc ^{█♣█ ▪ Talk} 15:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

The entire section "Particular allegations against the Bush Administration" is a list of complaints that have almost nothing to do with fascism as an ideology. The relatively small (hardly "huge") quote by Neiwert makes an important and nuanced point. I will be happy to summarize the section "Particular allegations against the Bush Administration" into a short paragraph to balance the page if that would help. The content of the short Neiwert text is far more compelling and representative of a serious approach to a discussion of fascism than the laundry list of authoritarian and repressive actions that do not add up to fascism. The "huge" weak overly simplistic section remains, the short substantial Neiwert section keeps getting deleted. That is a good example of a POV deletion. --Cberlet 16:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Is there any editor who wants to defend the list under the heading: "Particular allegations against the Bush Administration" or should it simply be removed and replaced with some quotes from published sources such as the Britt essay? --Cberlet 13:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

"laundry list of authoritarian and repressive actions that do not add up to fascism". Cberlet, you're exposing your non-neutral POV. The section describes it as a list of things which some people think add up to fascism, which is accurate. Would you consider withdrawing from this topic in favor of a more neutral editor? --ANON

Rebuttal (Fascism in the United States)

"The rhetoric of the administration is still supportive of individual rights..."

This is no argument! Most of the rhetorics totalitarian and otherwise police-state-like regimes, whether nazi, fascist, communist or otherwise moronic, do not coincide with their actions. Words are only for those who believe them. The actions are what count. Hitler sincerely believed that he would bring happiness and joy to germans by eliminating jews, communists, etc. Lenin and Stalin believed (or at least their statements show that they believed) that they would bring eternal well-being on planet Earth with their communism and their revolutions (albeit resulting in the deaths and torture of millions, including their own compatriots.

Did Hitler, Lenin or Stalin make a habit of criticizing "big government?" :) --rehpotsirhc 14:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes.

69.202.69.24 (talk) 14:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Defend section or it gets removed

Is there any editor who wants to defend the list under the heading: "Particular allegations against the Bush Administration" or should it simply be removed and replaced with some quotes from published sources such as the Britt essay? I am serious. I can see nothing but original research. Happy to see another argument.--Cberlet 17:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

How about replacing that with a list of references to books and other sources describing the fascism of the Bush administration? I put in Glenn Greenwald's.

It's undersourced, but most of it is certainly not Original Research.

I added references to a number of the particular allegations against the Bush administration (in an attempt to increase the use of verifiable sources), but the references have been removed again: the page appears to have been reverted. What's going on here? That doesn't seem like a reasonable reversion. (Of course, it could just have gotten eaten by a computer bug.) --ANON

Just listing repressive acts is Original Research. This page needs to have cited text based on a reputable published source who says the Bush administration is fascist or has fascistic aspects because 'blah, blah, blah." Britt could be cited. Neiwert and Chomsky are cited. But the list is not connected to fascism by cites. I agree that the Patriot Act is a bummer. Not good enough. I need to find a reputable published source who says it is a step on the road to fascism. Otherwise it is Original Research. Making the list have better cites that back up the list is not relevant. It is the list--without a cite to someone stating the specific issue or act is linked to fascism--is just so much POV OR hot air.--Cberlet 20:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Can a Jew be a Facist?

Just a thought. Could, perhaps, Meir Kahane and the JDL, some of the Israeli extreme right, be considered fascist? For that matter - perhaps even the Ba'ath movement? Discuss among your selves--Dudeman5685 04:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, theoretically, a fascist government/movement can have jews in it although there are vey few historical examples of it. Meir Kahane and the JDL are not fascist, however, because they are fighting for a return to Torah law. One of the central ideas of fascism is the rejection of previous types of government/ideals for a newer and stronger system which usually puts them at odds with conservatives. - User:DNewhall

Several scholars have discussed the elements of fascism in Meir Kahane, the JDL, and certain settler movements--pointing out that fascism is both reactionary and modernist (Jeffrey Herf coined the phrase); and citing the clerical fascist movements of interwar Europe that sought to implement theocracies. But how would this fit on this page?--Cberlet 12:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Just a word to say that many Jews were fascists in Italy during the proper Fascism. E.g., Margherita Sarfatti, Dino Formiggini, and others (this is not "many", I know, but I hope it is enough to the point) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.222.252.89 (talk) 17:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

No evidence of Fascism in the US

I removed the section since it was pointless to keep it there at this point, since our Editor-in-Chief Mr. CBerlet has taken it upon himself to abolish all remains of what was once a strong article. I would again point out to our Editor-in-Chief that:

1. A novel is NOT evidence of a fact, no more than Through the Looking Glass is evidence of Wonderland. 2. Paleo-Conservatives ARE NOT fascists, and such a characterization is certainly POV. 3. Original Research includes those items NOT previously published elsewhere. Our Editor-in-Chief is used to dismissing anything not found in an Academic Journal. Therefore, things found on other website, or in weekly news magazines, national/local newspapers, or even VIDEO evidence from a congressional testimony (to name a few) is apparently original research due to the fact that it was not written about by a PhD from Harvard or Yale, and published in a thick journal that HE is familiar with.

So let's just let the Neo-Fascism in the US concept die until Cberlet does, and then maybe we can actually work on all sides of the issue and move forward in laying out the evidence. Our Editor-in-Chief is far too concerned about maintaining his control over this fiefdom he has carved for himself. JJ4sad6 03:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Please edit in good faith and avoid further tirades and personal attacks.--Cberlet 03:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I would rather you had edited in good faith, instead of abusing your power over this article. You have made yourself judge, jury, and executioner over this article, and it really should stop. As another editor had mentioned above, you should consider stepping aside for a time to allow a more neutral editor to review this information. Ideally someone NOT from the US who will not inject their political views into what they decide to keep and delete, as you have done time and again. JJ4sad6 03:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Please stop the personal attacks.--Cberlet 03:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

How about leaving the revised section up for a week and asking for a Request for Comment?--Cberlet 03:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

While I'd say the section is technically correct JJ4sad6 does bring up an interesting fact that evidence for the claim isn't really given. All that's given to back it up is a fictional book, a letter on the web, a pretty POV paper, and a guy's blog. I'm tagging it as "citation needed" (and maybe as being POV) for the time being but lets leave the current version up. - DNewhall

DNewhall, you may remember the old incarnation of this article with its laundry list. I spent a lot of time putting that list together, and it remained on here until I turned my back long enough and Cberlet took advantage of my absence to delete it all. In his view (according to what he has said on here) he viewed that laundry list as OR, which is not the case per the regs of Wikipedia, as I've pointed out to him twice now. He has also said that merely listing various things that might add up to fascism is not evidence of fascism.

What he fails to realize is that as fascism is a complex concept, it has multiple parts, and thus a fascist government may display several, many, or all stated aspects of fascism. In other words, warm-blood, hair, and live birth each individually do not add up to mammal, but taken in conglomeration, there is a strong indication that an animal with those three characteristics is an animal. Likewise, election fraud, political oppression, corporatism, militarism, nationalism, and a unitary leader taken separately do not mean a government is fascist. But added together and backed by evidence, a clearer picture of fascism forms.

We will NEVER find a PhD from Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Stanford, Berkley, or Penn State who is willing to write a journal article about US fascism. They know it would be the end of their careers, and possibly their lives. There was a Kansas professor who was brutally beaten for stating ID is not science. Something similar could happen to an academic who states that the US is becoming fascist.

I think there are two problems with editing this article. First and foremost, Cberlet needs to quit acting as the Editor-in-Chief for a while. He has already shown himself to be biased time and again. The section "Neo-Fascism in the US" does not need to be written in such a way that it is 100% proof that the US is a fascist government. As I've said before, when the US is 100% fascist, we won't have the luxury of reporting on it at that point by definition. We have a working definition of fascism at the top of the article. I did that for a reason so we would have a place to start when determining if a government is fascist or not.

Going by our Editor-in-Chief's standards, then we would have to delete every nation's fascism on this page with the exception of Italy, as there have been no real academic discussions of fascism outside of Italy. And then at that point, this article would simply mirror the Fascism page and be redundant. So in other words, neo-fascism, being the contemporary concept that it is, requires the accumulation of evidence that may support the claim, as it is too soon for anything to have been written about it. Compare this idea to a page on a new movie. If one is writing about a movie, then he or she has to include "evidence" from currently available sources: newspapers, other websites, trailers, etc. He or she can't wait around for a scholarly journal to write about the movie to use that as evidence.

In summation, I am merely asking that Cberlet take the above into account and step away as Editor-in-Chief of this article while others work within the rules of wikipedia to rebuilt the article. JJ4sad6 09:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I have filed a Request for Comments at: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics .--Cberlet 12:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you might be misunderstanding exactly what the section says. The section does not say that the U.S. is, or ever was, fascist but just that certain scholars have debated the it is/has been. This is correct. People have argued that the New Deal in the '30s was fascist and that the modern Republican Party is fascist. Both arguments are incorrect but they have been made. Taken as the section is now ("The presence or absence of fascism in the United States has been a matter of long-dispute from a variety of political viewpoints") it is correct (the presence or absence of fascism in the U.S. has been a long-disputed topic). However, it does not cite any real (read: NPOV) sources and this is a problem. - DNewhall

To assert the correctness of the authors' arguments over the New Deal is not the task of Wikipedia editors, but the fact that they have argued that the "New Deal" was "corporatist" is indeed true. I am not sure though if this needs to be added here or in the New Deal article. It can be added here or in the fascism fascism as an international phenomenon article if there was some form of 'political movement' around it. Intangible 17:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I have found an article "Flirtation with Fascism: American Pragmatic Liberals and Mussolini's Italy" by John P. Diggins. It might be interesting to dissect and be entered somewhere. Intangible 17:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

An extensive (some say absurdly long) discussion of claims by conservatives and libertarians that the New Deal had elements of fascism is already at Fascism and ideology. This page is about post-WWII issues. --Cberlet 18:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure if Diggins is a conservative or libertarian. Does it matter? Intangible 20:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

No, Diggins can be a vegetarian; it does not matter as long as there is a proper cite to a reputable source; but please stop having discussions on the wrong page. Just go and edit Fascism and ideology. --Cberlet 21:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

JJ4sad6, I was checking on the RfC, and have the following thoughts:

• If some useful information has been removed, see if you can find it and point to it so that others can see if it's useful. I went back a little ways, but I have no idea in what time frame it might have been removed.
• Don't forget, a good list will not only show how the US is similar to fascism, but points of dissimilarity as well. Since the US government has not labelled itself as fascist, nor is there clear evidence of a widespread belief to that, our job is to show supporting and disproving facts and let the reader decide.
• Stop the WP:POINT. I can understand why you would be upset if your hard work was removed, but let's approach this without escalating the conflict.

I'm not as knowledgeable about this particular subject as some of you apparently are, but I'll keep an eye out for ways I can help. Sxeptomaniac 00:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

While I most definitely welcome a neutral, non-biased point of view, I do want to point out that it is logically impossible to provide evidence that the US is not Fascist. One cannot prove a negative. The ideological opposite of fascism could be argued to be anarcho-libertarianism, so the only way to provide evidence that the US is not fascist is to prove that it is its direct polar opposite. The US is far from anarcho-libertarianism, and so are just about all other 190 some nations, so even that is not a very useful way to point out that the US is not fascist.

Also the timeframe I am referring to is the editions in late summer of 2005, basically before Cberlet began to remove all the work that I and others had added into this page when I had other pressing matters to attend to and Dschor was banned. With the defenses down, Cberlet took advantage and remade the page in his image.

Finally, I also welcome the fact that you are not as knowledgeable about fascism, as this means that you may serve as a useful non-biased arbiter of this matter. Again, I would urge you to consider that it is not possible for us to prove a negative in this matter. Thanks! JJ4sad6 00:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we should be trying to prove that the US is not fascist any more than that it is. I think it would be better to focus on similarities and differences. What qualities does the US share with fascism, and what is different. For example, while the high degree of nationalism could be said to be similar to fascism, the current low support for the president would be dissimilar, if I understand the concepts from the article correctly.

To use the mammal analogy, let's talk about the features, and let the reader draw the conclusions. To say that the US is fascist is just going to continue to make the article hotly disputed. Sxeptomaniac 03:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

All right, with that said, then I should be able to revert my laundry list if someone else is willing to write how the Bush administration is dissimilar. I selected the items on the laundry list that met the definition we have at the top of the article. The items also came from previously published sources, or were primary sources. JJ4sad6 09:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Wolin quote

If you want to put in a quote by Wolin that's fine, however, I don't think it's that much to ask that it relates to fascism. The quote:

"Like previous forms of totalitarianism, the Bush administration boasts a reckless unilateralism that believes the United States can demand unquestioning support, on terms it dictates; ignores treaties and violates international law at will; invades other countries without provocation; and incarcerates persons indefinitely without charging them with a crime or allowing access to counsel."

"The drive toward total power can take different forms, as Mussolini's Italy, Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Soviet Union suggest."

makes absolutely no mention of fascism nor anything related to fascism. Also, remember WP:CIVIL and that includes accusing someone of POV pushing by removing a quote that DOES NOT REFERENCE THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE ARTICLE. - DNewhall

The chomsky bit, wolin bit and blog thing can go imho. Intangible 01:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, this brings us back to the "fact" that there is no Fascism in America because 1. the government has not admitted to being fascist, and 2. no one with a PhD writing in an Academic Journal has said the words "The US is fascist". If this is what is required as proof, then we must remove the Greece section and several of the other nations with the exception of references to Italy, as Italy is the only nation in the history of the world to admit to being Fascist, in addition to being the only nation studied by PhDs in academic journals as fascistic. JJ4sad6 02:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

If a political movement after WWII espouses fascist ideas it can be listed here, since this the neo-fascism article (of course in countries where you can speak of a fascist government, like in Italy, or in some lesser sense Greece, you could mostly do with a link to their respective articles, and work from there). In the United States there have also been neo-fascist movements, like the American Fascist Party, if you like it or not. Wikipedia is not a truth seeking mechanism, there is only npov, consensus and verifiability. Intangible 02:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

But that's my point, there has been no government after WWII Italy that has espoused the ideals of fascism. We CAN include groups that actually call themselves "fascist", but then, are they fascist or neo-fascist? If they are fascist, they don't belong on this page. The definition of neo-fascism must be more complex than simply "post-WWII fascism". Afterall, Conservative and Neo-Conservative are significantly different. Likewise, it is not appropriate for us to include "pseudo-fascism" with "neo-fascism" as the verbage indicates two different concepts.

With all of the foregoing in mind, if we are to go by the determining factors laid out for us by Cberlet (that the government must admit to being fascist and/or that it had to have been written about in an academic journal), then I propose we remove ALL sections and references on this page with the exception of 1. those groups/governments that have actually called themselves "neo-fascist", and/or 2. those governments/groups that have been written about in academic journals. This would leave Italy and Guatemala, in addition to those groups that have called themselves "neo-fascist" or that meet the definition of "neo-fascism". However, as there is no agreed upon academic definition of "neo-fascism" we should only include those groups that have declared themselves "neo-fascist" and not "fascist" as those groups should be placed on the "Fascism" page.

Therefore, if the definition of "neo-fascism" is merely "post-WWII fascism", we can keep Italy (and those Italian groups that call themselves fascist), Guatemala, and any other groups, post WWII, that have declared themselves fascist. All other references on this page MUST be removed, including the Sinclair Lewis novel (which I originally placed on this page) as it was written before WWII, and thus would relate to "Fascism" and not "Neo-Fascism" per our definition. Likewise, as I have said before, a fictional novel is not evidence of a historical fact. I originally placed it on this page as a lead in to the laundry list showing that while it had been written about in fiction, some of the aspects of fascism were beginning to manifest in the US. However, if the laundry list is no longer apropo to this article, then the novel is no longer needed as a lead in to the concept... as Fascism apparently does not exist in the US. JJ4sad6 03:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it is best to use a "post-WWII Fascism" definition as criteria to include political movements in this article. This is easy for self-described movements. It is harder for non self-described movements, even when they get discussed in academic papers as being neo-fascist, or when movements transcend traditional "Extreme Left" and "Extreme Right" boundaries, such as National Bolshevism. Academic consensus is not a replacement for wikipedia consensus under wikipedia editors imho. I think too much effort is put by academics into describing all kind of fringe movements after WWII, none having mass appeal, and only serving as academic job-security. This goes also for the left-right dichotomy, that is all too prevalent across wikipedia. I might even start a policy debate on that one, since making a wikilink constitutes NPOV, which I think (far) left and right cannot give. Intangible 03:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The talk about how to define "Neo-fascism" or "Neo-nazism" warrants an individual article. This is an interesting bit to include on a meta level. Intangible 03:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

CBerlet, what's the source of the Wolin quote? - DNewhall

The Wolin cite, on the page, scroll down. Really, please put some effort into editing.--Cberlet 14:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Title move

It should be neo-fascism, since this concerns not the specific fascist movement in Italy (Fascism) but a category of movements after WWII. Neo-Fascism should either direct to Italian fascism or neo-fascism then. Intangible 15:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Addition of neo-fascist definitions

These should be put forth on a separate page, since they concern the definition of fascism itself, with references to various authors. The only thing that remains to be said is that neo-fascism is a political movement after WWII striving for an authoritarian government. Intangible 15:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so. Neo-fascism can be defined only in reference towards fascism, so a short summary should be included here. As I understand it, basically neo-fascist design all far right post-war movements imitating in a way Italian fascism, and I rather agree with historians who prefer to reserve the term "fascism" to Italy & Germany. However, I do think it is a good idea referring to Fascism & Nazism and the other related movements between the WW. I recall that each pages must be independent, this is why I argue in favor of including resume & quick overview here. Tazmaniacs 16:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Not all authoritarian governments are fascist--and there is disagreement as to which movements and governments after WWII can be classified as neo-fascist. Most scholars of neofascism include those movements that are based on Italian fascism, German racial nationalist, and clerical fascism; as well as some new forms of ethno-nationalism. "Neo-fascism" or "Neofascism" are more accurate spellings. Paxton's recent work on fascism offers a widely praised set of definitions. The definitional text on this page needs lots of work.

For the record, I think that JJ4sad6 has totally misrepresented my views on neofascism and my actions on this page and the previous page that was discarded amd merged into this page. The consensus of many editors was that the laundry list was mostly POV original research that had no substantial cites to published authors linking the elements in the list to allegations of neofascist tendencies in the Bush Administration. I oppose the re-introduction of the laundry list. The link to the Britt article is quite sufficient.--Cberlet 18:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Incidently, the recent wave of re-writes has vastly improved the aticle (but too much Sternhell for my taste) :-) --Cberlet 18:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Is a primary source a valid source? I would think a primary source is the best source possible. So the video link I had included SHOULD be re-introduced at minimum. Again, the argument between Cberlet and I is whether we can only include those items where someone important (read: the government or an academic) calls something fascist versus using citable references that meet the definition we have at the top of the page. We are NEVER going to find a reference to Bush, Clinton, or anyone in the US administrations calling the US government fascist, but we CAN find incidents that meet the definition laid out on the page. I will refer you back to my mammal analogy. If we are studying an animal, and we include citable references indicating aspects of that animal that meet the definition of mammal, we should include them, and as the neutral party suggested, allow the reader to decide for themselves.

Let's look at this another way. Going by Cberlet's approach, we are to expect that the Democratic People's Republic of Congo is in fact a Democratic Republic of the people, because they say so. If I were to provide evidence that it is not in fact a Republic, but rather a authoritarian nation, this evidence would not be acceptable UNLESS the government had called themselves authoritarian or it had been published in some academic journal that the Democratic People's Republic of Congo was authoritarian.

I think Cberlet is working too hard to make this page of wikipedia something that could pass muster with the Americal Journal of Political Science, when it does not necessarily need to reach that level even per the wikipedia regs. Besides, from an academic point of view, if we ONLY include references from previous academic publications, we will never move towards anything new. I recently wrote a report on Christian Reconstructionism and another on the motivations that perpetuate the War on Drugs. If I only included references from academic journals (and I made extensive use of JSTOR), I would have only reiterated what others have previously said in the academic world. Sometimes you HAVE to go out on a limb IF you can back it up with evidence that isn't necessarily from an academic journal. I went out on a limh by presenting evidence that showed ways in which the Bush administration met the definition we have on the page. My evidence came from primary sources (such as the Clinton Curtis video) and secondary sources (such as newspaper articles, etc). It was not original research as I was NOT saying "Bush is Fascist" but merely saying "here are some citable incidents that meet the definition of fascism". Also, Wikipedia says of OR that work that had not been previously published is OR. Again, if I said "Bush is Fascist" that would be OR, however, I presented a list and allowed readers to draw their own conclusions. In other words, I attempted to merely present the citations without analysis.

Would I have to go the length of actually writing my laundry list into a report, having it published, and then having another wikieditor cite it on here for Cberlet to be satisfied? Even then, I anticipate he would not be satisfied unless it was in one of the top 10 journals and only if I had a PhD in political analysis. Granted that's my opinion, but that is the indication I get from his approach to his self-determined role as Editor-in-Chief of Neo-Fascism. JJ4sad6 22:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

No original research. Cites to reputable published articles. You (JJ4sad6) have been ignoring these mandates on this page since last August. By "merely saying 'here are some citable incidents that meet the definition of fascism'" you are producing original research. If you cannot read, understand, or follow the basic Wiki guidelines, you should not be wasting our time with these huge posts on the discussion page. You certainly should not be editing this article until you are willing and able to read, understand, and follow the basic Wiki guidelines. --Cberlet 23:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, at least we're starting to get somewhere, now we only disagree about the degree of the reputable source. I maintain that a reputable source can be something like a USA Today article, NYT article, or even a congressional hearing video.

'"Original research is a term used on Wikipedia to refer to material added to articles by Wikipedia editors that has not been published already by a reputable source. In this context it means unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, and ideas; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments that, in the words of Wikipedia's founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation"'

Note: Unpublished data. If it was previously published in a newspaper article, I should be able to use it. Your point, Cberlet, is that I can only use sources that say "Bush is fascist" or something to that affect. Our neutral observer, however, has suggested that I can use information that makes up a laundry list and allow the reader to draw their own conclusions. Again, I am not making the statement "Bush is fascist", but merely using the agreed to taxonomy we have already in place to list incidents that meet that definition.

Again, this is NOT the American Journal of Political Science, this is wikipedia. There are standards, but they are no where as strict as an academic journal. And you, Cberlet, cannot arbitrarily set different standards for the page you have made yourself editor-in-chief over. JJ4sad6 09:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I have included the concept of totalitarianism and claims by various people that the "Free World" could fall under this category, as I think it gives new elements on the criticisms of an eventual "American neofascism". Theodor Adorno is one of the first to have made such a criticism of mass consumption society following his stay in the US. This seems particularly relevant to any discussion of an "inverted totalitarianism". Furthermore, I have introduced the question of international cooperation between neofascist movements, which seems that we can't avoid although until now we have ignored the political context of neofascism, that is the Cold War. However I just threw out these ideas, they probably need a re-write which I will astrain myself in some close future unless one of you get there before. Tazmaniacs 17:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Section on the United States

Simply deleting the entire section except for internal links is not acceptable. Happy to continue the discussion.--Cberlet 02:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

A Request for Comment has been filed for this article.--Cberlet 02:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I removed the bits because nowhere it describes where the United States is supposed to be fascist. Actually it is pretty much the same old 'progressive rhetoric' again, the same 'progressives' who lauded Roosevelt's New Deal. Intangible 19:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The issue is not about your POV, the issue is that reputable published sources have made the claims. It is that simple. We can debate how much should be quoted, but to simply delete material with which you disagree is forbidden by Wiki guidelines.--Cberlet 15:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

They were political opinions, by people long known to make such political statements. Wikipedia is not a blog—such as dailykos, so I removed them boldly. Intangible 15:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I assume you are fine with me removing them again? Intangible 00:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I do not. I propose mediation. Do you accept?--Cberlet 01:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I haven't seen any arguments put forth that support or warrant the inclusion of those bits, so I can not agree or disagree to any mediation (yet). Intangible 19:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I have created an entry on the mediation page. You are expected to go to the mediation page and post a response as to whether or not you agree to mediation. Please go to this page: [this page] and respond.--Cberlet 23:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I've responded with a disagree, since I do not see the use of mediation yet. Intangible 23:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Not entirely sure what mediation is supposed to achieve here. Anyways, I've rewriten the section to adress the points against it. - DNewhall

Rewrite for Neo-Fascism and the United States

See also Neo-Nazism in the USA

Movements identified as neo-fascist include the American Fascist Party. Arguably neo-Nazi groups include the National Alliance, and the American Nazi Party.

The presence or absence of fascism or fascist elements in the United States since the Second World War has been a matter of long-dispute from a variety of political viewpoints. Some have argued though that American economic policies have had fascist elements since the New Deal. This is further discussed in the New Deal and Fascism and the United States articles. Few scholars support these claims.

Noam Chomsky has warned that people in the U.S. need to remain vigilant to keep America from drifting towards fascism. [some links edited for Wikipedia spam filter] [ bunker dot defcode dot com/index.php/2003/12/14/p95 ]. Some link growing corporate power to fascism. [some links edited for Wikipedia spam filter] [ www dot thirdworldtraveler dot com /Fascism/Friendly_Fascism_BGross dot html ].

Sheldon S. Wolin, emeritus professor of politics at Princeton University, speaks of an "inverted totalitarianism" which "has an upside-down character": political apathy instead of mobilization of the society, "short-circuits" in the voting system replaces the abolition of the parliamentary system, and media state control is replaced by concentrated ownership of the media. [some links edited for Wikipedia spam filter] [ www dot commondreams dot org/views03/0718-07 dot htm ]

Writing in the Toronto Star, Paul Bigioni argues that neo-liberal economics and the George W. Bush administration are pushing the United States closer and closer to fascism. [some links edited for Wikipedia spam filter] [ www dot commondreams dot org/views05/1128-24 dot htm]

In several essays, author David Neiwert has explored the rise of what he calls "pseudo-fascism". Neiwert concedes that "American democracy has not yet reached the genuine stage of crisis required for full-blown fascism to take root" and thus "the current phenomenon cannot properly be labeled 'fascism.'" He warns:

"But what is so deeply disturbing about the current state of the conservative movement [in the United States] is that it has otherwise plainly adopted not only many of the cosmetic traits of fascism, its larger architecture -- derived from its core impulses -- now almost exactly replicates that by which fascists came to power in Italy and Germany in the 1920s and '30s."[2]

External links for this section

[some links edited for Wikipedia spam filter]

• [ dneiwert dot blogspot dot com David Neiwert, Rush, Newspeak and Fascism: An Exegesis, online essay. ]
• [ www dot secularhumanism dot org/index.php?section=library&page=britt_23_2 "Fascism, Anyone?" (14 Characteristics of Fascism) ] by Lawrence Britt, Free Inquiry magazine.

---

• Removed stuff from the links if it's referenced in the text.
• Removed Bill Crews quote since he's using the term as a political epithet and it's unsourced.
• Removed the Wolin quote because it doesn't relate to this article. I'd be in favor of removing the reference to it completely since the only mention it makes to fascism is in the title. Does he mean actual fascism or is he using it as a political epithet? I'd say it's too vague to be considered relevent to the topic of the article.
• Removed the Bigioni quote because it showed that a liberal democracy could be totalitarian but not explicitly how the U.S. could be fascist.
• Added "[in the United States]" to the Neiwert quote.

<-------The issue is not editing content. The issue is seeking mediation to prevent Intangible from simply deleting all the content arguing there are fascistic aspects to the current scene in the United States. If you look above, Intangible states plainly that the content is being deleted because it is "progressive" or "political" rhetoric that offends Intangible. Pure POV bias. No attempt at serious, constructive, good faith editing. In addition, JJ4sad6 periodically argues that only the text written months ago by JJ4sad6 (and rejected by a vote of other editors) captures the proof that the current Bush administration is a pulsating den of fascists. So between the actions of JJ4sad6 and Intangible, it is difficult to find a middle ground where serious published claims about neofascism and the United States can be explored fairly, accurately, calmly, and in an NPOV manner. Feel free to attempt to negotiate a constructive compromise. I wish you the best of luck, DNewhall. I am seeking mediation to stop this endless, pointless edit war.--Cberlet 01:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that his issue with the section is that it is, in his view, POV and irrelevent. While simply deleting it repeatedly is certainly the wrong way to go about it I do think he does make a valid point. The quotes weren't entirely relevent and I've tried to edit them accordingly in my rewrite above. The section does seem a bit POV but I think that that is mostly derived from a misunderstanding over the section (it does not say conslusively that the U.S. is or was fascist just that certain people have made the claim). By all means, continue with mediation but I just question whether it is necessary in this case.

Anyways, are there any objections to the rewrite above? If not I'll add it into the article in a day or two. - DNewhall

I think your edits are useful and constructive. Please insert them.--Cberlet 13:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Have you even read those references? Chomsky doesn't talk about fascism. Wilton doesn't talk about fascism. Gross' book is over 25 years old, hardly a good reference for a current description. Bigioni and Neiwert are not to be taken seriously, the one tries to equate neo-liberalism with neo-conservatism, the other talks about pseudo-fascism, which he argues is not genuine fascism. I am not sure what to think of that. Intangible 14:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that the fact that Gross's book is 25 years old makes much difference in this case. It makes the argument for the development of fascistic tendencies in the U.S. during a period that's well within living memory and is potentially relevent to today.

It's true, Chomsky does say "But I doubt that the word fascism is appropriate for the current situation; at least, I wouldn't use it." (which I think should maybe added to the article), however in the article he "has warned that people in the U.S. need to remain vigilant to keep America from drifting towards fascism" so the statement and link is relevent to the section in this case.

Bigioni does not try to equate neo-liberalism with neo-conservatism. Neo-liberalism is typically used to mean free-market capitalism whereas neo-conservatism means the recent trend towards traditional values and hawkishness in politics (not necessary the exact definitions mind you). One relates to an economic theory the other a social theory.

Neiwert is pretty well regarded as being knowledgable about fascism (a bit POV perhaps) and, again, he doesn't say that he U.S. is fascist just that it's quite possible that it could become fascist. The Neiwert reference should definitely be in there (the quote could possibly be removed though).

One thing I recently noticed in the section though is the Britt article. The Fascism Wikiproject has decided that his list is not an accurate enough depiction of fascism to be used as a reference for a movement being fascist or not (it was debated on the Project's Talk page and the Talk page for another article (looking for it now)) so I think it should be removed. - DNewhall

Chomsky is specifically attacking the Bush Administration. Neiwert is specifically attacking the Republican Party and the Christian Right. Bigioni states: "In the post-war period, this flawed notion of freedom has been perpetuated by the neo-liberal school of thought. The neo-liberals denounce any regulation of the marketplace. In so doing, they mimic the posture of big business in the pre-fascist period. Under the sway of neo-liberalism, Thatcher, Reagan, Mulroney and George W. Bush have decimated labor and exalted capital." Clearly Bigioni is not to be taken seriously.

Maybe User:Cberlet has some better argument, I haven't heard from him yet... Intangible 21:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

My argument is that even though Intangible personally may think this material is junk because of biased political views, if it has been published, it needs to be considered. Wikipedia is supposed to help readers find information about various topics. Wikipedia is not a place for Intangible to delete material because it doesn't pass some POV sniff test for political leanings. I dislike the Britt list. I find it overly simplistic and based on a fallacy of logic. I do not agree with it. I also think most of the libertarian and Austrian School arguments are a giant pile of steaming crap. It doesn't pass my political sniff test (really!). But I defend posting the libertarian and Austrian School material on this page in detail. I think it is useful for readers to judge the value of published text for themselves. If it was published in a respectable outlet, we should seriously consider including it here. I am tired of this endless attempt at political censorship by Intangible. This is a side issue page on debates over fascism and ideology. Please, everyone, stop trying to edit this page as if it were the main or only page on Fascism.--Cberlet 23:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

If it is criticism of the Republican Party it should be entered in that article, not here. Intangible 17:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I made a huge post before Cberlet did but I think my internet stopped working at that very second and it didn't get uploaded sadly. I don't have time to repost it all now but the jist of it was that there is nothing in WP:RS that says we can't (or shouldn't) use the Neiwert or Chomsky quotes. Also, I fail to see how the Bigioni quote given is supposed to illustrate that it is an unreliable source. If anything it seems to argue the opposite. - DNewhall

<-------Note to Intangible. Your attempt to censor this page and delete text with which you have a political disagreement is an outrageous violation of numerous Wikipedia policies. You have already refused mediation. Further attempts at trolling or POV pushing will force me to seek further sanctions.--Cberlet 02:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I would like to see some of the old information accusing Clinton and earlier presidents of being Fascist to give it a big more NPOV and to show that political enemies uses the accusation of Fascism on just about everything they do. PPGMD 20:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that is a good idea, but since some of the earlier text cited some of my published work, I think someone else should restore it and edit it.--Cberlet 21:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Is the Ba'ath Party neo-fascist?

The Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party in Iraq, does not follow the values of international socialism but rather Arab Socialism which is defined in wikipedia as opposed to Marxism, opposed to ending all religious freedoms, the Hussein Ba'athist government placed a religious slogan on the Iraqi flag in 1991, supports arab nationalism, is authoritarian, opposed the socialist ideology of equality of humanity in its acts of persecution, genocide, and ethnic cleansing on ethnic groups like the Kurds, Iraqi and Iranian Shiite Muslims in, Marshland Iraqis (their marshland was destroyed by the Hussein government. With all these actions considered, the party leans to the right on social issues such as utilizing religion for political motives, opposition to human equality, while remaining on the left on fiscal issues that give the government control over industries, media and the like. These make me conclude that Ba'ath is a neo-fascist political organization.

Some scholars agree with you. Cite them, and add text.--Cberlet 03:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Likud Party Fascism Par Excellence

Truly surprised that the Likud Israeli party is not mentioned in this article. Everything said for the Baath goes for the Likud double. Occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, settlement, repression, collective punishment, taking of land, disparate treatment, unequal treatment based on religion, race, trying to recreate an ancient mythical glorious past, racial religous theories, militaristic state. Very insightful reading.

"Ippolita was 21 when her grandmother died, in 1961, at the age of 81, but never asked her about her past, about her affair with Mussolini or her role in the Fascist movement. And Sarfatti, she says, never volunteered information on the subject. She talked about art, recited Dante, Shakespeare, Edgar Allan Poe and did crosswords in Figaro Litteraire. "After the war there was a deep collective repression, people tried to forget, did not boast about it. There was a kind of self-censorship. People are only now starting to talk about that period, and also about my grandmother," Gaetani says.

When did you learn about your grandmother's part in Mussolini's life and in the Fascist movement in Italy?

"Very late, at the age of 17, 18, and from friends. It was not talked about at home. There was repression in Italy. Everything was imputed to the Germans, all the evils, the race laws, the persecutions. In my home, too, everything was imputed to the Germans. When I grew up and started to read, I understood that f ascism and Nazism are interchangeable. My mother did not think so - she continued to say that fascism was all right until it cozied up to Hitler.

"In my opinion, if the blacks and not the Jews had been persecuted then, many Jews would still be fascists ... In fact, it is the same today. Many Jews in Italy are fascists, because fascism is far closer to today's Israel; they are persecuting the Arabs. If you go to the Rome Ghetto today, you will see that part of the Rome Jewish community is truly fascist, fascist in its mentality, in the head. And the situation in the Middle East complicates matters. They accuse everyone who speaks out against Israel of being anti-Semitic. And in Italian politics they are far closer to the right than to the left." "

The Jewish mother of Fascism Haaretz article on Margherita Sarfatti by Saviona Mane Take Care! --Will^(talk) 03:09, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Of the reasons you list for Likud being fascist only two of them are part of some scholarly definitions (trying to recreate an ancient mythical glorious past and being a militaristic state). If you could find a reputable cite saying that they're fascist they could be mentioned. However, they seem to be a standard mildly-conservative, pro-capitalism right-wing party which would more than likely make them opposed to fascism. - DNewhall

• I guess that's why I'm taking a breather from editing the Juan Cole page. The Israeli lobby camps out there to criticize him and label him an anti-semite or new anti-semite b/c he is such an effective critic and calls it as he sees it. From his online column [some links edited for Wikipedia spam filter] [ www dot juancole dot com /2004/07/200000-israeli-fascists-demand dot html Informed Consent]

"Monday, July 26, 2004

200,000 Israeli Fascists Demand Colonization of Gaza

Tens of thousands of rightwing Israeli imperialists formed a human chain aimed at stretching between Jerusalem and Gaza to protest plans of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to withdraw Israeli colonists from Gaza.

Let's just talk a little bit about Gaza. The Palestinians are largely descendants of people who have lived there for literally thousands of years. Male Palestinians and male Jews are very closely related according to DNA research. Gaza was not given to Israel by the United Nations in the 1948 partition, and it was never a site of significant Jewish population. It was conquered by Israel in the 1967 war, but the United Nations charter forbids the acquisition of territory by military force. This is a place where hundreds of thousands of people face severe poverty and even hunger, according to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization. Palestinians in general are facing unprecedented poverty and malnutrition, including the children. So this is the place you choose to insert 7500 Israeli colonizers? While we are at it, why not steal some land from starving Ethiopians and colonize Ethiopia (oops, that was the 1930s)? I mean, it is one thing to lack compassion for people who are suffering. It is another to want to kick them while they are down.

The justifications given by the fascist protesters in Israel for colonizing Gaza included the conviction that God had given them the Palestinians' land, that Palestinians did not educate their children to want "peace" (i.e. to accept being stolen from?), and that failing to colonize Gaza would somehow endanger Israel itself (hunh?).

Of course I am being provocative in calling the protesters fascists. Fascism, unlike other mass ideologies such as Communism, is not easily defined (and for definitional purposes it is better to look at Spain, Italy and Japan in the 1930s rather than Germany, whose ideology was in many ways peculiar and the scale of whose atrocities, including the Holocaust, make almost all comparisons invidious). The Likud Party is deeply influenced by the thought of Zeev Jabotinsky, a Zionist extremist deeply influenced by 1930s fascism. Fascism remains a useful analytical tool for understanding modern politics. Each country's fascism has been different, since fascism is more a style than a specific ideology. Among its attributes is

1) Radical nationalism. Fascism celebrates a cult of the nation, seeing it as the ultimate human value, trumping all others. Thus, one may lie, cheat, steal, spy and murder for the nation without shame.

2) Militarism and aggressiveness. Fascist political movements are expansionist, dissatisfied with their national boundaries and seeking to colonize the territory of neighbors. Thus, Franco got his start by oppressing Muslims in the Rif and Ceuta, Spanish Morocco. Mussolini invaded Ethiopia. Japan annexed Korea and much of China.

3) Racism. Fascist movements, because of their extreme nationalism, tend to demonize ethnic groups considered outside the nation. Racism becomes a justification for violence, since groups of people are defined as essentially demonic or threatening, and therefore deserving of being repressed in order to prevent them from doing evil. Milosevic justified his killing of Bosnians on the grounds that they were disloyal to the Serbian nation and easily seduced by Muslim fundamentalism. (Before Milosevic attacked them, Bosnian Muslims were the most secular in the world).

4) Favoring the wealthy, punishing the poor. Franco put down miners in Asturia and the workers of industrially advanced Barcelona. Mussolini drove Italian peasants further into poverty. Both favored wealthy elites with their policies. They despised the poor and drove them deeper into poverty. In all the territory dominated by Israel, the poorest subjects are the Palestinians, who have been made dirt poor by Israeli policies.

5) Dictatorship. Fascists disliked open democratic elections. Here the Likud fascists depart from the profile, but only slightly. Although they participate in elections in Jewish-majority Israel, they do not want Palestinians to have independence. They have long favored Israeli military rule, which is to say, dictatorship, over the Palestinian population. That is, over 9 million people live under Israeli rule, but only somewhate over 6 million of them get to engage in democratic self-governing (fewer if one considers how many obstacles have been placed in the way of democratic participation by Arab Israelis). The Oslo process would have given Palestinians a democratic nation of their own; the Likud Party and its American acolytes conspired to keep the Palestinians from ever having that status, which has meant more years of living under Israeli military rule, not significantly different from Ceuta under Franco.

No American media will report the demonstrations in Israel as fascist in nature, and no American politicians will dare criticize the Likud. But the fact is that the Israeli predations in the West Bank and Gaza are a key source of rage in the Muslim world against the United States (which toadies unbearably to whatever garbage comes out of Tel Aviv's political establishment), something that the 9/11 commission report stupidly denies. If the United States is hit again, as seems likely, the fascist Likud demonstrators will be in the chain of causality. If their cause were just, the US should stand with them and risk taking the hit. But although the cause of Israel's own peace and security is just, the cause of colonizing Gaza and the West Bank is fascist. That shouldn't be defended by the US, and the loss of even one American life in defense of Israeli aggression and expansionism is intolerable.

posted by Juan @ 7/26/2004 07:08:33 AM " Take Care! --Will^(talk) 17:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

• Would the pre-Civil War Blacks have been entitled to have called the State of South Carolina a fascist state according to Professor Juan Cole's definition and analogy with Israel? Indoubitably! It would have been no solace to them that the rich planters could vote or had the right to habeus corpus! Take Care! --Will^(talk)19:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The issue is whether or not there are reputable published sources that make the claim. And if yes, then the proper page is Neofascism and religion, not here.--Cberlet 23:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

User Isarig, an inveterate and uncivil reverter deleted the Israel reference without descussion per his pattern leaving a comment it's an unreliable blog. A blog is unreliable as to FACT but not as to OPINION. The well known blog www.informedcomment.com of Professor Juan Cole is well known, has won an award as an expert blog, is authentic and reliable as to his OPINION. Isarig to his pattern will now engage in a wheel war and enlist some of his Israeli lobby cohorts that camp out at the Juan Cole biography article and try to trap me in 3RR violation. Any assistance would be appreciated. Best Wishes. Will314159 13:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

On checking the source, I have two major problems with that paragraph:

1. The source does not support the paragraph. The source makes the fascism claim against Israelis protesting against their government, not the government itself. As such, it does not belong under "Regimes often called fascist after World War Two". Sorry, but that alone qualifies it for removal.
2. Plagiarism. Two sections were direct cut-and-pasts from the source ("In all the territory dominated by Israel, the poorest subjects are the Palestinians, who have been made dirt poor by Israeli policies." and "They have long favored Israeli military rule, which is to say, dictatorship, over the Palestinian population."). Since they weren't quoted and cited, it's plagiarism. I made minor edits when I was doing some quick cleanup, but not enough to eliminate the problem.

As a result, I am removing the paragraph. Sxeptomaniac 15:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Sxe. The "plaigirism" is easily remedied without the drastic step of deletion. the other comment is rather cryptic and beyond my limited human comprehension. Cole is a respected History professor and he called the Israeli regime fascist. the intricacies of your logic escape me. Best Wishes. Will314159 16:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC) edit Especially now since they have annihalated the infrastructure of Lebanon, plunged Gaza into darkness, cut off their water supply, and ARRESTED their freely elected legislature, it's kind hard to argue that it's not a fascist goverment. Will314159 16:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the cheap insinuations made by Cole. Intangible 17:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Will, since you said you don't understand what I mean when I say that the source doesn't support the paragraph, let me clarify:

Regime

1. Mode of rule or management
2. A form of government, or the government in power (as in a socialist regime)
3. A period of rule [3]

The subject of Cole's article is a group of protestors. They are protesting their regime, not part of it. As a result, the paragraph is not about Israel, but a specific group of people in it, who do not currently have power in the government.

Please don't bother arguing with me about whether or not Israel is fascist. Within the confines of this article, it doesn't matter. Find a good source, and I'll back it. Sxeptomaniac 18:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Sxe. Who are the protesters that are the subject of Cole's article? the subject of Cole's article is that the government of Israel is a fascist regime because it meets the criteria. He identifies 5 criteria and then weaves facts to support the criteria. That is an expert opinion of a Mid-East Historian. It is an opinion. Others may have different opinions. Taking it out is censorship. There is probably a billion people on the planet that agree with that opinion. I see Isarig has brought aoother friend now and deleted the opinion calling it a "cheap insinuation." Need some help here. 3RRR Rule. Will314159 18:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The protestors are the subject of the article [some links edited for Wikipedia spam filter] [ www dot juancole dot com /2004/07/200000-israeli-fascists-demand dot html ]. It's in the title, for heaven's sake: "200,000 Israeli Fascists Demand Colonization of Gaza". Later on he specifically mentions who he's calling fascist: "The justifications given by the fascist protesters in Israel for colonizing Gaza..." and "Of course I am being provocative in calling the protesters fascists." He mentions Israel in general during points 4 and 5, but the list is in reference to the protestors, not the nation. Sxeptomaniac 19:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Sxe I disagree. He sets up a definition of a fascist state. Then he sets forth the facts of Israels's treatment of the Palestinians then he weaves the facts into the definion or rule to support the conclusion of his opinion that Israel is a fascist state.

Intangible. you keep on deletin the Cole opinion saying it's a cheap insinuation. that's a non reasoned conclusory form of vandalism. It's not "cheap." It's been purchased with a lot of dead palestinians and a lot of palestinian suffering over decades. I'm sticking a NPOV warning because it's obvious there's a wheel war going on here. Best Wishes. Will314159 01:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

That's incorrect reasoning. Yes, he invents a definition of fascism and applies it to Israel's treatment of the Palestinians. However, as Sxeptomaniac demonstrated, Cole does not argue that Israel is fascist, he argues that the protestors are fascist. Any conclusion otherwise is original research unless you can show us where he says "...and in conclusion, Israel is fascist". Until that happens the material is supposed to be considered unsourced original research making Intangible's reversion the correct action.- DNewhall 01:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Well it's certainly a very fine distinction as the Likud has been in power a very long time and Labor itself is the party that started the settlements but apparently Cole makes the distinction himself. "Likudniks are notoriously unable to deal with being criticized, so my simple and accurate characterization of the party as having colonialist and fascistic tendencies has driven its acolytes on this side of the Atlantic into a piranha-like frenzy. Being cultists of a sort, they play all sorts of dishonest political games, such as equating criticism of their party with racism (?), or equating their party with Israel itself and then saying that I called Israel a fascist state because I had so characterized the Likud." [some links edited for Wikipedia spam filter] [ www dot juancole dot com /2005/11/sharons-critique-of-authoritarian dot html Cole calls Likud Party Fascist ]. Accordingly, I"ll amend the entry to reflect that Cole characterizes the Likud Party as fascist. Best Wishes Will314159 02:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Intangible has delted the "new" comment. Par for the course for WP. There are enough Israel apologist that any criticism is immediately erased. What is the stated reason this time? It is an "insinuation." It seems pretty reasoned to me and it has addresed all criticism so I"ll stick it back in and around and around it goes. Best Wishes. Will314159 01:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Am I correct that I have modified the Juan Cole comment to meet all reasonable objection except for the two zealot editors Isarig and Intangible who have been engaged in serially deleting it in a tag team match.

• The Likud Regime of Israel and its members that protested that abadonment of the Gaza settlements according to Juan Cole, a professor who specializes in Middle Eastern studies, meet several factors he has identified as fascist. 1) Radical nationalism. 2) Militarism and aggressiveness. 3) Racism. 4) Favoring the wealthy, punishing the poor. (He maintains "in all the territory dominated by Israel, the poorest subjects are the Palestinians, who have been made poor by Israeli policies.") 5) Dictatorship. (He maintains " they have long favored Israeli military rule, which is to say, dictatorship, over the Palestinian population.) [some links edited for Wikipedia spam filter] [ www dot juancole dot com /2004/07/200000-israeli-fascists-demand dot html ] [ www dot juancole dot com /2005/11/sharons-critique-of-authoritarian dot html ]

Let me know. Or is this article just to criticize Arab regimes only? Best Wishes. Will314159 01:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The Cole comment, modified or not, is his personal opinion, expressed on his personal blog. Personal blogs are not WP:RS. If you want to claim that th eLikud party is often called Fascist, find a reputable source that says this. Isarig 02:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Isarig we have been through this before on the WP:RS. Remember CStar posed the question on that forum. Blogs are not accurate as to FACTS but not as to OPINION. Cole is a verified expert in History, the blog is an expert blog and is well verified as his opinion. Wait a minute, I've already explained this once. The blog isn't the problem. The problem is your POV problem. You will not permt any criticsm of Israel. That is why you have deleted the comment- I haven't counted- between you and Intangible probably 20 times. He gives no reason though- just calls it "an insinuation." Best Wishes. Will314159 01:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Your source is not from a refereed academic journal. It's just personal opinon of Cole, posted on his blog. I have a similar disagreement with other criticisms in this article. But for the latter you have to talk to User:Cberlet. Come back when Cole writes a journal article about Likud. Intangible 01:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I see Intangible has moved beyond "insinuation" and on to a "refereed academic journal" requirement. That is not required by WP. Cole is a well known professor of near east history, active in his field, and expressing an opinion within his field. The opinion is well verified as it is from his own well known expert blog. For fairness and balance, we should just delete all reference to Islamic and Arab movements from this article. Just to make the article fair. Since Isaric and Intangible will simply brook no criticism of Israel- period! Best Wishes! Will314159 02:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, insinuations made by Cole at his blog. Come back again when Cole gets his refereed journal article about Likud. Intangible 02:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Cole is not an expert, or even a competent scholar, on Israel, a country he has never studied, visited or even speaks the language of. His expertise is, according to his WP page, "the social and cultural history of modern Egypt; the religious and cultural history of modern Iran; and religion in South Asia" - nothing remotely related to fascism or the politics of Israel, which are both a prerequisite for citing him as an expert for the claim that the Likud is fascist. Even if he was an expert, his blog is not an expert blog or an academic blog - it is political commentary, 90% of which is merely a reposting of material he collects from other media sources. It is not a WP:RS by any stretch of the imagination, and can't be used as a source here. Isarig 02:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• DNewhall I addressed your previous objection and modified the comment. On your last revert you said see the talk page. I do not see your further comments here? Is this article just to bash Arabs and Muslims and Israel can't be addressed? Best Wishes. Will314159 14:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I was at work and unable to post in favor of Isarig's statement above. There are a few things wrong with your addition.

First, why is Cole's opinion notable? He's a very important scholar, sure, but why should we care what he says on this matter? As Isarig said, "Cole is not an expert, or even a competent scholar, on Israel, a country he has never studied, visited or even speaks the language of. His expertise is, according to his WP page, "the social and cultural history of modern Egypt; the religious and cultural history of modern Iran; and religion in South Asia" - nothing remotely related to fascism or the politics of Israel, which are both a prerequisite for citing him as an expert for the claim that the Likud is fascist." This is a very good argument, so why should we include his opinion?

Second, I think you still misrepresent Cole's position on the matter. The paragraph still reads as asserting (albeit to a much less prominant extent) that Cole thinks Israel is "fascist" but he calls the protestors supporting Likud fascist.

Third, the text is too long. We don't need a paragraph that large just to say a person who may not be that notable in this subject area holds a certain opinion. If its to be included at all I think one or two sentences tops would be more than enough.

Fourth, changing one or two words in that paragraph doesn't fix the errors and then if someone reverts it you shouldn't simply re-add it but instead find out why they felt the need to excise your text.

Which leads in the the fifth, you seem to have forgotten WP:AGF. Someone reverting your changes is not "vandalism". Everyone who has done so has made a statement questioning its inclusion here. Instead of finding out why they made that change and possibly fixing your text you simply revert and call them a vandal which could very well be considered a breach of WP:NPA. - DNewhall 21:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• Reply to Newhall. 1) Too bad you were to0 busy to explain your revert but had enough liesure time to do the reversion. 2) Cole is an expert on Arabs 3) who are the subject of the Facism. 4) Facism is a master slave relationship. You can be an expert on the masters or the slaves. 5) Your criticism would deny a Jew an analysi of the Nazis because his German was not up to snuff. 6) Likud facism as well as Israeli facism is real but for arguments sake I have restricted the comment to Likud facissm. 7) The comment is well ssourced. 8) The paragraph is no longer than the other paragraphs in that section. 9) It has to set out his definition and the facts that support it. 10) Again, it's just a matter of balance. 11) do you all want a real world article? or just an article that bashes Muslims and Arabs and protects Israel. 12) WP has a reputation for being an Israel occupied area just like the U.S. Congress. 13) It is time for a NPOV here. Best Wishes. Will314159 04:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I added bullet points to your text so I could reference your statements below.

1) I said "per Talk page". Isarig's arguments are here on the Talk page which I based the decision to revert on so my comment is completely correct. Although, I suppose saying "per Isarig's comments" would've been a bit more descriptive.

2) Correct, Cole is a renouned expert of Arabic culture, not fascism.

3) Saying Arabs live under a fascist regime is your opinion, not a fact.

4) The statement that fascism is a master/slave relationship could arguably be made but it is not inherently such nor commonly descibed that way.

5) Not at all. Isarig's comments may have sounded like that but he is simply pointing out that Cole's expertise is not in Israeli studies directly, and more importantly, not fascism.

6) Again, this is your opinion, not a fact.

7) People disagree and I think their arguments are at least possibly valid enough that you should address them.

8) True, but irrelevent. You are asserting a single fact (Cole holds this opinion), nowhere else is there a paragraph with that size discussing a single person's opinion.

9) To a degree, yes. I still think you're taking up too much space and repeating his definition in this case is, I feel, not entirely necessary.

10) While this may be your intent you are attempting this in a very disruptive manner. Also, many people disagree and think it is simply an attempt at POV pushing.

11) Absolutely, which is why we immediately revert text saying a country is fascist since no scholar makes that argument. If you believe otherwise please cite sources saying so.

12) While this may in fact to true I don't see the relevency here. What does that have to do with Cole's opinion?

13) Exactly, which is why we removed your text. We feel it is not neutral and you haven't done anything to NPOV it nor adequately argued for it being NPOV.

I hope this cleared up some confusion. - DNewhall 04:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Isarig. Cole is a speaker of Arabic, so when you say Cole is not a speaker of the language of Israel, I take it you mean he doesn't speak Hebrew- your implied premise being that Hebrew is the exclusive and official language of Israel. Others would say only an ignoramus would say such a thing but that wouldn't nice so I'd like to just say you are mistaken. There are many Israeli Arabs, Moroccan born Jews, Yemmenite Jews, Russian immigrants, that do not speak Hebrew. In fact Jesus Christ was not a speaker of Hebrew. I believe Hebrew ceased to be the vernacular language about 400 B.C. (or B.C.E. if you have it) or so. He is intimately current on contemporary Middle East affairs and writes on them every day. There are people here that do not desire this article to a real world article but a sanitzed Israel friendly zone. For the real world do a google search for "Israel Fascism" and see how many hits you get. Occupation has a price. Best Wishes. Will314159 14:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Hebrew is spoken by nearly 100% of the population of Israel. The majority of the 20% non-Jewish poulation speaks Hebrew in addition to Arabic. Arabic, OTOH, is usually not spoken by the majority of the non-Arab population. Yemenite jews don't speak Hebrew? Where did you get that nonsense from ? Hebrew was spoken as late as 200 CE. The politics of Israel are conducted in Hebrew. Hebrew is the dominant language of Israel. Cole may be "intimately current" on Iraqi events, though that's doubtful too, but he is not intimate with Israeli events, not an expert on Israel, the Likud or Fascism. Isarig 15:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

your info is wrong Isarig on several counts. Even if "Israel" is taken to mean "green line border" Israel. I can understand where you wouldn't count occupied Palestinianstherefore fulfilling one of Cole's criteria. You are wrong on the rest of it, too Adon. Best Wishes Will314159 03:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC) Edit. You ought to look it up sometime Isarig. Nothing magical about Hebrew- just the language of Canaan, southern Phoenician, written in modified Phoenician script. By 400 B.C. or so Aramaic had supplanted the languages of the Fertile Crescent. Will314159 04:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

You can't be bothered to read up on the most basic facts, can you? From WP's Hebrew Language article: "Hebrew flourished as a spoken language in Israel from the 10th century BCE until just before the Byzantine Period in the 3rd or 4th century CE. Isarig 05:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, he's mostly right. Hebrew is the dominant language of Israel. Everyone who goes through the Israeli school system is taught it from 3rd grade on and needs to pass Hebrew comprehension tests. Of all the Arabic speaking people in Israel it's believed that almost all of them are fluent in Hebrew. He is a little off in saying that the non-Jewish population is 20%, it's actually 33%. While discussions in the Knesset can be debated in Arabic it's so rare that I can't find a single example of it (he reason being that all the Arabic speakers know Hebrew whereas all the Hebrew speakers don't know Arabic). As for the Yemenite Jews not speaking Hebrew if that's true the amount must be unrecordably small since they are all listed as being fluent in Hebrew too in census data I've seen. I have no idea at what date they started speaking Hebrew though. So, Isarig seems to be correct in nearly all of his assertions. - DNewhall 04:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. I am actually correct in all my claims. The Jewish popualtion of Israel makes up slightly more than 80% - see [4] Isarig 04:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, sorta. You were evidently listing the percentage for the people ethnically Jewish (80.1%), I was listing the percentage for religiously Jewish (76.5%). So, we're both correct in a way. - DNewhall 05:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Are we talking about the population of "blue line" Israel or greater (Eretz) Israel. Occupied Palestinians (untermenschen) obviously don't count in your people's discussion proving the whole point of the discussion about fascism. There you go citing WP as an authority contrary to WP guidelines. Tell me then why in the 'Passion of the Christ," the actors were speaking Aramaic (instead of Hebrew) and Latin. Best Wishes Will314159 12:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

State of Israel, but it doesn't matter that much since while counting the occupied territories would bring up the number of Arabic speakers most non-Jews in the area also know Hebrew. Also, it's not called Eretz Israel, which is a biblical term for a much larger area than Israel currently occupies. No, occupied Palestianians don't count in this discussion because occupying territory is not a criteria of fascism. We're also not citing Wikipedia, I'm citing the Israeli census data and Isarig is citing the CIA factbook (although, it doesn't really matter since this isn't being used in the article as a source). While I fail to see the relevence, the reason "Passion of the Christ" was in Aramaic because that was the dominant language of the area. However, Jews at the time spoke Hebrew as well (mostly for religious use). Latin was the language of the Roman soldiers. - DNewhall 17:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

"the reason "Passion of the Christ" was in Aramaic because that was the dominant language of the area." That was the point I was making. Aramaic supplanted Hebrew as the common day language in the Fertile crescent with the rise of the Neo-Babylonians. And you don't have to be a speaker of Hebrew to figure out the treatment of Palestinians bear all the indicia of a fascist party or state. that is pure bullcrap. No more that you have to speak Italian or German to analyze Mussoline or Hitler. Just tell the truth. You guys will just not brook any criticsm of Israel on this page. It's going to remain a make believe article because you have me outnumbered for now. Best Wishes. Will314159 19:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

"occupied Palestianians don't count in this discussion because occupying territory is not a criteria of fascism." That was the point I was making. Aramaic has nothing to do with anything here. Hebrew is the primary language of Israel. Isarig was saying that Cole does not know Hebrew as part of illustrating that Cole is not a specialist in Israeli politics. The knowing Hebrew is irrelevent, the fact is that Cole is not qualified to state that Israel is a fascist state because he is not an expert of Israel and more importantly not a scholar of fascism. - DNewhall 19:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I know lots of people find the Juan Cole quotes controversial, but Cole's work in this area over time certainly qualifies him as a significant scholar.--Cberlet 01:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

what work has Cole done in the area of fascism research? Isarig 01:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Isarig. Talk about fanactical reversion. Waited just a little past the 3R rule and then did a fourth revert. Getting smarter. Define research, Reading? compiling? Interveiwing? Or having views to your liking? Best Wishes Will314159 14:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

For him to be considered an expert, he'd have to publish scholarly articles on the topic, in peer-reviewed journals, be an editor of scholarly books on the topic, or play a role (editor, active participant) in some other academic venue. For example, Roger Griffin, who is used as a reference for other parts of the article, an is an expert, has a list of relevant publications and roles as long as your arm [some links edited for Wikipedia spam filter] [ ah dot brookes dot ac uk /history/staff/griffin/publications dot html ]. When Cole has something comparable on fascism, we can quote him here. Isarig 14:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• Conncecting the dots. Occupying territory and repressing inhabitants are reliable indicia of extreme militarism. Why have a military if you can't use it? They are not just for marching in parades! Reviving archaic languages is a reliable indicia of glorifying the past. What if Mussolini had occupied Libya or Absynnia? (He did) What if he had tried to revive Latin for everyday speech? He didn't go that far. But that would have been a reliable indicia. What would you think if the Lebanese Falange insisted that their members start using liturgical Aramaic not just in church but in everyday speech instead of Arabic? More Fascistic behavior- glorifying the distant past, you would rightly conclude. Actually Hebrew would be more appropriate being the ancestral Phoencician tongue. Best Wishes. Will314159 14:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

In WP parlance, "connecting the dots" is original research, and is not allowed. Isarig 14:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

New discussion of Cole quotes

It does not matter if this has been discussed before. Please discuss it again. Many of the cites on this page are to popular articles and political commentators. No double standards, please.

I am discussing it AGAIN - in the section right above. Cole's not an expert on fascism, and his personal blog is not a reliable source. If you want to make this claim stick, find a better source, and don't substitute the weasel words 'Some scholars' while relying on Cole's blog. Isarig 01:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Please do not misrepresnt Wiki guidelines, and please do not misrepresent Cole's expertise and reputation as a public scholar.

reliable source:

"...Below this are sources which, while not tangible, can be providers of reliable information in some cases, for example websites and blogs, particularly those associated with reliable sources of information."

"and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources....Exceptions to this may be when a well-known, professional researcher writing within his field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications, and they are writing under their own names, and not a pseudonym."

This page uses a number of journalistic sources and public scholar sources, and it does so in an appropriate manner to help readers learn more about this topic. --Cberlet 01:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

A fact, such as the weight of the electron or the population of NYC, has to be reliable but an opinion has to be notable. Hopefully we are way pasy verifying that it is indeed his opinion. There is no hearsay involved, it comes straight out of his self published blog. The notability comes fromes his education, skill, and training. Best Wishes. Will314159 20:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not misrepresenting anything, just reading a little more carefully that you are. From the above guidleine, with my emphasis: "Exceptions to this may be when a well-known, professional researcher writing within his field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material". Fascism is not Cole's expertise. Israeli politics are not Cole's expertise. I repeat my question to you (see above), which you have elected not to answer: what research has Cole done in the area of fascism, that would make him and expert, and enable us to rely on his non-scholarly personal blog as a WP:RS?

To start with, I dispute the description "non-scholarly personal blog."--Cberlet 02:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, why don't you tell us what makes this self-published blog to which Cole is the sole contributor not "personal". Once you've done that, I'd like to see what makes a collection of previously published news stories, republished on this blog alongside emotional, unsubstantiated and often wrong commentary by Cole into a 'scholarly' contribution. Isarig 02:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Your bias against Cole is obvious. Your constant reversions without editing are dubious. Your emotional response is not appropriate.--Cberlet 02:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

You are encouraged to review WP:NPA. This is not about me, but about Cole's blog not being a WP:RS. You've voiced an opinion, to which you are most welcome. Now's the time to start supporting that position if you want your recent edit to remain on this page. Unlike you, I have explained each and every one of my edits here. See this topic as one example, and the discussion above (Likud Party Fascism Par Excellence) for another example. You need to follow suit.Isarig 02:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Cberlet, I'm actually very surprised how you are treating this issue. Typically you are very good at dealing with complaints in a rational manner. What Will314159 is essentially doing right now is POV pushing. We have asked him repeatedly to do what Isarig just asked you above (justify the inclusion of Cole's blog into the article) and he has not. Now, not only are you defending it (although, you weren't here during the dispute originally so you may not have known what was going on) but you are arguing for its inclusion by saying "Your bias against Cole is obvious." You are not answering the question but more importantly you are attacking another editor who has done everything right in relation to this article so far. You obviously can't answer the questions posed by Isarig (making the blog still not a reliable source) if you have to resort to accusations of "bias" to get your way. Bias against Cole has nothing to do with the removal of the statement in question. I've had a number of his books for years and have no bias against him but his blog is most certainly not a reliable source on this topic. We are removing the statement because there is no argument for its inclusion. If there is an argument for it should be able to respond to those questions in an adult and rational manner. - DNewhall 14:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Juan Cole is presenting an extreme minority view which he has self-published. Juan Cole's views on Israel are generally fairly extremist; he doesn't appear to be any sort of expert on Fascism, and he's not a recognized expert on Israeli politics either. Based on all this I have a very hard time understanding how he would qualify as a reliable source, or why the article should be quoting this extreme minority position. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Once again WP:RS addresses blogs as unreliable as to facts not as to OPINON. What is more reliable as to Professor Cole's opinion than Professor Cole himself? The proverbial horse's mouth. What is this stuff about minority view? What are we doing- taking a poll? No doubt WP is Israeli occupied territory. Are we using the quantity or quality of argument? We are gving a NPOV diversity of views and a balance. If we are going to take out all Israel reference and sanitize WP let us take out all Arab and Islamic refs also. Best Wishes. 13:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC) edit 13:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)Will314159 13:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's his opinion but, as I asked before, who cares? Why should we mention Cole's opinion in the matter and not someone else who is better qualified? You still have not shown why we should pay attention to Cole talking about Israel and/or fascism; two subjects that are not in his field of expertise. - DNewhall 13:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

DNewhall is being disingenuous. The Israeli lobby has long been the third rail of American politics and the elephant in the room. Criticism of Israeli treatment of the Palestinians hasong been been verboten and quickly buried, this article being evidence. Cole has often been the lone and articulate critic of that policy. See his biography articly Views and Criticisms. You will see that Precis and Isarig camp out at that article making frequent deletions. You will aslo see that Cole's criticism of Israel is a major part of that article. The view that Cole is not a notable or not an expert critic of Israel is at best closeted. Best Wishes. Will314159 15:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

You need to understand that WP is not a soapbox. If you want to rant against the evil "Israeli lobby" - take it to usenet or to Cole's blog. If you want to make a case for why Cole's opinion on Fascism should be included on this page- go right ahead. So far, I haven't seen any arguments for it. Isarig 16:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I am making arguments for inclusion...they are being brushed aside without serious discussion. --Cberlet 20:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

No, they are being discussed, seriously, but they are found to be unconvincing. O far, you have asserted without supporting evidence that Cole is an expert on the topic of Fascsim. We are awaiting data point, in the form of scholarly research, that supports this. You have asserted, agian without any supporting evidence, that Cole's blog is scholarly and non-personal. I have asked you, several times, to support your assertions. I am still waiting. Isarig 21:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Come'on guys. Say it with a straight face that Cole is not an expert on Israeli policies vis a vis the Palestinians. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Views_and_controversies_concerning_Juan_Cole#On_Israel. That kind of remimnds me of Efraim Karsh's scholarly article "what Occupation?" Talk about Reality Denial. Best Wishes. Will314159 01:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

He's a well-known polemecist on this topic, but no, he's no expert. He's done absolutely no research on that topic. Isarig 01:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

False premise. Much of the information on this page is not cited to "experts" on neofascism. The issue on this page, unlike others, is not who is an expert on "fascism," but who is a well-known scholar or journalist or other public figure who has commented in a serious manner on the rapidly evolving public debate over "neofascism." There has been no time for much scholarship in books or journals. Most scholarship on "neofascism" looks at neonazi groups, or perhaps European New Right groups, or Buchananites.

Feel free to remove any other statements that you feel are sourced to non-experts or non-reliable sources. I won't object. But don't use that as an excuse to add yet more non reliable sources to the article. We are trying to build an encyclopedia here. Isarig 01:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

And, I am really disgusted, Isarig, by your vile attempt to imply that I am an antisemite. That was despicable. You owe me an apology. Even a simple pedestrian Internet search could have documentd my 30 year history of being an outspoken critic of antisemitism, especially when it is linked to criticism of Israel that steps over the line.--Cberlet 01:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Where have I implied that you are an anti-semite? Isarig 01:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

"If you want to rant against the evil "Israeli lobby" - take it to usenet or to Cole's blog." Posted by Isarig 16:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC) This was a general indictment of everyone who disagreed with you, Isarig, including me.--Cberlet 02:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

This was a comment directed toward Will314159 , who was using this Talkpage as a soapbox to voice his opinion on the Israeli Lobby - he wrote "The Israeli lobby has long been the ..." Even if it were directed at you, or at anyone who disagrees with me (which it was not) - it still is not an accusation or even an implied accusation of anti-Semitism. I think it is you who owes me an apology. Isarig 02:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

CberletI too missed the anti-semite, or the new-anti-semite stuff. but Isarig is reflexively overdefensive and instantanteously deletes any criticism of Israel whether justified or unjustified and he fights it tooth and nail. Your credetential by the way are awesome. I see where SlimVirgin has awarded you a BarnStar and you are a major editor in the facism articles. Best Wishes. Will314159 02:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

<----Don't smile too fast, I also disagree with you.  :-) --Cberlet 02:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Chip, I'm still not seeing where Cole's opinions regarding Israel and Fascism are notable or reliable. Yes, he's an academic, but his expertise is in neither of those areas, and the fact that he is a well-known blog polemicist regarding Israel does not make his views any more notable or reliable. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

A fact, such as the weight of the electron or the population of NYC, has to be reliable but an opinion has to be notable. Hopefully we are way pasy verifying that it is indeed his opinion. There is no hearsay involved, it comes straight out of his self published blog. The notability comes fromes his education, skill, and training. Best Wishes. Edit Relocated Will314159 20:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I've been watching this debate, but I've really been on the fence regarding the Cole/Israel paragraph since the rewrite. I couldn't find a strong reason for inclusion or exclusion. On one hand, Cole does seem to be a well-known professor regarding Middle Eastern subjects (a large part of his notability seems to be due to his tendency to make controversial claims, but he's still certainly notable enough). On the other, the sources tend to be directed more at groups peripheral to the actual regime, so that I still find the new paragraph only moderately informative.

However, one comment made above by Will314159 makes me lean towards exclusion: "Cole has often been the lone and articulate critic of that policy." If you can't find any other reliable source besides Cole to back up the paragraph, it leads me to question its validity as a source. Are there any other reliable sources out there on this subject?

I still don't see a reason to personally enter the revert war again, but I think we need to ultimately find an additional source, besides Cole, in order to keep it. Sxeptomaniac 20:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

This is a resaonable proposal. I don't happen to agree with Cole, but think the point of an encyclopedia is to help readers understand the world around them and our collective history as humans. I don't think the U.S. is "neofascist," but have spent much time and energy trying to keep a small entry here on this page that points readers to the more sensible sources regarding this debate. ( And just wait for my book chapter discussing the U.S. and potentials for neofascism comes out next year :-) ) I think the Britt article on the U.S. and elements of fascism is illogical and badly crafted, but have defended keeping a link to it, becasue it is well-known. I think a section on Israel on this page, carefully written, could explore the debate, while also pointing out that some who make the claim (not Cole in my view) cross the line into historic antisemitism. Better to have a thoughful discussion on this page than no discussion at all.--Cberlet 13:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The Hugo Chavez quote was a little much, and duplicated too much information from Hugo Chávez and Foreign policy of Hugo Chávez, anyways. However, I do think it works to include that Chávez said Israel has "fascist attitudes". I also noticed in Politics of Israel that the Likud party was never a majority, so calling it a Regime seems to be a stretch. I'll reword to "prominent party", I think. Lets try a more succinct version that takes info from both versions of the paragraph. Sxeptomaniac 20:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks Cberlet and Sxeptomaniac for keeping rationality alive. I was just about to splice in President Arafat's 2001 Davos' comment in when I saw the new edit. I demurred. I was surprised that the Chavez comment lasted far longer than scholarly Cole's. But Alas, the zealots will not be appeased, and will delete any criticism of Israel, no matter how delicately phrased. (I am using reverse psych) Best Wishes. Will314159 22:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)edit 23:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The Cole quotes are not scholarly, not from a WP:RS, and from a non expert. They have no place in this article. The Chavez quote, though equally non-Scholarly and unsubstantiated, was quoted in a reliable source, and so can stay, at least the part that actually refers to "Fascism". Isarig 04:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Disappointed but hardly surprised. Even when given strawman Hugo to beat up on. Immune to compromise. I even edited the Markman WP article to make it easy for him to find source material. That's Isarig. Best Wishes Will314159 12:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I was not aware that Isarig had the authority to ban content. Oh, wait, that's not allowed. Note to Isarig. This page does not belong to you. Please stop arbitrarily deleting material and attempt to edit in a collaborative manner. The Cole quotes are well-known, and the controvery alone makes them appropriate.--Cberlet 13:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I still stand by compromise position. I reinserted the original Cole, added President Arafat's Davos' 2001 statement and the recent UN commissioner Gaza steel cage statement. Maybe Isarig will see the futility of a wheel war. Isn't the definition of insanity repeating the same actions with the expectation of getting different results? Best Wishes Will314159 13:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Will314159, you surely know that what you just did was POV and blatantly biased. You are being provocative and disruptive. Cut it out. Compromise does not mean rolling over the other editors. I am reverting you this time.--Cberlet 14:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I am rewriting the Israel section. moving it and the U.S. section, and rewriting sections of the entire article.--Cberlet 14:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Nice Job. One problem Joffe, Cole's critic is given more space than Cole. Another problem. Are Palestinians under occupation Israelis? Israel claims "Judea" and "Samaria." When these "Judeans" and "Samarians" and "Gazans" protes they are shot by live bullets (I don't think they use rubber bullets anymore) and imprisoned). Using his statement is the equivalent of saying the Nazis practiced good government in Germany proper (which they didn't) while ignoring their occupation policies in occupied Poland or Ukraine. As always with Israel (even though the Israeli Arabs are second class citizens) to paraphrase It's the economy Stupid, It's the Occupation Stupid. For balance to Joffe, if Cole's full analysis is not given then Jan Egeland, the UN's humanitarian co-ordinator should be quoted for balance from the Guardian: " he said that the people of Gaza were "living in a cage". Israel says it has closed border crossings for security reasons, but the closures were "crippling their economy", said Mr Egeland. "There is not enough electricity, there is not enough water. There are social conditions on an intolerable level at the moment." The UN says nearly 80% of Gaza lives in poverty. "For me, Gaza is a time bomb. It cannot continue like this without an enormous social explosion. "So we need more money but we need also a political solution to this war. I've never seen so much hatred and bitterness as during my last visit there.[5]forgot to sign Best Wishes --Will^(talk) 15:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Look, I don't agree with ANY of the quotes in the section, OK? We are not supposed to be writing to amplify our personal beliefs.--Cberlet 15:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I added some words to Cole " factors as they relate to the Palestinian occupation." Those fairly reflect the factors that he cited. They concerned the occupation. I am satisfied with your efforts and thank you for them. I wish I could state with confidence your hard work would be rewarded but why be pessimistic. I belong to a fraternity (not the illumanti but close) that has an anchor as an emblem for hope. Here's hoping. Best Wishes --Will^(talk) 15:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I removed the words, as Cole does not actually say that. I'm *this* close to taking the whole Cole section out altogether; his near-constant blog polemics regarding Israel do not give him any notable expertise on Israel or fascism. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Good thinking on creating that "Contentious contemporary claims of neo-fascism" section, Cberlet. It just might be the compromise we were looking for, if Isarig can accept it. Sxeptomaniac 16:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I certainly welcome the new ""Contentious contemporary claims of neo-fascism" section". I still have not seen anything to justify including inflammatory quotes from a non-WP:RS source. Are we editing this article according to different standards than the rest of WP? Cberlet, nothing about my edits has been arbitrary. I do not have the authority to ban content, but neither do you have the authority to insist on adding whatever crap you'd like. If you can support the charge the Cole is making using WP:RS - go for it. If not, WP:RS is quite clear about which sources we can use. Believe me, there is no shortage of anti-Chavez blogs making far worse claims about him and Venezuela that I could use to fill up this article. Isarig

Jayjg has gutted the Cole quote again. Here are the factors again condensed. "The Likud Regime of Israel and its members that protested that abadonment of the Gaza settlements according to Juan Cole, a professor who specializes in Middle Eastern studies, meet several factors he has identified as fascist. 1) Radical nationalism. 2) Militarism and aggressiveness. 3) Racism. 4) Favoring the wealthy, punishing the poor. (He maintains "in all the territory dominated by Israel, the poorest subjects are the Palestinians, who have been made poor by Israeli policies.") 5) Dictatorship. (He maintains " they have long favored Israeli military rule, which is to say, dictatorship, over the Palestinian population.) [some links edited for Wikipedia spam filter] [ www dot juancole dot com /2004/07/200000-israeli-fascists-demand dot html ] [ www dot juancole dot com /2005/11/sharons-critique-of-authoritarian dot html ]." They all relate to the treatment of Palestinians and Israeli Arabs, What would it have profited the Spartan Helots (their slaves) if the Spartan upper crust could have peacefully elected King Leonides or peacefully petitioned him for a defferent hairdressing for their long tresses? Or What would it have benefitted the Roman Slaves if the Roman Senate was a democratic institution? Those comments were a counterexample and argument and not soapbox comments and to show the necessity for including the phrase the Cole's factors relate to the Palestinians. Otherwise let's go back to the original Cole formulation. As it is, we just have nonsense. The casual reader looke at this and pukes. Cole says Israel Likud goverment is fascist. Jove says Israelils can peacefully petition their goverment. But we see Palestinians shot all the time for protesting, thousand of them in prison, Gaza in a steel cage, Palestinian lands constantly taken away from them for settlements. What fantasy world is WP lilving in? Best Wishes --Will^(talk) 00:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

After all that, Isarig took Cole out. Back to square one about a month ago> Best Wishes --Will^(talk) 00:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

No, we're not back to where we started. We have a new section, called "contentious claims", where claims such as this belong. We have a quote from Chavez calling Israel fasicst, which is sourced to a WP:RS. We have the Arafat quote you've added, which is sourced to a WP:RS. What we don't have is concensus regarding the Cole quotes, becuase no-one has shown why we should include them, in light of the very clear WP policy against the use of non-scholarly blogs.

Isarig forgot to sign but didn't need to. The above comment has his trademark views written all over it. But to be fiar to him, his views are not unique, they are shared by many pro-Israel at-any-cost editors on this forum, some of them administrators. They are comfortable with strawman critics who have already been demonized in the media for years such as Arafat and Chavez and are easily discounted and neutralized. But a critic such as Cole is of a different order altogether. An American, a college Professor, fluent in Arabic, Farsi, Urdi, with some command of Turkish, who has lived in the Middle East as a military brat, also lived in South Asia, traveled to Israel. A man with an analytical mind is a deadly opponent who must be kept out of the page at any cost and for no reason or any reason. Spurious reaspns: He is not a speaker of Hebrew. He doesn't have a notable opinion. His opinion appeared in a blog. He is an adovocate for the Palestinians, strike that- he is a polemicist. He is an anti-semite or a NEW anti-semite. It will go on and on. And because there are few Arabs or Palestinians presently in Wikipedia and many Jews, Israelis, and Christian Zionists, I"m sure more often than not- counterbalancing rational opinion will be be deleted, reverted, and watered down. That is the fault of those Palestinians and Arabs for not participating in this participatory encyclopedia and letting the biased and interested few shape content for the many. It's too bad the principles of fair play and self policing do not take hold in the absence of balancing editors but whoever said life was fair. Best Wishes. Will314159 23:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Labeling someone who disagrees with you as biased and willfully trying to suppress the truth is a personal attack. Isarig has a legitimate concern and has presented arguments for his point of view, you have not. You have simply decried his complaints as "vandalism" and wrongfully attacked him as having a specific POV without provocation or a shred of evidence. Isarig is clearly correct in action here as he's trying to achieve meaningful discussion whereas you are simply attacking those who oppose you. I was fine with the compromises but your most recent outburst following Isarig's most recent posts has caused me to agree with Isarig again. Isarig yet again makes the point the Cole's personal blog is not a reliable source and yet again you can not refute his claim. For one last time, why is Cole's viewpoint necessary in an article about fascism? - DNewhall 07:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I wish to distance myself fron the recent edits and actions by Will314159, but still think a brief mention of Cole's views is appropriate. There are other sentences on this page to trace back to similar sources. This is a topic page on NEO-fascism, and many useful and informative cites will not trace back to published scholarly papers or books due to the lag time in publishing. In addition, some "personal" blogs are by persons who have relatively high visibility and expertise in certain topic areas, and my reading of a reliable source clearly shows that Cole can be cited with caution. Does anyone here want to claim that a reliable source states that personal blogs by academics are specifically excluded? I do not think it is sufficient to claim that a reliable source excludes the Cole quote. It is left open to judgement by editors...so please stop insisitng that the WP:RS policy says something that it does not.--Cberlet 16:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I want to thank you for distancing yourself from Will314159. However, WP:RS is quite clear, and your reading of it is, simply put, unusual, and not there to be found. To address your arguments in order: (1) The fact that there may be other claims on this page sourced to blogs is not a permission slip to continue this unaccpetable practice. The solution is to root out those other references, as well, not to add more unaacpetable sources. Two wrongs don;t make a right. (2) It may very well be true that academic literature is lagging. I find it unlikely, since the "neo" in question refers to post-WWII, that is, about 60 yeras old. However, that is a constraint that WP took upon itself to work within, when it established WP:OR and WP:RS. we can't make exceptions here just because it's more convenient. (3) Cole has no, I repeat no expertise in these topics: he is not a scholar of Fascism, and his mid-east experience does not extend to Israel. This is the 4th time I've asked you to provide sources that point to Cole's expertise in these areas. Time to put out, or shut up. (4) Blogs are excluded, period. The only excpetions are blogs by an otherwise published journalist (Cole is not one) and blogs by academics writing within their sphere of expertise. Cole's blog is not an expert blog on Fascism. You may not think it is "sufficient to claim that a reliable source excludes the Cole quote", but alas, that is waht WP:RS says. Until WP:RS is changed, Cole is out. Isarig 05:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I think Isarig's points are irrefutable. In addition, I might point out that Cole's comments were about one specific right-wing party in Israel, not even the country as a whole. I daresay just about every right-wing party in every modern democracy has been accused by someone of being "fascist". Jayjg ^(talk) 17:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

So what about those other sources in this article. I also think Isarig makes a valid point. Chomsky is not a expert on (neo)-fascism for example. If you want to make an high-quality article, you cannot just start entering political statements into this article, like the Cole quote. Intangible 00:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

When we are looking at current events, there will be very few scholarly articles and even fewer published books. I think that Wiki policy is being selctively applied here, and in a way that does not help readers. There are also distinctions that are being blurred here. There are scholars of Fascism, scholars of Nazism, scholars of Neo-fascism, and scholars of Neo-Nazism. One does not have to be a scholar of Fascism to comment on Neo-fascism in the current political scene: any political scientist, historian, or social scientist would have credibility. In addition, in public debate and in the mass media, there are scholars and politicians who make public comments that stake out a position that gets national and sometimes international attention. These statements deserve consideration. Readers are aware of these statements. If we pretend that the issue of neo-fascism being linked to the United States and Israel does not exist because there is no "scholar" who has a peer review paper on the subject, this is Ivory-Tower elitist nonsense. These claims are all over the Internet. I think 99% of them are polemic excess. But having a sensible discussion of these claims on this page could help readers make sense of this rhetoric.--Cberlet 19:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

"Neo-fascism" is not a "current event". It is a social and politcal phenomenon, and a concept. There is no need to rely on current academic articles to describe it, as it is nearly 60 years old. To the extent you want to discuss current regimes as possibly being neo-fascist, you need to find WP:RS that discuss them. That does not mean you are limited to academic articles or books - a refernce to a mainstream newspaper that makes that claim will do. What is not acceptable is to use the personal blog of an extremist partisan to toss around serious allegations. Perhaps there is a blurring of the different types of scholars, but as it relates to Cole, this blurring is hardly material: he is not a scholar of Fascism, not a scholar of Nazism, not a scholar of Neo-fascism, and not a scholar of Neo-Nazism. And, contrary to what you claim, not every political scientist, historian, or social scientist has credibility on the topic. This is precisely why WP:RS makes exceptions for blogs only in the case of an expert writing within his field of expertise. Broadening the credibility requirement such that it is met by any social scientist, from historian through economist to anthropologist would render this purposely-narrow exception into a loophole through which anyone could be entered. If the claim that Israel is neo-fascist is common enough to warrant serious discussion, surely you can find alternative sources which meet WP:RS that discuss it. And if you can't, that should tell you something about the quality and nature of Cole's arguments. Isarig 00:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

even if cole should be included in the section, it should first be "the highly controversial..." and mention that he's discredited by most scholars. And of course there's no reason to include the whole strange "racism, dictatorship" rant... enough to say of the fascist allegations and a link. The problem of the quote is that it's allegations against the likud, not against Israel, and likud wasn't the ruling party at that time so it doesn't make much sense to include the quote. Amoruso 05:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I currently question the necessity of the Cole quote as well. It clearly is in contention regarding the reliability of the source as well as its relevance to this article. Is it really necessary that Cole be referenced, or can we compromise by using references from sources more clearly supported by WP:RS? Sxeptomaniac 23:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought User: Cberlet had done a bangup job of mediating the juan cole comment and had come up with a compromise forumlation that I among others accepted- then it was reverted putting us back to square one. I've agreed to the WP mediation. It"ll be a good opportunity to clear up what WP:RS really means. To interpert a rule one has to look to the mischief it is designed to prevent. Policy is the soul of any Law. let's see what happens. Will314159 06:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Delete Regimes often called fascist after World War Two section for POV

User:Will314159 asked for my help; it took me all of a glance to realize what's wrong with the article, because I've taken the scraper to the barnacles of POV growing on articles like this before. The problem isn't whether or not Juan Cole is properly regarded as a Middle-East expert, or whether the Likkud party is properly asserted by whomever to be neo-facist. The problem is this entire section is inherently POV and entirely non-encyclopedic. -- Kendrick7 06:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Arguably, however everything is sourced in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines. There have been regimes regarded as Neo-Fascist by reputable scholars and to not mention them in an article about Neo-Fascism is essentially impossible. - DNewhall 07:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The article on Persecution was the same deal, but there I nipped it in the bud. I think everyone would agree Jews were persecuted by Hitler in WWII, but then an edit war ensued over whether or not to mention groups persecuted by Iranians. "POV" isn't the right phrase, but the point is, once you list one group as being persecuted, you'd have to go and list them all. Either you give everyone soapboxes, or nobody, and that seems like the problem with this article -- It has become a laundry list. I suspect there are parts of this section which could be salvaged, probably by moving them to the main artcles of the subjects begin called neo-Fascist, and linking back here. The issue as to whether Likkud is neo-fascist is clearly better debated by editors working on Likkud and not by editors merely intimately familiar with the meaning of neo-Fascist, for example. Otherwise, a well sourced soapbox is still a soapbox. -- Kendrick7 20:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Just look above if you don't believe me -- the argument that if the Baath party is listed, well, gee you have to list Likkud, cause, golly, they're ten times more fascist. My suggestion is how you put the djinni back in the bottle. -- Kendrick7 20:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Except that the issue above seems to be less about the Likud party or Israel, and more about Juan Cole. No matter what compromises have been attempted, it always comes back to his quote.

While the section tends towards POV, I still think that there is some good infromation in it. I think it should not be so much about which regimes are fascist, but which ones have been called fascist, and by whom (maybe a rename to "Accusations of fascism"). I don't like deleting sections just because they attract disruptive editors. Sxeptomaniac 16:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Tends towards POV?? You've just proposed a POV title! I imagine the article on capitalism doesn't have an "Accusations of Capitalism" section followed by a list of capitalist regimes, anymore than the article on pants lists people accused of wearing them. If these regimes are regarded as facist, it should say so in their articles, not in this one, i.e. "Elbowistan ... run by a fascist regime(reftag) blah blah" -- Kendrick7

• Sxe. re your comment on "disruptive editors." Assume good faith. Others may look at your deletion of the JC quote as "disruptive." The characterization depends on the POV. Best Wishes. Will314159 05:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• The comment was not directed at anyone. Did you forget that I only removed the paragraph once [6], gave you specific reasons why[7], and left it alone when the problems were fixed? I also modified and inserted it once [8]. Everything else I've done regarding the quote has been on the talk page (and only then when I felt there was something new to say). Be cool, dude :) Sxeptomaniac 20:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

If reputable published scholar in their field of study state that they see certain regimes as neo-fascist, then this information belongs in the article, and is helpful to readers--even if some individual Wiki editors are offended. The issue under mediation is what are the boundaries on this page for a "reputable published scholar in their field of study."--Cberlet 20:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

It does not belong in this article. It belongs, at best, in the article about the certain regime, so that people can published scholar in context. -- Kendrick7 02:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

SXE. your help is appreciated. We have the Seafood festival this week on the Souhern Outer Banks. SOBX. A good time wil be had by all. have yourself a beer on me. Will314159 01:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Chile

I moved this section here because it lacks sources and doesn't relate to fascism (there's a single sentence saying some consider him neofascist; who and why?). - DNewhall 02:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Augusto Pinochet's Chile (1973-1988) is considered by some a neofascist dictatorship because it wiped out opposition, left-wing intellectuals and activists, and any kind of criticism, often kidnapping and murdering people considered "enemies", even abroad. Pinochet's regime was supported by the more traditional elements of the Vatican. Six months after the September 11, 1973 coup, Josemaría Escrivá de Balaguer, the founder of the Opus Dei, visited him in Santiago. ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› 

In September 1976 Orlando Letelier, a former Chilean ambassador to the United States and minister in former President Salvador Allende's cabinet, was killed by a car bomb in Washington, D.C. General Carlos Prats, Pinochet's predecessor as army commander — who had resigned rather than support the moves against President Allende — had died in similar circumstances in Buenos Aires, Argentina, two years earlier. Pinochet set up Operation Condor, a wide intelligence operation throughout Latin America, coordinating efforts with neighboring dictatorships as to get rid of all possible enemies. According to the "terror archives" discovered in 1992 in Paraguay, 50,000 persons were murdered, 30,000 "disappeared" (aka "desaparecidos") and 400,000 incarcerated. As it was considered by some right-wing American politicians like Henry Kissinger a barrier against communism, he got wide favour from American government first, and later by the British, who saw him as an ally when recovering the Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas) from the Argentine invaders; the Plan Condor benefited from a "US communication base" in the Panama Canal zone . Pinochet was therefore widely supported with weapons, logistics, and media silence until 1988. Furthermore, Pinochet hosted some former Nazis such as Paul Schäfer who founded the Colonia Dignidad, which worked with the DINA intelligence service. However since Pinochet didn't set up a rigid unique mass party which mobilized the population, several historians argue that it was a more traditional authoritarian regime.

I know there's a whole list of factors. I think they are too Procustean (sp?). After the Greek mythological person that stretched people to fit a bed of a certain length. I would start with the simplest core factor. 1) An opressor-opressed relationship. It could be in the same social group as in Chile or it could be a uberman-unterman relationship as in Sparta-helots. Then I would add layers to that basic definition. Is this original research- no but a template for finding some scholarly work that has taken an analytical approach to the subject. My gut feeling is that Chile and Argentina during the relevant time frame were fascist. Best Wishes. Will314159 05:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

What is this really about?

Let me begin with an apology: I have not had the time to read all of the above contributions, so forgive me if I am about to go over ground already covered.

I have deep concerns about this whole article, which seems to be-or has become-a kind of dumping ground for every subjective perception of politicians, movements and states around the globe; it has become, in other words, a perfect illustration of George Orwell's contention that 'Fascism' is little more than a term of abuse, devoid of meaning and content. Every definition I have ever read of Fascism has included some form of mass mobilisation as a core element. Now consider some of the examples given here of 'Fascist' regimes.

By what definition can Iain Smith's regime in Rhodesia be considered Fascist; racist, yes, neo-colonialist, yes; but Facist? This is also true of the apartheid regime in South Africa. Both Rhodesia and South Africa were ruled by traditional elites, which maintained outward democratic forms, giving no indication at all of Fascism in any meaningful political sense.

Consider Peron's Argentina. Fascism in both Italy and Germany was based on an alliance of traditional political elites with radical middle-class mass movements, which ended in the supression of organised labour. Peron may have been influenced by Mussolini in terms of showmanship and presentation, but his regime was populist, not Fascist. Unlike Italy he was supported by labour and despised by the traditional elites, the so-called oligarchy. And if he was Fascist how do we describe what came after? The South-American strongman-the Caudillo-has a long tradition in post independence politics: Pinochet is no more 'Fascist' than Fransisco Lopez, to mention but one example.

The section on Neo-Fascism in the US is too ludicrous for proper debate. As for Paul Bigioni and his silly argument about George Bush I am reminded of a headline in the German Communist Party newspaper, Die Rote Fahne. In 1930 it greeted the appointment of a minority government under Chancellor Heinrich Brunning, proped up by Presidential decree, with Faschismus ist schon da! (Fascism has arrived!) Three years later they found out just how wrong they had been.

So that clown Chavez has criiticised Israel for 'Fascist attitudes'? What better illustration do we need of the sheer vacancy of Fascism as a descriptive concept?. I am glad to see that the compliment has been returned.

This is a mess. I do not know what the way forward is to be. White Guard 01:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

To expect history to repeat itselt on all squares over and over again would be naive. That is why this article is called NEOfascsm. It could have been called QUASI-fascism. An anylitical approach would identify core central factors, then add peripheral factors. Call Chavez a clown, He might call you a clown. That's just POV name calling. He has a better mastery of the language arts than Bush II and is a hero to some. How many countries has he invaded like Bush and and his poodle for pretextural reasons? I think this is a worthwhile article. Just between us chickens- Monikers such as Iron Guard, Black Guard are basically .... Back to the festival. Cheers. Will314159 01:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I imagine just about anyone has a better grasp of language-and politics-than you. However you define the term this article is about forms of Fascism, to which I have raised legitimate objections, even at the risk of upsetting your silly little apple cart. I call Chavez a clown because that is my assessment of Chavez; I am sorry it does not meet with your expectations. You may be a chicken, and I certainly owe you no explanation for anything; but the label White Guard comes from Mikhail Bulgakov's novel of the same name. Have you heard of him? Russian and not Fascist.

White Guard 01:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

My bust Whi Guard. My knowledge of Roshiya is limited. But I have have heard of the Iron Guard and that is the connotation that came to my mind. " And I dare say that would be the association that would come to most English Speakers not knowledgeable with Russian Literature. In all honesty when I saw the moniker at the Stalin article that's what came to mind. "The Iron Guard is the name most commonly given in English to an ultra-nationalist anti-Semitic, fascist movement and political party in Romania in the period from 1927 into the early part of World War II." As far as the name calling. no offense. It rolls off like water off a duck's back. Take Care. Will314159 10:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Note to White Guard and Will314159. This bickering does not help write the entry. Please keep personal opinions and chatter to a minimum, and focus on editing text.--Cberlet 12:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

White G. is O.K. in my book. I wanted to give him the heads up on some connotations of "Guard." Moving forward White, What do you think are the top three indicia of fascism? In my book in rank. they would be 1) emphasis on violence wheter street, freikorps or nation-state military; 2)blood and soil approach; and 3) and a us-them, I-it rather that I-thou relationship toward another grouping. I have expressed that third factor alternatively as opressor-opressed or ubermen-untermenshen relationship. Best Wishes. Will314159 16:40, 29 September 2006 (UTC)EDIT. Pardon my ignorance. See the White GuardWill314159 16:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

How about citing to a reputable published source on the topic of core elements of fascism? Or how about reading the Wiki page on Fascism? Keep in mind that this is a highly contentious ares of scholarly study. Personal opinions are of little value in editing text on a controversial page.--Cberlet 17:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Ditto. Regardless of the fact that I think you're fundamentally wrong on the definition of fascism it doesn't serve any purpose to debate it here. This isn't a political debate forum but a place to collect reputable scholarly opinion on a subject. - DNewhall 18:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Can we get back, please, to what I have actually written above. I have raised several legitimate concerns about the content of this article-none of which have been addressed in these responses-, because the various examples given cannot be unified in any coherent sense, and thus the term 'Fascism', rather than a useful descriptive label of a particular form and mode of political action, has become little more than a ridiculous catch-all, a meaningless form of insult. I believe my dentist is a facist: shall I add that observation? Don't be ridiculous, I hear you say; but nobody seems to think it ridiculous that George Bush, Juan Peron, Hugo Chavez, Auguste Pinochet, Iain Smith and others are all united under this rubric. I think this page is in danger of becoming a complete joke. It is a contentious area; I am simply asking for a little commonsense. My point in giving the example of the KPD and Die Rote Fahne was to illustrate the real dangers that can arise when we simply label something we do not like as 'Fascist.' Or is this all just chatter? Reputable scholarly opinion? Have you actually read the latter part of this article recently? Oh, incidentally, I will debate and raise problems where I consider this to be necessary,-which I understand to be the purpose of talk pages- and not be silenced Fascist-style, so to speak. White Guard 23:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

THE WAY I understood it there was a catalog heading of xxxx called yyyy called neofascist. What is the mischief of having such a catalog? Of course it is He said, she said. But it is a catalog. That's what I made the edit up top to Godwin's Rule which apparently was a non-contentious unreverted edit. It was to add to the discussion that "fascist" is used and bandied about as an epithet. Thinking alound leads to shcolarly work as one seldom has an original idea and it points to places to look for research. I have read the fascism article. Just trying to go a little deeper to an underlying core principle which I'm sure has been written about somewhere and I"ll find it. Best Wishes --Will^(talk) 23:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

What is Neo/Quasi Fascism?

Berlet and Lyons in Further Reading have my factors among others. They appear to be the core factors. With my training as a physics in law I'm used to elemnents one, two, three and so forth. That was the appeal of Cole's analytic definition. These people don't write like that. But I'm reading through these articles and I"ll see what further reading is refrenced at the mother fascism article. Take Care Will314159 23:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

LYONS- "I am skeptical of efforts to produce a "definition" of fascism. As a dynamic historical current, fascism has taken many different forms, and has evolved dramatically in some ways.[emphasis added] [some links edited for Wikipedia spam filter] "[ www dot publiceye dot org /eyes/whatfasc dot html What is Fascism?]. BERLET-Reaction against Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite, "The seeds of fascism, however, were planted in Italy. "Fascism is reaction," said Mussolini, but reaction to what? The reactionary movement following World War I was based on a rejection of the social theories that formed the basis of the 1789 French Revolution, and whose early formulations in this country had a major influence on our Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights. It was Rousseau who is best known for crystallizing these modern social theories in The Social Contract. " [some links edited for Wikipedia spam filter] [ www dot publiceye dot org /fascist/berlet fascism dot html Fascism by Chip Berlet] Good and insightful reading. Best Wishes. Will314159 23:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC) EDIT. I think I found my goal anyway. My definition of fascism or neo/quasi fascism would be quasi Berlet. A reactionary philosopy to the ideas of Rousseau's Social Contract- the essence of which is the core ideas of liberty, equality, and Fraternity. Those ideas are the central ideas of human rights and the foundation of the core principeles of human rights as embodies in the Delcaration of Independence and the fourteenth amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Human Rights in a Nutshell

Declaration of Independence We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. US Constitution Amendment XIV Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Now, I can rest and go back to the party. Beers for everyone. Will314159 00:11, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

So per Berlet, the central insight is Neofascist is probably best defined negatively and not positively. Not by what it is but what it isn't. It is not an embrace of Rousseau's Social Contract Theory. It is a reaction ( and a rejection of) to Liberte, Egalite and Fraternite and likewise to the Principles of the best in what is in the U.S. Delaration of Independence and the American Constitution and its Amendments after the Civil War abolishing slavery and protecting the recently freed persons from disenfranchisment. Best Wishes Will314159 01:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I CAN be very, very slow sometimes. I have just realized who the Chip Berlet I have been quoting at length is. I"ll wager a dollar to a donut it is Cberlet. I could be wrong and often have been. Cheers.Will314159 02:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC)EDIT. It's definitely him. See Chip Berlet. Good Night Will314159 06:56, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

It's on my user page..........--Cberlet 23:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Are Quotes purely about Fascism or all kinds including Neofascism (n.b. lowercase f)?

*@DNewhall. I wish there was some rule. Talk before Delete. TBD rule. Am I not seeing something? There was classical Fascism, right- El Duce, named after the revolutionary Benito Juarez, but who betrayed every principle of human decency. And later it mutated, varied, and evolved into near or new fascism which you are calling "neo-fascism." Are we in agreement so far? The point needs to be made that neo-fascism is not going to be on all fours with classical fascismbecause it a child process offspring. In fact I would even sometime call it quasi or near fascism. That's why I thought the Lyons quote was appropriate. When he is talking about the evolved forms of fascism, if he is not talking about neo-fascism, then what in blazes is he talking about? LYONS- "I am skeptical of efforts to produce a "definition" of fascism. As a dynamic historical current, fascism has taken many different forms, and has evolved dramatically in some ways.[emphasis added] [some links edited for Wikipedia spam filter] "[ www dot publiceye dot org /eyes/whatfasc dot html What is Fascism? ]. Cheers. Will314159 23:04, 30 September 2006 (UTC)NEWE EDIT offspring Will314159 06:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

You can argue and debate all you want, alas, this is not a blog or chat room. First find WP:RS for things you want to discuss or add. Might I suggest Google Scholar? Intangible 23:10, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Intangible. Ohmigod!--Cberlet 23:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

ARE YOU GENTLEMAN saying that in the introductory pargraph it is not appropriate to say tha neofascism has evolved from classical fascism but is not necessarily going to have every element of classical fascism and to offer a quote As a dynamic historical current, fascism has taken many different forms, and has evolved dramatically in some ways. And then when it gets delteted to ask what in blazes is evolved fascism but for neofascism? ARE YOU SAYING THAT IS NOT A RELEVANT QUESTION TO ASK ON THE DISCUSSION PAGE????? Best Wishes. Will314159 06:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I LOOKED UNDER discussion instead of the article history. It seems that the history remarks often are the discussion page. Moreover, it appears that at least one person agrees w/ me that DNewhall's interpretaion was to put it kindly "narrow."

Cberlet(I wrote it - I know what it is about)(Revert: absurd claim - essay is about all forms of fascism)

Newhall (Removed quote because it's talking about fascism and not neo-fascism and doesn't belong in that paragraph. Second quotation also seems to deal with fascism and not neo-fascism.)

Best Wishes. Will314159 07:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

What is this really about?-part II

Would anyone object if I removed the 'other regimes' section on the basis of the points I have made about this above? As it stands it is little more than a 'pied piper' bag of all the rats. There is no unity and very little political sense. White Guard 00:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, of course, I object. --Cberlet 01:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

On what grounds? White Guard 01:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

First, please learn the formatting conventions for discussion pages, I have trouble reading them otherwise. I am older and my eyes are weaker. Thanks.

Second, the purpose of an encyclopedia is to assist readers to gain knowledge. It is not useful to urge the deletion of material simply because it is involved in contentious debates, or because the material takes a position with which you disagree. There is no doubt that these countries have been "called fascist." The central dispute is what consitutes WP:RS. There are legitimate disagreements on some of these matters, and they are under discussion. So if there is no doubt that these countries have been "called fascist," improving the entry would consist of finding WP:RS cites, and to rewrite the material to be NPOV and include pros and cons. Urging deletion of material, even when is is substandard, does not make for a better encyclopedia, merely a more anemic one. Please note that on the pages related to fascism, I often defend the inclusion of material with which I have substantial disagreements. I happen to agree with some of your concerns, but I have major philosophical disagreements with your proposed solutions--although I appreciate the irony of authoritarian solutions proposed to be applied to pages on fascism.--Cberlet 01:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

My apologies; I had no idea that there was a 'reading format'.

Anyway, getting to the point. I find it difficult to accept or understand your argument: after all, it would be possible to call any country-or any politician-fascist if one was so minded. What value does the term then have as a descriptive label? I dare say I could find a 'reliable source' that would describe Iain Smith's Rhodesia as 'Fascist', but this does not make it so in any objective sense. And look at the various regimes in Argentina since 1944. Are these all 'fascist', notwithstanding the difference in practice and style? The page on Juan Peron claims that he was overthrown in 1955 by 'Catholic Fascists'-so what kind of 'Fascist' was Peron? Surely a good encyclopedia-like a good monograph-is one which conveys meaningful information. This, of necessity, involves weeding out the extreneous, the specious and the deliberately misleading. Does such a 'bleeding' necessarily entail anemia? Consider someone who genuinely has no knowledge of the subject and wanted to find out about post-WWII forms of Fascism. I submit that this article would leave them baffled rather than enlightened, because it is such an awful rat-bag of half-truths and insults. I have a genuine interest in understanding forms and modes of fascism. But if the word is to be used in any meaningful sense-rather than a simple insult-we have to be far more precise in what can and what can't be defined in such terms. More than that, it is positively dangerous to label that which is not Fascist as that which is; it blunts the senses and the ability to perceive the truth. Consider again the example of the KPD, highly meaningful in every senseWhite Guard 02:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

"It would be possible to call any country-or any politician-fascist if one was so minded." We have WP:RS and WP:CITE to guide us in this. The faults, real or imagined, of the Peron article do not justify removing sections from this article simply due to the existence of controversy. We report on what reliable sources say, and if reliable sources disagree, we report the disagreement. Andrew Levine 04:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I apologise; I thought this article was trying to make a serious contribution to an important topic. In practice it really is just a catalogue of insults and mutual name-calling. Thank you for that clarification. White Guard 05:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• In light of the discussion above and one editor's attempt to delete it so far, it is even more important to keep the following the intorduction to help readers understand that there is no cookie cutter approach to neofascism. "One writer has written that "I am skeptical of efforts to produce a "definition" of fascism. As a dynamic historical current, fascism has taken many different forms, and has evolved dramatically in some ways. "[1]. Another approach is to say what various forms of fascism are not -- to define it as a reaction to the political and social theory ideas of the Age of Enlightenment crystallized in Rousseau's Social Contract, the French Revolution, and American Revolution[2]". Best Wishes. Wiskis for the Editors- Beer for the HorsesWill314159 15:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Why Cole is an expert on Neof

from the neofascism article

• Another approach is to say what various forms of fascism are not -- to define it as a reaction to the political and social theory ideas of the Age of Enlightenment crystallized in Rousseau's Social Contract, the French Revolution, and American Revolution[2].

a reaction is a denial. According to this premise neofascism=~SC where ~ is the logical negation symbol and SC stands for " the political and social theory ideas of the Age of Enlightenment crystallized in Rousseau's Social Contract, the French Revolution, and American Revolution "

• By logic ~neofascism=SC
• This is Cole's interest. From Juan Cole
• Cole is president and treasurer of the Global Americana Institute, a group of academics specializing in the Middle East who are working to translate the seminal works of American democracy into various Middle Eastern languages. The group's web site states that the "project will begin with a selected set of passages and essays by Thomas Jefferson on constitutional and governmental issues such as freedom of religion, the separation of powers, inalienable rights, the sovereignty of the people, and so forth."[13]
• Q.E.D. In fact anybody that has a strong interest in human rights can spot fascism coming and going! Best Wishes Will314159 10:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

What is the Path Forward now that Mediation has been Accepted?

I left the same message at the Mediation Case discussion page. Cheers. Will314159 13:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Folks, I don't think the mediation is going anywhere. The person we are supposed to contact per the mediation note according to notes left on his talk page is apparently on an extended wikibreak. Let's a be grownups about this. Chip came up with a workable compromise a while back. Let's go with it and let life move on. Everybody didn't get their way. That's why it's called a compromise. Otherwise i'm going to have to start sticking the Cole quote back up and there we go back into the wheel war again. Best Wishes Will314159 10:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Tagged

Tagged as "noncompliant," due to Section:"Neo-Fascism and the [USA]," which contains editorial content.--Quoth the Raven 10:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Such as what? Be specific. Pick a paragraph.--Cberlet 01:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Why has Isarig been reverting lately?

Is it just the usual? Best Wishes Will314159 22:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Why has Will314159 been adding anti-Israel propaganda lately? Is it just the usual? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

HUMUS- while the Cole matter has been in mediation for a month (?) it has been left alone on the article, but in the meantime Isarig has been deleting the WHOLE section. As for you why do you hate the Palestinians so much? It is a full time cottage industry for you. Going around WP burning them. Best Wishes Will314159 23:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC) Revised Edit. But if he's going to delete the whole section, might as well stick it back in. Cheers Will314159 23:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I had not been editing this article at all for more than a month, until yesterday. Then, a new editor (WGee) removed the Venezuela section, with the edit summary that this was just an accusation, not accepted in academia. I don't disagree with that - but the same holds true for Arafat's accusations about Israel, so I removed that section, too. If you want to restore the version prior to WGee's edit, that's fine with me. But we can't have only Israel be the target of non-academic accusations. Isarig 00:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

So you removed it all instead of restoring Venezuala? Let get this right. You really don't care for Venezuala, it was just tit for tat for Israel? I would call that not good faith. Cheers. Will314159 00:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe both sections should be gone, because they are both based on unsupported, non-academic accusations. However, if a consensus of editors think it is appropriate to have such unsupported, non-academic accusations, I am willing to live with that, as a compromise, so long as it is done in an even-handed manner, not as a means to single out one country and bash it. And to accomadate you, I have restored Venezuela. Isarig 00:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC).

Sorry I didn't know the first part of this story. Of course non-academic accusations do not belong in a serious encyclopedia. Therefore I am removing both. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

There are more non-academic sources in this article, making all kinds of bizarre arguments. Should they be removed too? I thought about putting this question forth at the mediation, but if there is already a consensus about it, maybe they should be removed as well? Intangible 09:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

BUT Cole is am academic and WP:RS applies to fact NOT opinion but you guys can be quite inventive. Happy Inventing Will314159 12:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

His blog is not academic, his academic research does not include Israel or fascism, and the view that Israel is fascist is not supported by academic research. Would you mind posting the text that syas WP:RS does not apply to opinion? You been repeating this nonsense for so long, surely you must have read it somewhere. 14:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Cole's academic research is mostly on the Middle East. Israel isn't fascist, it is a democracy and while at times its leaned right in its leadership, it hasn't become fascist in any real sense of the word. That said, there are parties in Israel that lie pretty close to fascism along the political spectrum -- there was a recent dust up about fascist accusations in Haaretz recently, see: [9]. --Deodar 17:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that other non-academic sources do not belong here as well. Sometimes this epithet is being used in political fights. Cole's blog is not a WP:RS. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 20:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

If you guys do not agree with Juan Cole, why should Arafat's and Chavez's comment be deleted as well? They are world's country leader. But i think Cole can be reliable source because he has good academic background --Nielswik_(talk) 04:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Did you read the preceeding comments? Cole's academic research may be releiable, but his blog is not. Arafat's and Chavez's comments were deleted becuase they are non-academic accusations which do not belong in a serious encyclopedia. Isarig 04:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

If you reject non-academic accusation, many of wikipedia articles should be deletedNielswik_(talk) 05:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

FYI, tens if not hundreds of articles are being deleted daily. Let's not turn WP into an extremist POV blog. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 06:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Please stop revert war

It is asinine--and all of you involved know it.--Cberlet 13:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems you ar doing your part to continue the asinine revert war with your recent revert. Why have you reverted my change, which brought the page back to the state it was on 10/18, before the revert war? Are you of the opinion that we can have non-academic accusations, but only when directed against Israel?

Protected

Per a request at WP:RfPP, I've protected this article to interupt the current edit war. Please use the talk page to discuss changes to the article, and once you have all reached consensus and believe protection to no longer be necessary, I will unprotect. Note that my protecting the current version is not an edorsement of that version--I just protected what was up when I got here. Khoikhoi 19:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

To someone who are allowed to edit this page, there is a minor typo in Israel section. Venezuela is written as Venezuala. could someone repair it? thanksNielswik_(talk) 09:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Non Academic Allegations

I hope we can come to an agreement to exclude the various non-academic claims of neo-Fascism, which are usuallly thrown around as a political epithet, rather than a serious allegation of Fascism that can be substantiated with evidence of actions or positions that are commonly understood to be Fascist in nature. My guess is that every country has its share of political parties that had been called by their politcal enemies "Fascist" at one poitn or another. As a sample of what this page will likely become if we don't exclude such epeithets, consider the following , which I collected in less than 5 minutes on the internet:

[some links edited for Wikipedia spam filter]

"In the Netherlands we are dealing with four fascist parties and two groups" [ kafka dot antifa dot net /english dot htm ] "there was fascism in Spain and Portugal and Greece and Hungary " [ www dot counterpunch dot org/leupp1003 dot html ] "The Many Faces of Belgian Fascism" [ www dot brusselsjournal dot com /node/1270 ] "the old Swedish model -- the "folkhemmet" (people's home) -- gradually became a version of the Fascist "corporate State" " [ fjordman dot blogspot dot com /2005/08/sweden-fascism-in-slow-motion dot html ]

Take a look at List of fascist movements by country it takes 4 WP articles just to list them all! I don;t see why Chavez's slur against Israel should be given any more credibility than Prof. Herma Marksman's charge against Chavez, nor do I see the beneift to this article and to teh WP readership in a compilation of every instance where one pratisan labeled his opponet a "Fascist". Isarig 23:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you're talking about Arafat's and Chavez's accusations regarding Israel, the former is merely ironic, since Arafat was essentially a military dictator, and the latter fairly ironic as well, given Chavez's own repression of dissent in Venezuela. In any event, what expertise do either of them bring to the topic? They're political posturing, nothing more. Would we include Chavez's statements about George W. Bush being Satan in an article about Satanism? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey I think WP:RS for blog doesn't apply for opinion, and Jayjg's logic regarding Chavez and Arafat is a logical fallacy (I forgot its name). You cannot reject all which are from Chavez just because he says Bush is a satan. Bush also said Iran N Korea and Iraq is axis of evil, this slur is quoted in wp, and bush is still quoted in wikipedia. Peace. --Nielswik_(talk) 13:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

You're wrong. WP:RS makes no such distinction . Do you have any good argumnet for why non-academic politcal posturing should be included in the article? Isarig 15:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Look at this. WP:RS regarding blogs: Exceptions to this may be when a well-known, professional researcher writing within their field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. Professor Cole is expert on this issue, and thus his opinion can be put here. I disagree with your opinion regarding Chavez and Arafat. Your accusation that Arafat and Chavez are dictators are POV or OR. If we could insert Bush's opinion on Axis of Evil, the same thing applies to Chavez and the late Arafat. Peace. --Nielswik_(talk) 13:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Again, Cole is not an expert here. If he was, he would have written about this in a peer-reviewed journal. That's the bottom line. Same with those crazy bunch theories of physics here at Wikipedia. Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence. Intangible 13:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Take a deep breath---exhale

Try to avoid premature intellectual orgasm. There is a request for mediation pending. Relax. Take a walk. Edit another page. Give it a rest. :-) --Cberlet 02:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Could someone add Serb Democratic Party to the list of neo-fascist parties?

Could someone add Serb Democratic Party (SDS) from Bosnia and Herzegovina to the list of movements and organisations? The former party leader Radovan Karadžić has been indicted war criminal, while number of the former party leaders and senior figures have been senteced by the ICTY. -- Benjamin, 2006-11-10

A small error: Szálasi's Hungary was fascist. Horthy ordered to arrest Szálasi, but instead Horthy was arrested and forced to resign to open the way for mass depotation and fascism. See article Miklós Horthy an Ferenc Szálasi, and their references. John

Fascism in the United States

Well, given the apparent problems with this page, I was wondering if it might not be time to remove the forwarding from Fascism in the United States to allow that article to develop. It seems there are plenty of signs of Fascism in the United States, including the recent legislative action voiding the right of Habeas Corpus. Any thoughts? --71.36.251.182 19:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Doubtful. Issues with Habeas Corpus would fall more directly under accusations of human rights abuses rather than neo-fascism. Fascism is a specific type of government (per the list at the top of the article), not just any government that abuses human rights. Sxeptomaniac 01:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Very doubtful, it would return as a POV edit war magnet.--Cberlet 03:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

I like Catch 22 as much as the next person, but our request for mediation was just closed due to inactivity, when, in fact, I thought we were waiting patiently for a mediator to be assigned to the case. Did I miss something? Are we being punished for being polite? Restraint is deemed lack of interest? Whats up?--Cberlet 16:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on formal mediation, but it looks like:

1. Acceptance by the committee is no guarantee that a specific mediator is going to accept the case, and parties are therefore encouraged to solicit members of the committee to take on the case. (See here).
2. If no mediator has volunteered to take the case within 30 days, the mediation is closed as "stale" with the option for the parties to re-open. (See here).

I know it's frustrating, but if you still want mediation, I think you need to re-open the mediation, explain that you still have a dispute, and see if you can get a mediator to sign on once it's re-accepted. TheronJ 16:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually it's like somebody from West Virginia going to Newcastle to find a lump of coal. We have an inhouse expert on neofascism and an expert mediator who had come up with a compromise. Namely, to wit: Cberlet. But I guess a prophet has no honor in his own country. Godspeed John Glenn! Will 00:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be pretty obvious that whetever credentials Cberlet has as a mediator, he can't mediate a dispute in which he's involved. Isarig 01:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Contentious contemporary claims of neo-fascism

This section is a mud. Even with the notion of "contentious", it does not meet the threshold of inclusion. Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen. Intangible 13:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Darn Intangigble. As this is the English WP, I could not put my hands on that foreign language, if it's imprtant to the discussion, then speak it to us in English. We have all been impressed, now communicate. Godspeed John Glenn! Will 17:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent Intangible 18:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I"m relieved it was something polite. It had a word close to "schwein" in it, and I knew from limited knowledge that was a bad word.Godspeed John Glenn! Will

I agree, it should go. Isarig 15:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

"I would eat more except I would gag." ""Ich kann gar nicht so viel fressen, wie ich kotzen möchte,"Godspeed John Glenn! Will 02:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Especially in Israeli section. Juan Cole, Arafat, Chavez all are notable person. They opinions count. Or probably we should move the location to "Regimes often called fascist after World War II" section? Peace. --Nielswik_(talk) 15:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Except that, as I noted a while back, Cole was only referring to certain protesting members of the Likud party, which has, at best, only been part of a coalition government, and has never been what could be called a "regime". In addition, Arafat and Chavez would both be considered rather controversial, so it would be difficult to make the case that Israel has "often" been called fascist. Sxeptomaniac 23:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

section head

The section head is named "Regimes often called fascist after World War II". So why is Italy included, or Lebanon? The Lebanese Kataeb due to its Falangism might have had fascist tendencies, but this is about regimes, not parties. Intangible2.0 17:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• I removed that heading, which wasn't even necessary. I also created a Latin America heading because a big chunk of text was specifically about Latin America, but didn't have a heading. Spylab 21:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds okay. Just a brief summary is needed in most cases. Details should be discussed in the wikilinked articles. Intangible2.0 00:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Neo-fascist international?

This section is a synthesis of various information, which is not allowed under WP:OR. Intangible2.0 00:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Your POV pro-right-wing POV, Intangible2.0, is a matter of record here on Wikipedia. Sanitizing pages by deleting information about right-wing groups and their allegiance is tendentious editing. Please stop.--Cberlet 00:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. The current text reads like a conspiracy theory, not the least because it includes references to Daniele Ganser, a person who is involved with Scholars for 9/11 Truth. Sources also include blogs and internet sites, which in general are not WP:RS. If you want to talk about neo-fascism in international context there is always the European Social Movement and New European Order. I think it is better to have a section named "neo-fascism and terrorism" if you want to talk about Stefano Delle Chiaie et al. Intangible2.0 03:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Italy section

This section is POV and unsourced. MSI is not even mentioned, while LN (?) is. Intangible2.0 14:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Improve it, don't delete everything. Cheers! Tazmaniacs 17:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Why is the "historic compromise" important when making a section on Italia neo-fascism? What sources do you have to assert this signifance. There was terrorism by Italian neo-fascists long before these talks had even commenced. Intangible2.0 19:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

laundry-list type article

I think this page has enough problems that it should be significantly restructured. The laundry list of "neo-fascist" groups in various countries is pretty poor, of questionable accuracy, and unreadable, and unlikely to ever be anything but. In addition most of the examples here are specifically of neo-Nazi groups, a subject already covered better at neo-Nazism. IMO at the very least this article should focus on neofascist groups other than neo-Nazi groups instead of duplicating material, with a see-also to that article. Ideally it'd also be more of a general article on the subject itself rather than a questionable per-country rundown.

The subject of Italian neofascism should also probably be covered separately—to a much greater extent than in other countries it's a debate specifically over Mussolini's legacy, whereas the other groups called "neofascist" on this page are not usually very interested in Mussolini at all. --Delirium 07:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Neofascists are NOT National Socialists

The comparison is a typical wrong leftwing statement, allthough there is many similarities. National Socialists are not even on the political right. They are socialists (with a nationalist perspective) and threfore to be found on the far-left. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.62.78.38 (talk) 20:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

People's Republic of China?

Call me naive, but doesn't China's instance on its great national past; its emphasis on its historical victimhood in its universities and high schools; its rapid military development; its insinuations of Han supremacy in Xinjiang and Tibet; and its absolute intolerance for democracy constitute what might be considered Chinese neofascism? 169.252.4.21 (talk) 02:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Celtic Cross

Why is the Celtic cross used as a representative image for this page? Not only is it not an explicitly neo-fascist symbol (although it is used by some neo-fascists) it is completely irrelevant to the many neo-fascist ideologies that do not place importance on Celtic or related heritage and culture. Its inclusion here blatantly misrepresents people and organizations who use the symbol in a non-political manner. It should be replaced with an explicitly neo-fascist symbol, representative of all related ideologies discussed in the article, or removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.67.195.14 (talk) 08:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The Celtic Cross doesn't represent Celtic tradition - it represents Christian tradition, which most neo-fascists put quite a major emphasis on. So it is relevant to neo-fascism. --UNSC Trooper (talk) 13:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

That's faulty reasoning. By the same logic a standard Christian cross could be used to represent neo-fascism - an equally absurd idea. Your premises are also unsound. The Celtic cross, being a modified sun cross, does represent Celtic tradition (which encompasses parts of Christian tradition).

The premise that "most neo-fascists put quite a major emphasis on [Christian tradition]" is also false. Only a few groups identified as neo-fascist put any emphasis on Christian tradition whatsoever. Nationalism and race are far more prevalent ideological bases. Furthermore, any neo-fascist group tracing its ideology back to German National Socialism is on very shaky ground as far as Christianity is concerned.

Even though your premises are faulty, your conclusion is true. As you say, the symbol is certainly relevant to neo-fascism, since it has been adopted by a small minority of neo-fascists. This use is covered in Wikipedia's "Celtic Cross" article. But we're not talking about what's relevant, we're talking what's representative.

The Celtic cross is a non-political symbol that has been co-opted by a small minority of neo-fascists, much as the National Socialists co-opted and tainted symbols, philosophies, cultural iconography and so on. Wikipedia's misuse of this ancient symbol only encourages its continued misinterpretation and corruption. The article should use the fasces image instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.74.232.141 (talk) 06:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• The version of the Celtic cross that appears in the neo-fascism template is not the traditional celtic cross; it is a modernized simplified version that is widely associated with the white power movement.Spylab (talk) 23:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Leaving aside the question of whether the modernization or simplification of the symbol is relevant or not, the White Power movement is a minor subset of neo-fascism (and, arguably, an unimportant one, given its general lack of popular support or governmental power). Most of the neo-fascist groups discussed in the article have no interest in White Power, being largely comprised of non-white individuals. Again, possibly relevant but certainly not representative -- and definitely misleading. Use of a fasces symbol instead will prevent this conceptual conflation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.105.59.147 (talk) 03:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Is it a fascist symbol? I have seen it on some white power type stuff. Is a neo fascist and a neo nazi the same? I personally think the symbol should have a source or a link for it to be used in the article.

Islamic Fundamentalism and Fascism

Does anyone else think that the similarities between these two ideologies warrant Islamic Fundamentalism inclusion into this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Funky Hum24n (talk • contribs) 20:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)