Why I Turned Off Google as My Search Engine: to Stop their Indoctrination

Earlier this year I finally turned off Google as my primary search engine. I have been considering it for a long time because of concerns around privacy and manipulated search results. The bottom line is that Google has a socialist, progressive world view with which I strongly disagree and the evidence is clear that they are using their position of power to push that agenda on others. I’ve decided not to take the abuse anymore, and if I can get the word out and help encourage others to free themselves from Google’s manipulations, then the world will be a better place for it.

Being a Search Engine Marketer Made the Decision Difficult

The switch to other search engines came as the culmination of many factors, but now that I did it, I’m very glad and wish I had made the switch years ago. One of my fears in switching away from Google’s search engine was that I would have a hard time finding what I needed from other search engines.

You see, I have worked as a search engine marketer for twelve years and I know that Google has traditionally delivered the best results to help you find the information you need fast. Most of my days at work are consumed with understanding how my website ranks on Google and how to get more traffic from Google search engine users. This made the decision to turn off Google as my primary search engine even more difficult, and honestly, in my work, I still have to use Google search from time to time.

More and more topics are being politicized in our country, therefore more and more of Google’s results are showing that company’s political leanings. For example, Robert Epstein’s research found, in the 2016 US presidential election campaign, that Google filtered out negative results for searches related to Hillary Clinton to surface primarily positive ones–more on that below. But regarding the fear of not getting high-quality search results, I can personally attest to the fact that my fear was unfounded. I have been able to find information just as quick and easily from other search engines, and even better, I am free from Google’s attempts to influence me with their filtered, politically biased results.

Google’s Politics Leans Far Left and They Try to Manipulate Voters

The socialist, progressive political leanings of the management and culture at Google are well-known, but let me give you just two examples.

In 2018, Breitbart released a video of Google leadership team discussing the 2016 Trump election results and demonstrating the company’s bias against conservatives and Republicans. “A video recorded by Google shortly after the 2016 presidential election reveals an atmosphere of panic and dismay amongst the tech giant’s leadership, coupled with a determination to thwart both the Trump agenda and the broader populist movement.” The New York Times also covered this story saying the video showed “Google executives bemoaning the election of President Trump at a company meeting in 2016.” Sergey Brin, the co-founder of Google, said in the video that he was “deeply offended” by the election of Mr. Trump.

Last year, Dr. Robert Epstein, a Democrat who supported Hillary Clinton, told the Senate Judiciary Committee that in the 2016 presidential election, Google gave Hillary Clinton “between 2.6 and 10.4 million votes depending on how aggressive they were in using the techniques that I’ve been studying, such as the search engine manipulation effect.” Dr. Epstein went on later to say in an op ed that “when it comes to election manipulation, left-leaning American technology companies make the Russians look like rank amateurs.” Dr. Epstein, a Harvard PhD and well respected psychologist, professor, author, and journalist, has shown through his research how big tech, particularly Google, is aggressively pursuing tactics to keep Republicans out of office. And he has sounded the alarm, not because he wants Republicans to win, but because he wants freedom and democracy to win.

Google News and Google Discover Pushes Left-Wing Sources

google news feed supposedly personalized for me but notOne of Google’s strengths as a search engine is that they know individual users and serve up personalized results that are more likely to deliver the information the person is looking for. Google knows the political leanings of their users because they track search history, the websites you visit, and they have countless other ways to track your personal data.

Regarding me personally, Google knows I prefer conservative, Republican, libertarian, and Constitutionally-minded sources. Why then, does Google push CNN and other left-wing news results on me so relentlessly? I occasionally have clicked CNN articles over the years, but CNN is a socialist, progressive leaning news source that I rarely read.

Despite knowing that about me, if I visit the Google News website, logged in as myself with Google’s personalized results for me, 5 of the top 15 (33%) news results are from CNN (see the screen shot and count them for yourself). Only 3 of the top 15 (20%) are from FoxNews, a source I’m much more likely to read. Of course, if it wasn’t for the fact that Google knew me, perhaps I wouldn’t see FoxNews at all and even more of the results would be from CNN.

In Google Discover, it’s the same story of pushing left-wing news even though they know I don’t prefer it. Google Discover is the news, pop culture, and other internet content feed that comes up on your mobile phone browser’s home screen if Google is your default home page. Google Discover says “we’ve made it our goal to help you uncover fresh and interesting content about things that matter to you.”

They are clearly failing at that goal with me, because my Google Discover feed has a constant influx of Trump-hating news from CNN and other socialist and communist-friendly internet articles that are of no interest to me. I’m no big Trump fan, but I’m not a Trump hater, and Google knows that, yet they bombard me with it anyway.

Final Straw: Google Couldn’t Find a News Story I Wanted to See

The final straw in getting me to turn off Google as my search engine was earlier this year when Google buried an unflattering story about a prominent socialist. I was listening to talk radio one day and heard the host mention that Marc Lamont Hill, a long-time political contributor at CNN, had told his followers to stop being not to be nice to the police because it is disrupting his Marxist revolution. He said, so I heard, that all police are part of a racist system in America so the race protesters should stop taking their pictures with police. Being nice to police, in his view, reinforces the view that the George Floyd death was the fault of a single bad police officer, rather than Marc Lamont Hill’s preferred narrative that all police are bad. This was an appalling statement, to me, so I wanted to find out if it was true and learn more.

 

marc lamont hill google vs duck duck go searchWhen I searched on Google, I could not find the story. I tried numerous search keyword variations, and scrolled through dozens of search results pages on Google, but I could find nothing about what Marc Lamont Hill said about not taking pictures with police. If Google was my only source of information on the subject, I would think he never said it. The source on the radio was a trusted one, so I decided to do the same search on Duck Duck Go, a search engine that differentiates itself on searchers’ privacy and unfiltered results. On the very first Duck Duck Go search, the results page was full of articles about what he said about not taking pictures with the police, like this RedState article that quotes Marc Lamont Hill as saying:

“Don’t believe your lying eyes. If you and your community have been brought up with a respect for law enforcement, if you have come to see police as friends or even friends of the family, that doesn’t serve our Marxist, revolutionary purpose. So, cut it out or stay home!”

Conclusion and How to Turn Off Google as Your Search Engine

This is not a comprehensive list of all the reasons why I am abandoning Google as my search engine of choice. But in summary, Google has long abandoned the unofficial motto they had early in their history to “not be evil.” They clearly want to use their position of power to push information they want to be seen and hide information they don’t want seen. I hope to stem that tide of this indoctrination by not using the Google Search engine, and I would encourage all others to do the same.

Now the question is how to get the other Google products out of my life, which they are also using to collect information in an attempt to have power over me–products like Google Maps, Gmail (I don’t use it but family members do), Google Classroom (again, not for me, but it has infiltrated my kids schools), Google Chrome, Google Home, YouTube (owned by Google), etc. This purging of Google could take a while.

If you want to join me in turning off Google as your search engine, there are many ways to do it. You can start your internet journeys at Bing.com, Yahoo.com, DuckDuckGo.com, or other search engines. If you use the Chrome browser, you should also go to “Settings” located under the three vertical dots in the top right corner of your Chrome browser. There you can click “On startup” to set what page, often a search engine, comes up when the browser is launched. You should also set the “Search Engine” on the left menu to be Bing or Yahoo or something else. To use Duck Duck Go as the default search engine, you will need to add their Chrome extension which you can find by clicking here.

Ronald Reagan on Socialized Medicine

If you have ten minutes, please watch/listen to the following speech by Ronald Reagan on socialized medicine. The speech comes from a 1961 campaign against government run health care and was distributed via a long play (LP) record album called Ronald Reagan Speaks Out Against Socialized Medicine. It’s amazing how prescient his comments were. And now, nearly 50 years later, his logic and reasoning are just as applicable to the political battle currently being waged on this same subject.

Here is the transcript:

My name is Ronald Reagan. I have been asked to talk on several subjects that have to do with the problems of the day. It must seem presumptuous to some of you that a member of my profession would stand here and attempt to talk to anyone on serious problems that face the nation and the world. It would be strange if it were otherwise.

Most of us in Hollywood are very well aware of the concept or the misconception that many people, our fellow citizens, have about people in show business. It was only a generation ago that people of my profession couldn’t be buried in the churchyard. Of course the world has improved since then, we can be buried now. As a matter of fact, the eagerness of somebody to perform that service gets frightening at times.

Now back in 1927 an American socialist, Norman Thomas, six times candidate for president on the Socialist Party ticket, said the American people would never vote for socialism. But he said under the name of liberalism the American people will adopt every fragment of the socialist program.

There are many ways in which our government has invaded the precincts of private citizens, the method of earning a living. Our government is in business to the extent of owing more than 19,000 businesses covering 47 different lines of activity. This amounts to a fifth of the total industrial capacity of the United States.

But at the moment I’d like to talk about another way, because this threat is with us and at the moment is more imminent.

One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine. It’s very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project. Most people are a little reluctant to oppose anything that suggests medical care for people who possibly can’t afford it.

Now, the American people, if you put it to them about socialized medicine and gave them a chance to choose, would unhesitatingly vote against it. We had an example of this. Under the Truman administration it was proposed that we have a compulsory health insurance program for all people in the United States, and, of course, the American people unhesitatingly rejected this.

So, with the American people on record as not wanting socialized medicine, Congressman Furan introduced the Furan Bill. This was the idea that all people of Social Security should be brought under a program of compulsory health insurance.

Now this would not only be our senior citizens, this would be the dependents and those who are disabled. This would be young people if they are dependents of someone eligible for Social Security.

Now Congressman Furan brought the program out on that idea of just for that particular group of people. But Congressman Furan was subscribing to this foot in the door philosophy because he said, “If we can only break through and get our foot inside the door, then we can expand the program after that.”

Walter Ruether said, “It’s no secret that the United Automobile Workers is officially on record as backing a program of national health insurance.” And by national health insurance he meant socialized medicine for every American.

Well let’s see what the Socialists themselves had to say about it. They say, “Once the Furan Bill is passed this nation will be provided with a mechanism for socialized medicine capable of indefinite expansion in every direction until it includes the entire population.” Well, we can’t say that we haven’t been warned.

Now Congressman Furan is no longer a Congressman of the United States Government. He has been replaced, not in his particular assignment but in his backing of such a bill by Congressman King of California.

It is presented in the idea of a great emergency that millions of our senior citizens are unable to provide needed medical care. But this ignores the fact that in the last decade 127 million of our citizens, in just ten years, have come under the protection of some kind of privately owned or hospital insurance.

Now the advocates of this bill when you try to oppose it challenge you on an emotional basis, they say what would you do, throw these poor old people out to die with no medical attention?

That’s ridiculous, and of course no one has advocated it. As a matter of fact, in the last session of Congress a bill was adopted known as the Kerr/Mills Bill. Now without even allowing this bill to be tried to see if it works they have introduced this King Bill, which is really the Furan Bill.

What is the Kerr/Mills Bill? It is a frank recognition of the medical need or problem of our senior citizens that I have mentioned. And it has provided from the federal government money to the states and local communities that can be used at the discretion of the state to help those people who need it.

Now what reason could the other people have for backing a bill which says we insist on compulsory health insurance for senior citizens on a basis of age alone, regardless of whether they are worth millions of dollars, whether they have an income, whether they’re protected by their own insurance, whether they have savings.

I think we can be excused for believing, that as ex-Congressman Furan said, “This was simply an excuse to bring about what they wanted all the time, socialized medicine.”

James Madison in 1788, speaking to the Virginia Convention said, “Since the general civilization of mankind I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.”

They want to attach this bill to Social Security, and they say here is a great insurance program now instituted now working.

Let’s take a look at social security itself. Again, very few of us disagree with the original premise that there should be some form of savings that would keep destitution from following unemployment by reason of death, disability or old age. And to this end, social security was adopted, but it was never intended to supplant private savings, private insurance, pension programs of unions and industries.

Now in our country under our free enterprise system we have seen medicine reach the greatest heights that it has in any country in the world. Today, the relationship between patient and doctor in this country is something to be envied any place. The privacy, the care that is given to a person, the right to chose a doctor, the right to go from one doctor to the other.

But let’s also look from the other side, at the freedom the doctor loses. A doctor would be reluctant to say this. Well, like you, I am only a patient, so I can say it in his behalf. The doctor begins to lose freedoms; it’s like telling a lie, and one leads to another. First you decide that the doctor can have so many patients. They are equally divided among the various doctors by the government. But then the doctors aren’t equally divided geographically, so a doctor decides he wants to practice in one town and the government has to say to him you can’t live in that town, they already have enough doctors. You have to go some place else. And from here it is only a short step to dictating where he will go.

This is a freedom that I wonder whether any of us have the right to take from any human being. I know how I’d feel if you fellow citizens decided that to be an actor I had to become a government employee and work in a national theater.

Take it into your own occupation or that of your husband. All of us can see what happens once you establish the precedent that the government can determine a man’s working place and his working methods, determine his employment. From here it is a short step to all the rest of socialism, to determining his pay and pretty soon your son won’t decide when he’s in school where he will go or what he will do for a living. He will wait for the government to tell him where he will go to work and what he will do.

In this country of ours took place the greatest revolution that has ever taken place in worlds history, the only true revolution. Every other revolution simply exchanged one set of rulers for another.

But here for the first time in all the thousands of years of man’s relation to man, a little group of men, the founding fathers, for the first time established the idea that you and I had within ourselves the God-given right and ability to determine our own destiny. This freedom was built into our government with safeguards.

We talk democracy today, and strangely we let democracy begin to assume the aspect of majority rule is all that is needed. Well majority rule is a fine aspect of democracy provided there are guarantees written in to our government concerning the rights of the individual and of the minorities.

What can we do about this? Well, you and I can do a great deal. We can write to our congressmen and our senators. We can say right now that we want no further encroachment on these individual liberties and freedoms. And at the moment, the key issue is, we do not want socialized medicine.

Now you may think that when I say write to the Congressman or Senator that this is like writing fan mail to a television program, it isn’t. In Washington today 40,000 letters, less than one hundred per Congressman are evidence of a trend in public thinking.

Former Representative Halleck of Indiana has said, “When the American people want something from Congress, regardless of its political complexion, if they make their wants known, Congress does what the people want.”

So write, it’s as simple as finding just the name of your Congressman, or your Senator. Then you address your letter to that individuals name, if he’s a Congressman, to the House Office Building, Washington D.C. If he’s a Senator, to the Senate Office Building, Washington D.C.

And if this man writes back to you and tells you that he or she too is for free enterprise, that we have these great services and so forth, that must be performed by government, don’t let them get away with it. Show that you have not been convinced. Write a letter right back and tell them that you believe in government economy and fiscal responsibility; that you know that governments don’t tax to get the money the need; governments will always find a need for the money they get and that you demand the continuation of our traditional free enterprise system. You and I can do this. The only way we can do it is by writing to our congressmen even we believe that he is on our side to begin with. Write to strengthen his hand. Give him the ability to stand before his colleagues in Congress and say “I have heard from my constituents and this is what they want.”

Write those letters now; call your friends and them to write them. If you don’t, this program I promise you, will pass just as surely as the sun will come up tomorrow, and behind it will come other federal programs that will invade every area of freedom as we have known it in this country. Until, one day, as Normal Thomas said we will awake to find that we have socialism. And if you don’t do this and if I don’t do it, one of these days you and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children, what it once was like in America when men were free.

Source: Ronald Reagan Presidential Library & Museum

Eisenhower’s D-Day Message

Today marks 65 years since the D-Day invasion of Normandy by the US and Allied troops, and 65 years and one day since Eisenhower’s D-Day Message to his troops. “June 6, 1944, 160,000 Allied troops landed along a 50-mile stretch of heavily-fortified French coastline to fight Nazi Germany on the beaches of Normandy, France. General Dwight D. Eisenhower called the operation a crusade in which “we will accept nothing less than full victory.” More than 5,000 Ships and 13,000 aircraft supported the D-Day invasion, and by day’s end on June 6, the Allies gained a foot- hold in Normandy. The D-Day cost was high -more than 9,000 Allied Soldiers were killed or wounded — but more than 100,000 Soldiers began the march across Europe to defeat Hitler.” (from the D-Day memorial page on the US Army official site, army.mil)

Dwight D. Eisenhower, the Supreme Allied Commander, wrote a letter to the troops had had it read to them just prior to the D-Day invasion. In the letter he invokes the blessing of God and tells the troop that the hopes and prayers of liberty-loving people everywhere rest upon them. Below is a YouTube video of Eisenhower reading it, and below that is the transcript the letter.

“Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen of the Allied Expeditionary Force!

You are about to embark upon the Great Crusade, toward which we have striven these many months. The eyes of the world are upon you. The hopes and prayers of liberty-loving people everywhere march with you. In company with our brave Allies and brothers-in-arms on other Fronts, you will bring about the destruction of the German war machine, the elimination of Nazi tyranny over the oppressed peoples of Europe, and security for ourselves in a free world.

Your task will not be an easy one. Your enemy is well trained, well equipped and battle-hardened. He will fight savagely.

But this is the year 1944! Much has happened since the Nazi triumphs of 1940-41. The United Nations have in­flicted upon the Germans great defeats, in open battle, man-to-man. Our air offensive has seriously reduced their strength in the air and their capacity to wage war on the ground. Our Home Fronts have given us an overwhelming superiority in weapons and munitions of war, and placed at our disposal great reserves of trained fighting men. The tide has turned! The free men of the world are marching together to Victory!

I have full confidence in your courage, devotion to duty and skill in battle. We will accept nothing less than full Victory!

Good Luck! And let us all beseech the blessing of Al­mighty God upon this great and noble undertaking.”

Signed Dwight D. Eisenhower (Source: General Eisenhower’s Message Sent Just Prior to the Invasion)

Conclusion

I am grateful, especially this day, for these troops who so bravely stood up to fight the forces of evil brought upon the world by National Socialism (Hitler’s Nazi Germany). I have heard a lot in the news this weekend about ‘Never Again’ referring to the Holocaust and the other horrors of fascist Germany in the 30s and 40s. And I pray that such evil does never again come upon us, and I pray that the Americans and people all over the world will recognize such evil regimes and remove them from power before they get strong enough to commit such acts like that again. I hope the day never comes that the freedom-loving people have to again stand up to tyranny. But if that day does come, I hope that generation has the fortitude of character and the faith in God to do what America’s Greatest Generation accomplished.

More Examples of Corporatism. Goodbye Capitalism.

The New York Times recently posted a table that tracks the spending of the $700 billion bailout bill passed last October (see Tracking the $700 Billion Bailout). It lists, line by line, each of the companies that received money and how many billions each got. Here is the top ten:

Free Market Capitalism Is Gone
I was against the bailout from the beginning (and I’m certainly against putting the US in another trillion dollars of debt as the Obama administration is proposing) but it really hit home when I saw the report above. Capitalism is an economic system that gives you the freedom to thrive and the freedom to fail. If you work hard and have a good business, the sky is the limit, but there are no guarantees. Yet, in that bailout bill of October 2008, the government hand picked companies that it deemed were too big to fail. And the complacent American people went along with it for fear of economic ruin preached by politicians on both sides of the isle.

Government Controlled Corporatism Is Here
With billions upon billions of tax payer dollars flowing into these companies now, of course, politicians, media outlets, and a great many Americans want a say in how these companies spend that money. “No corporate jets.” “Salary caps for executives.” Etc. This all makes for a dangerous mix of government and big corporations as I described in my recent article on Corporatism.

Defining Corporatism and Examples in America

Defining Corporatism

Corporatism is a relatively new term for me and perhaps some of you readers as well. Wikipedia defines corporatism as “a practice whereby a state, through the process of licensing and regulating officially-incorporated social, religious, economic, or popular organizations, effectively co-opts their leadership or circumscribes their ability to challenge state authority by establishing the state as the source of their legitimacy, as well as sometimes running them, either directly or indirectly through corporations.”

Not a bad definition, but let me put it in a little plainer English. Corporatism is the collusion of big corporations and big government. Democrats call it right-wing when corporations exert undue influence on government. Republicans call it left-wing when government exert undue influence on corporations. But whether it comes from the right or from the left, corporatism stinks of progressivism and fascism.

Examples of Corporatism in America

Jonah Goldberg provides numerous examples of corporatism in his book, Liberal Fascism. In each case of corporatism, government power and influence grows while individual freedom shrinks. Corporatism gives more power to government and corportate bureaucrats and does so under the guise of helping the little people. Here are just a few examples:

  • During FDR’s administration, corporatism reached new heights as the government began imposing strict regulations on business. “The New Dealers invited one industry after another to write the codes under which they would be regulated…It was not only inevitable but intended for big business to get bigger and the little guy to get screwed…In business after business, the little guy was crushed or at least severely disadvantaged in the name of ‘efficiency’ and ‘progress.'” (p. 293)
  • In this same time period, “the meatpacking conglomerates knew that federal inspection would become a marketing tool for their products and, eventually, a minimum standard. Small firms and butchers who’d earned the trust of consumers would be forced to endure onerous compliance costs, while large firms not only could absorb the costs more easily but would be able to claim their products were superior to uncertified meats.” (p. 291)
  • A more recent example of corporatism is the ‘Big Tobacco’ settlement with the government. “Why would the tobacco companies agree to a settlement that cost them so much money and that forced them to take out ads disparaging their own product and pay for educational efforts to dissuade children from ever becoming their customers? The reason, quite simple, is that it was int heir interests. The tobacco companies not only had their lawsuits settled; they bought government approval of a new illegal cartel. ‘Big Tobacco’ raised prices above costs imposed by the settlement, guaranteeing a tidy profit. Smaller companies who did not agree to the settlement are still forced to make large escrow payments…The government in effect enforces a system by which small businesses are crushed in order to maintain the high profits of ‘Big Tobacco.'” (p. 308)
  • So-called campaign finance reform laws, such as the McCain-Finegold bill passed a few years ago, are also corporatist in nature. “Speech regulations in turn give an unfair advantage to some very big business–media conglomerates, movie studios, and such–to express their political views in ways exempt from government censorship…The New York Times is pro-choice and supports pro-choice candidates–openly on its editorial pages, more subtly in its news pages. Pro-life groups need to pay to get their views across, but such paid advertising is heavily regulated, thanks to McCain, at exactly the moment it might influence people–that is, near Election Day.” (p. 313)
  • Efforts to force private companies to produce “environmentally friendly” products, like efforts Obama is proposing to force car makers to produce “green” cars, is also corporatist because it imposes “technologies the government was smart enough to pick even though the market wasn’t.” (p. 342)

Corporatism on the Rise

With the bailouts of financial giants (like Citi Bank), insurance companies (like AIG), automakers, and home mortgage companies (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac), it is becoming increasingly more difficult to tell where the private sector ends and government begins. Many companies that were once proudly free-market can suddenly find themselves making arguments in favor of protectionism and corporatism.

Some companies have fought the onslaught of government but it seems to be a losing battle. Take the example of Wal-Mart and Microsoft, again quoting from Jonah Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism. “For years both Wal-Mart and Microsoft boasted that they had no interest in Washington. Microsoft’s chief, Bill Gates…had one lonely lobbyist hanging around the nation’s capital. Gates changed his mind when the government nearly destroyed his company. The Senate Judiciary Committee invited him to Washington, D.C., to atone for his success, and the senators, in the words of the New York Times, ‘took a kind of giddy delight in making the wealthiest man in America squirm in his seat.’ In response, Gates hired an army of consultants, lobbyists, and lawyers to fight off the government. In the 2000 presidential election, Wal-Mart ranked 771st in direct contributions to federal politicians. In the intervening years, unions and regulators began to drool over the enormous target the mega-retailer had become. In 2004 Wal-Mart ranked as the single largest corporate politcal action committee.” (p. 303-304)

Corporatism, A Word You’ll Be Hearing More Often

Hillary Clinton, a high-profile member of Barack Obama’s new cabinet, has long been a fan of corporatist fusion of big government and big business. In her book, It Takes A Village, she states her belief that “socially minded corporate philosophies are the avenue to future prosperity and social stability.” Clinton further lauds the fact that “a number of our most powerful telecommunications and computer companies have joined forces with the government.”

I have long thought that the left’s stance regarding business was to have government regulate it to within a inch of its life. And while that is often the effect, I now see that they don’t want to kill business, they want to harness it for their own political purposes. And with liberal Democrats controlling both the executive and legislative branches of the federal government now, we can all, unfortunately, look forward to a lot more of the kind of socialism inherent in corporatism.

What is Fascism?

(Note: This is the next in my series of articles inspired by Jonah Goldberg’s book, Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning. Click here to see my review of Liberal Fascism)

The most notable examples of fascism are Hitler’s Nazi Germany and Mussolini’s Italy during the same era. Most people think fascism was defeated during World Ward II and scarcely exists in the world today. But according to Jonah Goldberg in his book Liberal Fascism, fascism is alive an well today and is in fact thriving in one of America’s major political movements.

Fascism Difficult to Define
The first step in demonstrating that fascist policies are thriving in America is to define fascism, a harder step than you might think. Most people tend to equate fascism with Hitler and Nazi Germany, and consequently equate fascism with evil, racist, barbaric, capable of executing the Holocaust, and bent on World domination. Most people, even politicians and pundits, put little further thought into it. But fascism was fascism long before the Holocaust, and though Hitler’s Nazi Germany may have been all of those evil things, such a simplistic definition of fascism prevents us from fully examining its rise and from preventing its future domination of the political landscape.

George Orwell noted in his 1946 essay, Politics and the English Language, “The word fascism has now no meaning except so far as it signifies ‘something not desirable.'” Stanley G.Payne, considered by many to be the leading living scholar of fascism, wrote in 1995, “fascism remains probably the vaguest of the major political terms.”

Fascism Dubbed Right-Wing by the Far Left
Fascism is only right-wing in the sense that it is right of far left socialism and communism. Jonah Goldberg says, “From the beginning, fascism was dubbed as right-wing not because it necessarily was right-wing but because the communist left thought this was the best way to punish apostasy.” You see, Nazism and Fascism was right-wing socialism, but still socialism. Goldberg further states, “What I am mainly trying to do is to dismantle the granitelike assumption in our political culture that American conservatism is an offshoot or cousin of fascism…Many of the ideas and impulses that inform what we call liberalism come to us through an intellectual tradition [progressivism] that led directly to fascism.”

Italian Fascism Strikingly Similar to Modern Liberalism
Mussolini was a life-long socialist. His first job was as an editor of a socialist newspaper called “Avanti” (Forward). Said Mussolini, “I am and always will be a socialist.” During his execution at the hands of a band of communists, Mussolini’s mistress allegedly dove in front of her lover and shouted “Long live Mussolini! Long live Socialism!” Here are some highlights from Mussolini’s Fascist party platform (notice how objectively left-wing these points are):

  • Expropriating land from owners and giving them to farmers’ cooperatives.
  • The obligation of the state to build “rigidly secular” schools.
  • “A large progressive tax on capital that would amount to a one-time partial expropriation of all riches.”
  • “The seizure of all goods belonging to religious congregations.”
  • The “sequestration of 85% of all war profits” by the government.
  • The nationalization of all arms and explosives industries.

Hitler Was No Conservative
“To suggest that Hitler was a conservative in any sense related to American conservatism is lunacy. American conservatives seek to preserve both traditional values and the classical liberal creed [personal freedom or today’s libertarianism] enshrined in the Constitution. American conservatism straddles these two distinct but overlapping libertarian and traditionalist strains, whereas Hitler despised both.” Here are some of the tenets of Hitler’s Nazi party (again, very left-wing socialist in nature):

  • Providing a guaranteed livelihood for all citizens
  • The nationalization of trusts
  • Expanded old-age pensions
  • “Communalization of department stores”
  • Requiring businesses to share profits with laborers
  • Click here to see the full Nazi Party Platform

American Liberalism: An Embarrassing Family Resemblance to Fascism
As you can see above, though liberalism “is hardly identical to her uglier relations [fascism], she nonetheless carries an embarrassing family resemblance that few will admit to recognize.” Jonah Goldberg further says that, “Fascism, properly understood, is not a phenomenon of the right at all. Instead, it is, and always has been, a phenomenon of the left. This fact–an inconvenient truth if there ever was one.”

Jonah Goldberg says what unites liberalism and fascism is “the need for an all-powerful state to coordinate society at the national or global level.” Such was the case with FDR’s New Deal; even left-wing historians grudgingly admit that “many of his ideas and policies were indistinguishable from fascism.” Said Rexford Guy Tugwell, an influential member of FDR’s Brain Trust, of Italian Fascism, “It’s the cleanest, neatest, most efficiently operating piece of social machinery I’ve ever seen. It makes me envious.”

H. G. Wells minted the term liberal fascism. Like many other progressive of the early 1900s, Wells was envious of the supposed success of the Italian Fascists and the Communist Russians, and was anxious for such political thought to take root in America. He said, “I’m asking for a Liberal Fascisti, for enlightened Nazis.” What he wanted fascism with a smile on its face, which explains the cover of Jonah Goldberg’s book.

Modern Liberal Fascism
Goldberg goes on to further explain how modern liberal constituent groups, such as environmentalists, employ fascist tactics. “Environmentalism gives license to the sort of moral bullying and intrusion that, were it couched in terms of traditional morality, liberals would immediately denounce as fascist.”

Fascism is nationalistic and militaristic in nature. And we see both of these tendencies from today’s liberal left. Maxine Waters, Democrat Congresswoman from California, just last year threatened to nationalize the U.S. oil industry (this link takes you to the YouTube video of it). And liberals show their militarist nature when all of their causes tend to be “wars” and constant crisis: the war on poverty, the war on drugs, the current economic “crisis”, the global warming “crisis”, etc.

Beware of Liberals Eroding Our Freedoms
Now that we have come to an understanding of what fascism is and its prevalence in American society today, let’s stand up and defeat it. The threat may not be coming in the form of tanks and armies of brown shirts; it may be a far friendly fascism as Goldberg indicates. “If there is ever a fascist takeover in America, it will come not in the form of storm troopers kicking down doors but with lawyers and social workers saying, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.'” Richard Weaver made a similar statement years ago: “The past shows unvaryingly that when a people’s freedom disappears, it goes not with a bang, but in silence amid the comfort of being cared for. That is the dire peril in the present trend toward statism.”

Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left

Book Review: Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning by Jonah Goldberg
Grade: A+, 5 Stars, A Ten, whatever the scoring system, this is a great book.

There is so much to say about this outstanding book, I’m not sure where to begin. There is no way I can put everything I want to say in one post, so I plan to dedicate the next several blog posts to topics and learnings from this book.

The premise of the book is that conservatives have long been unfairly derided by liberals as fascists. The more conservative you are, according to liberal logic (or illogic), the closer you are to being a fascist. This is because liberals equate fascism with racism, warmongering and just about any other evil you can think of, and anyone who wants to stop liberals from achieving their political goals, like conservatives, must be just as bad as fascists. The truth of the matter, though, as revealed my Mr. Goldberg, is that it is liberals, and not conservatives, that resort to fascist methods to achieve their political goals. It is liberals, and not conservatives, that have political roots in the Progressive movement which also gave rise to fascism.

I will go into more detail defining what is fascism in a future post, but for now suffice it to say that fascism is a polar opposite to conservatism and much more closely akin to socialism and modern American liberalism. The Nazi party, perhaps the best example of fascism, was the National Socialist German Workers’ Party; hardly a right-wing organization. And Mussolini, the Italian example of fascism, was a life-long socialist; he was perhaps to the political right communism, but far left of American conservatism.

As the title of the book indicates, this is an expose on American liberals, their mind and methods. For me, every chapter was a real eye-opener. I learned much I never knew before, particularly about the Progressive movement of the early 20th century. And when I wasn’t learning new things, Mr. Goldberg was shedding new light on things I thought I already knew, like the fascist tactics of Woodrow Wilson during World War I.

This book should be required reading for every American. If we are to resist the onslaught of so-called progressive ideas from the American left, we must know their playbook and this book reveals liberals for what they really are and what they really want: an all-powerful government that reaches into every corner of our lives and replaces God with the religion of the state.

Here’s a great interview of Jonah Goldberg on the Glenn Beck TV program:

Godless, the Church of of Liberalism

I just finished reading this book, and enjoyed it very much. I thought Coulter she did an excellent job of highlighting the hypocrisies and and down-right lunacy of the liberal mind-set. Here are some good quotes from the book:

“If a martian landed in America and set out to determine the nation’s official state religion, he would have to conclude it is liberalism, while Christianity and Judaism are prohibited by law.”

Liberalism requires taking so many things on faith that it amounts to a religion with “its own explanation for why we are here, its own gods, its own clergy. The basic tenet of liberalism is that nature is god and men are monkeys.”

Liberalism has “its own miracles, its own beliefs in the supernatural, its own churches, its own high priests, its own saints, its own total worldview, and its own explanation of the existence of the universe. In other words, liberalism contains all the attributes of what is generally known as ‘religion.'”

“Liberals’ creation myth is Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, which is about one notch above Scientology in scientific rigor. It’s a make-believe story, based on a theory that is a tautology, with no proof in the scientist’s laboratory or the fossil record—and that’s after 150 years of very determined looking. We wouldn’t still be talking about it but for the fact that liberals think evolution disproves God.”

I love the title of Chapter 9 called “Proof for How the Walkman Evolved into the iPOD by Random Mutation.”

“Nor are intelligent design scientists looking at things they can’t explain: Quite the opposite. They are looking at things they can explain but which Darwin didn’t even know about, like the internal mechanism of the cell, and saying, That wasn’t created by natural selection—that required high-tech engineering. By contrast, the evolution cult members look at things they can’t explain and say, We can’t explain it, but the one thing we do know is that there is no intelligence in the universe. It must have been random chance, or it’s not ‘science.'”

“Because of liberals druidical religious beliefs, they won’t allow us to save the Africans dying in droves of malaria with DDT because DDT might hurt the birds.”

“Liberals are more upset when a tree is chopped down than when a child is aborted. Even if one rates an unborn child less than a full-blown person, doesn’t the unborn child rate slightly higher than vegetation?”

“Water. Liberals are worried we’re going to run out of something that literally falls from the sky. Here’s an idea: Just wait. It will rain.”

“In the 1970s, Paul Ehrlich wrote the best-selling book The Population Bomb, predicting a global famine and warning that entire nations would cease to exist by the end of the twentieth century — among them England. “[I]t is now too late,” he wrote, “to take action to save many of those people.” In 2001 — despite the perplexing persistent existence of England — the Sierra Club listed Ehrlich’s Population Bomb as among its books recommended by Sierra readers. How many trees had to be chopped down to make the paper for all those copies of The Population Bomb?”

“Assuming you aren’t a fetus, the Left’s most dangerous religious belief is their adoration of violent criminals.”

Liberals say, “(w)e’re the only modern democracy with the death penalty. I think that should be treated as a selling point: “come to the United States for the economic opportunity, stay because we fry our Ted Bundys!”

“One year after Miranda, New York County district attorney Frank Hogan told the Senate Judiciary Committee that confessions in his district alone had fallen from 49 percent to 14 percent solely as a result of the Miranda decision. Federal Judge and former law professor Paul Cassell has calculated that one decision alone, Miranda, has led to the release of about 100,000 violent criminals a year. Instead of hanging their heads in shame and trying to make up for the needless suffering and death inflicted on America by their policies, liberals are proud of releasing violent criminals.”

“At private schools, 80 percent of the personnel are teachers. By contrast, at public schools only about 50 percent of the personnel are actual teachers — most of the rest are cogs in the endless layers of machinery of the “education” bureaucracy. This would be like having 26 full-time coaches for a 26-man baseball team.”

“Between 1982 and 2001, spending on New York City Public schools increased by more than 300 percent, clocking in at $11,474 per pupil annually. Only Washington, D.C., that hotbed of educational achievement, spends more per student. By contrast, the average tuition for private elementary schools is less than $4,000 and around $6,000 for private secondary schools.”

“As Steven Guilbeault of Greenpeace explained, “global warming can mean colder, it can mean drier, it can mean wetter.” No set of facts can disprove the environmentalists’ secular religion. In 2004, former vice president Al Gore gave a speech on global warming in New York City on the coldest day of the year. Warm trends prove global warming. Cold trends also prove global warming. This is the philosophy of a madman.”

Columbia University: Applauds Terrorist Dictators, Appalled by Conservatives

Last Month, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, President of Iran (an official state sponsor of terror according to the US government), visited and spoke at Columbia University in New York. Ahmadinejad was greeted with enthusiasm by many students there. “After sitting through Bollinger’s rebuke (the university president listed many of Iran’s human right atrocities), Ahmadinejad rose to applause, and after a religious invocation, opened his remarks by objecting to the scolding, saying it was insulting to be spoken about that way.” (from a 2007 FoxNews story) I was shocked that such a clearly evil man was given such a warm welcome at one of our nation’s universities.

Fast forward about a month and this past weekend students at Columbia University held a very vocal protest of “a speech by conservative author David Horowitz…The rally was held to show disapproval over Horowitz’s visit” (Students Hold Rally Against Pundit’s Speech). Horowitz had come to the university “to talk about extremist Islam.”

Now I had heard Horowitz’s name before, but I wasn’t exactly sure who he was. So I decided to do some research to see if I could figure out why he was welcomed by protesters while Ahmadinejad was welcomed by thunderous applause. In the chart below I have summarized information I found regarding Horowitz and contrasted that with information on Ahmadinejad.

David Horowitz Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
“an American conservative writer and activist.”
“He is the editor of the conservative website FrontPage Magazine”
“He founded the activist group Students for Academic Freedom”
“He occasionally appears on the Fox News Channel as an analyst.”
“an opponent of affirmative action policies, as well as reparations for slavery”
“strongly supportive of the war on terror and the war in Iraq”
“Horowitz has rejected what he sees as the intolerance of some Christian conservatives towards homosexuals. While Horowitz disagrees with gay marriage, he believes homosexuals have a fundamental right to privacy”
“did a study titled “Political Bias in the Administrations and Faculties of 32 Elite Colleges and Universities.” The overall ratio of Democrats to Republicans they were able to identify at the 32 schools was more than 10 to 1 (1,397 Democrats, 134 Republicans, 1891 unidentified).”
Source Wikipedia
“sixth and current President of the Islamic Republic of Iran.”
“became president on 6 August 2005”
“an outspoken critic of the George W. Bush Administration”
“He was condemned, internationally, for calling for Israel to be ‘wiped off the map.'”
“He has said Iran’s nuclear program is for peaceful purposes and has refused to end enrichment despite United Nations Security Council resolutions”
“He has also been condemned for describing the Holocaust as a myth to make ‘the innocent nation of Palestine pay'”
“the Canadian government listed Iran as one of the thirteen worst abusers of human rights in 2006”
“According to Amnesty International, dissidents who oppose the government non-violently face harassment, torture and execution”
on a good note, though, “On 24 April 2006, Ahmadinejad announced that a ruling which prevented women from watching men playing sports in stadiums would soon be reversed”
Source Wikipedia

It’s too bad that the liberal professors and students at Columbia have more tolerance for a murderous dictator than a good, honest man of a different political viewpoint.

In all fairness, there were reports that “the speech generated predominately positive responses from the audience.” And “while the rally included some graduate and undergraduate students, the crowd consisted largely of local residents and activists from the off-campus liberal nonprofit organization The World Can’t Wait! Drive Out The Bush Regime.”