You’re all a bunch of Fascists!
At least that's what the left keeps calling everyone who attempts to reason
from the classical conservative perspective.
But the issue of who is a Fascist can't
be addressed by any measure from the modern philosophical left because
their fundamental tenet is the lie. For them, that’s the first principle
of the art of war. They use it, they excuse it, and they in fact worship
at its feet.
They are the masters of deception, the
political prestidigitators of the modern age. War is peace, freedom is
slavery, and ignorance is strength. And one of the truly clever feats of
magic the left has perpetrated was convincing John and Jane Q. Public that
Fascism is necessarily a product of the popular definition of the "far
right."
"Clinton's
an unusually good liar. Unusually good. Do you realize that?"
—Senator Bob Kerrey, as Chairman
of the Democrat Senatorial Campaign Committee, Esquire Magazine, January
1996
And of course we can argue definitions
from now to eternity and never get anywhere if we reason from the contemporary
post-modern perspective. Whether we use the Nolan analysis to determine
political positioning, the French memory of left and right chambers of
government, or the anarchy-to-dictatorship continuum, we still wallow around
in the rhetoric of abstraction. In the real world of non-revisionist history,
the problem of politics has always been the diametric polarization of the
individual and a governing elite. It's been a battle over who has ownership
of human rights––who possesses innate sovereignty––the individual or the
state. And the state has most often won this argument by virtue of either
deception or sheer force.
"The use
of the word ‘royalty,’ as fee to a proprietor for the exploitation of a
work or property, derives from the period when the sovereign assumed title
to all wealth of the realm. It was the struggle for freedom from these
encroachments of the state that chiefly marked the Nineteenth Century,
and established everywhere constitutional regimes of limited authority.
In the Twentieth Century, however, we have witnessed a gradual and almost
unrestricted movement back to state authoritarianism, primarily in the
economic sphere, accompanied by the spread of state monopoly and intervention."
––Elgin Groseclose, Money and Man:
A Survey of the Monetary Experience
Groseclose was right. But since he wrote
that back in 1961, the advocates of the Collectivist State have significantly
expanded their hold on power beyond the economic sphere. Almost daily they
claim eminent ownership of some new aspect of our lives. While they're
still perfectly willing to license these plundered liberties back to us
as a privilege and for a fee, the bipartisan, politically correct, authoritarian
American left has finally begun to behave like the Fascists they actually
are.
But we dare not admit this openly, for
the phenomenon of mass denial has become our very own sacred cow. Don’t
touch it. Don’t question it. Just do it. So trudging along through the
lowland of cultural mediocrity, most on the Democratic left are no longer
even aware of the grand deception, or that others before have made almost
the same miscalculation. And also completely buried in the doctrinal deception,
a majority of those on the Republican right also have no idea they have
long subscribed to the same paradigm. They smugly deny that the illusory
quagmire of collectivist quicksand has dragged down the minds of great
individuals with an almost blind indifference.
Responding in ignorance and addicted
to the fraud of the "free lunch," the public has taken to opposing the
only prescription in history that has ever even remotely remedied Fascism,
which in fact is the traditional American conservatism of the classical
constitutional republic. That is the ideology of the so called "far right,"
where the individual makes the sovereign claim to all basic human rights,
and empowers the collective state only by consent and practical limitation
to manage, police, and protect those rights.
Fascism:Any
program for setting up and centralizing an autocratic regime with severely
authoritarian politics exercising regulation of industry, commerce and
finance, rigid censorship, and forcible oppression of opposition.
—Webster's Unabridged Dictionary
Writing in The New Australian on
January 24th, 1999, James Henry noted that, "The state of American
education being what it is, the vast majority of people are totally incapable
of recognizing a fascist economic program, even when it is used to slap
them in the face. This is because they have not been taught that fascism
means state direction of the economy, cradle to grave ‘social security’,
complete control of education, government intervention in every nook and
cranny of the economy — and the belief that the individual belongs to the
state."
And just in case you think you aren't
included in that latter chattel, consider that the popular expression used
to describe labor these days is human resources. Members of the
executive committee of the White House Health Project under Hillary Clinton's
failed effort to monopolize medicine were even excited about proposals
for the mandatory implantation of livestock identification micro chips
in your body. If you didn't submit you wouldn't qualify for any licensed
health care. Now admit it. Weren't there any myopic advocates on the left
that even momentarily felt like sheep at that proposal?
And in a January 26, 1999 piece for
WorldNetDaily,
Joseph
Farah wrote in "Moving Toward a Police State" that, "President
Clinton has declared more 'states of national emergency' than any of his
predecessors. And he's done it in an era he boasts about as the freest,
most peaceful and most prosperous time in recent American history. President
Clinton has issued more executive orders than any of his predecessors.
His top aides have even boasted of using them as a political strategy to
go over the heads of the legislative branch of government. ‘Stroke of the
pen, law of the land,’ boasted Paul Begala of the plan. ‘Pretty cool, huh?’"
Pretty cool all right. If there's any
sensible readers from the left still with us, they're probably beginning
to squirm uncomfortably by now. So let's step back and broaden our perspective.
Where do we get the word Fascism anyway? Isn’t it associated with the Roman
"fasces," the bundle of wooden rods covering the battleaxe Roman magistrates
used as a symbol of their authority? And wasn’t Benito Mussolini the man
who took as his symbol the "fasces" of classical Rome, and in doing so
gave the modern world the term, "Fascism"? And what was the political
slant of Mussolini? Was he a republican constitutional conservative, a
product of the "far right?" Or was he a socialist like Adolph Hitler?
"At first
the claims of the propaganda were so impudent that people thought it insane;
later, it got on people's nerves; and in the end, it was believed."
—Adolf Hitler,
Mein
Kampf
Liberal revisionists insist that Mussolini
was a product of the political "right wing." In fact, there’s strong indication
that he was for years an orthodox Marxist, who (like Hitler) came to power
through democratic means. His dictum was "Everything for the State, nothing
outside the State, nothing above the State." So it’s a little unnerving
that the symbol of the fasces also appeared on the reverse of the "Winged
Head of American Liberty" or "Mercury" dime in 1916. That just about coincides
with the period the Marxist tenet of progressive income tax became an American
institution and the Federal Reserve Corporation was inserted as a central
banking monopoly inside the American banking system. The schizophrenic
symbolism of the Liberty Head obverse and the fasces reverse on that design
of the American 10-cent coin reflects the very disturbance of opposing
forces in American culture that we are discussing.
And what do we really remember of Mussolini
and Hitler from today’s university history? Do we remember that socialist
icon George Bernard Shaw highly praised Mussolini for his collectivist
policies, or that the venerable Mahatma Gandhi called him a "superman?"
Gandhi's term became the catchword description of Mussolini for the cultural
elite of his day. And we’ve forgotten that the chairman of the U.S. House
Foreign Relations Committee told his colleagues in 1926 that Mussolini
"is something new and vital . . . It will be a great thing not only for
Italy but for all of us if he succeeds."
And we for some reason can’t remember
that in the 1930's prominent banker Otto Kahn said that the world owes
Hitler "a debt of gratitude." Or that Arnold Toynbee thought he was a "man
of peace," or that the French intellectual Andre Gide said that he "behaves
like a genius . . . Soon even those he vanquishes will feel compelled .
. . to admire him." Neither can academia recall that in 1934 the president
of Hunter College in America declared that Hitler was "destined to go down
to history as a cross between Hotspur and Uncle Toby and to be as immortal
as either."
Well, Hitler went down to immortal
history all right. That much we all agree on.
And yet, in a fit of modern denial,
collectivist apologists compulsively and erroneously distance themselves
from the age of Neville Chamberlain. They blithely forget the doublespeak
of Giovanni Gentile, one of Fascist Italy's leading philosophers stating
that, "The maximum of liberty coincides with the maximum of state force."
Once again they fail to remember that Mussolini's thesis was: "If historic
fact exists it is this, that all of the history of men's civilization,
from the caves to civilized or so-called civilized man, is a progressive
limitation of liberty." Somehow our educational system fails to remind
them that the collectivist advocate Herbert Matthews, a
New York Times
writer who was instrumental in bringing Castro to power in Cuba, claimed
that he was "an enthusiastic admirer of Fascism."
The quasi-intellectuals of the left
boldly proclaimed that the 1996 Republican presidential candidate Bob Dole
was a "Fascist" for criticizing violent, sexist rap music. But don’t ever
point out that Mussolini was fundamentally a socialist, or make any reference
to Hitler at all. For if you do, they insist that you lose the argument
by default. Then they either smugly pick up their toys and march home,
or arrogantly shout you down.
Sorry, kids, but Fascism is historically
associated with National Socialism, and National Socialism was a centralized,
collectivist federal authority. Fascism is an institution of statism, and
unbridled statism is antithetical to the true conservative thought of those
on the "right." And as much as tight-eyed crypto-Marxist intellectuals
on the collectivist American left many try to deny it, Marxism is unbridled
statism.
"Basically
National Socialism and Marxism are the same."
—Nobel laureate Friedrich A. Hayek
F. A. Voigt, after years of close observation
as a foreign correspondent prior to and during WW2, wrote that, "Marxism
has led to Fascism and National Socialism, because, in all essentials,
it is Fascism and National Socialism." After spending twelve years
in Russia as an American correspondent only to have his own socialist ideals
shattered, W. H. Chamberlin concluded "socialism is certainly to prove
. . . the road not to freedom, but to dictatorship and counter-dictatorships,
to civil war of the fiercest kind." According to author John Toland, Hitler
himself said, "We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic
economic . . . system." But the children of the lie, those on the modern
left, know that perfectly well. The idolaters of the collectivist icons
Emperor Clinton and Empress Hildabeast just want the next collectivist
dictatorship to end up under their control. Their god is power,
not truth.
"We
are the priests of power-do not forget this, Winston-always there will
be the intoxication of power . . . If you want a picture of the future,
imagine a boot stamping on a human face––forever."
—O'Brien, Inner Party member of the collectivist oligarchy and brain washing
specialist in the final scene of Orwell's 1984
Can't you hear them barking, "Oh, but get
real! We’re not National Socialists. We’re International
Socialists!"
Well––excuse me. But if we rub the sleep from our pretty little eyes, what
do we remember of International Socialism? Besides Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot,
and Kim Ill Sung of course. I know, I know. It’s bad enough to have brought
Mussolini and Hitler into the argument, but completely unfair to bring
the litany of International Socialists into the picture as well. For years,
if you dared to point out liberal inconsistencies by analogy to certain
historic personalities, your own argument was painted an ad hominem, illogical
appeal to passion. But the times are a-changing.
Even ultra-liberal Jewish Harvard law
professor and O.J. Simpson defender, Alan Dershowitz, publicly stated before
an assembly at Yale that he'd defend Adolph Hitler. Furthermore, he insisted,
he'd win. So relax and consider concert pianist Balint Bazsony, author
of America’s 30 Year War. He survived not only National Socialism
under the Germans, but International Socialism under the Stalinists as
well.
And here’s what he tells us about his
years in America after escaping collectivist Hungary.
"During
the late 1960s, I watched in despair as my brilliantly gifted [American]
piano students suddenly began to speak as if someone had replaced their
brains with prerecorded tapes. They spoke in phrases—repeated mechanically—which
were neither the product of, nor accessible to, intelligent consideration.
At first, these tapes seemed to contain only a few slogans about "love
and peace." Fruitful conversation became impossible, but that was merely
regrettable. The situation became alarming when the "tapes" began to include
words and phrases that had become familiar to me in Hungary during the
Nazi and Soviet occupations, and which contributed to the reasons for my
decision to escape. Worse yet, the words and phrases were soon followed
by practices of similar pedigree.
"Reactionary," "exploitation,"
"oppressor and oppressed," and "redistribution" were some of the words
taken straight from the Marxist repertoire. The term "politically correct"
first came to my attention through the writings of Anton Semionovich Makarenko,
Lenin’s expert on education. Adolf Hitler preferred the version "socially
correct." Then came the affirmative action forms which classified people
by ancestry—first signed into law in Nazi Germany—and the preferential
treatment of specific categories, introduced by the Stalinist government
in 1950."
That’s all very well and good, but Bazsony's
students were just children of the sixties. So be serious. What could America
under Liberal Democracy possibly have in common with the Fascist, dictatorial
policies of National or International Socialism?
Well not much, I suppose. Unless you
include centrally monopolized banking, militantly enforced progressive
income tax, the involuntary military draft, affirmative action for special
cultural, racial, or political groups, oppressive regulation of the environment,
oppressive regulation of business, oppressive regulation of commerce...
a call to national service, a call for a national identity system, a call
for nationally monopolized health care, a progressively intense call for
a ban on private ownership of firearms, a call for state assisted euthanasia,
a call for legalizing post-partum infanticide (can you imagine people
dragging their toddlers down to the "State Euthanasia Center for Baal Worshipers,"
complaining that "this brat’s got a bad attitude?")... a call
for a national police force with Pentagon assistance, the creation of statutes
by centralized executive order, nationalized public education emphasizing
radical collectivist and politically correct propaganda, a centralized
and progressively unaccountable central government, personal and real asset
forfeiture for all manner of infractions... interest
bearing State-monopolized fiat money, a two-tiered legal system (one emphasizing
an apologetic waiver for cultural icons and bureaucrats on the left, and
quite another for "conservatives" on the right and the common man), a phalanx
of central ministry "alphabet soup" agencies attacking everyone from licensed
physicians to health food store proprietors, political assassination, government
cover-ups... Gramscian destruction of dissenting traditional
culture, disregard for the constitutional rule of law by the appeal of
popular propaganda or "democratic" expediency, a shouting down of dissenters
and objectors, redefinition of political terms to suit the power elite...
a call for the popular globalization of these "progressive" institutions,
and … well I don’t know.
As I said, not much. Except that every
one of these proposals appears to be fact.
"For
government consists in nothing else but so controlling subjects that they
shall neither be able to, nor have cause to do it harm."
—Nicolo Machiavelli
Joseph Farah recently reminded us that,
"America is not slouching toward totalitarianism, it is rushing headlong
toward it. " And if so, are there any apologists that can sincerely argue
that a people rushing toward a totalitarian police state aren't seriously
flirting with that harlot we call Fascism? And if we are, then denial herself
is the brutal, silent, black leather-clad dominatrix of the entire affair.
History would suggest she is an indifferent whore, much to the tragic sadness
of those throughout the ages who insist on getting involved with her. She's
just as likely to strike down her most powerful despots and ideological
advocates as she is the powerless and innocent.
Still, no matter how much you try, you
can never backtrack after considering these notions. There's a legitimate
contention for reasonable limitations to the possible abuse of central
power. That goes for the most justifiable causes, including nationally
or internationally homogenized education, health care, or militant police
protection. There's a popular line of reasoning circulating these days
arguing that governments are basically in the business of selling protection.
Protection from poverty, foreign invaders, thieves and other common criminals,
"class injustice," our "inability" to provide for ourselves, those who
would insult us, environmental degradation, our propensity to drive without
fastening our seat belts or ride without our helmets, anything and everything
they can think of. So when they come to sell you this protection you may
ask them what happens if you decline their monopolized services. What happens
if you should like to shop elsewhere for these "necessities," in a more
competitive market? What happens if even from a reasonable posture, you
refuse to unilaterally allow the federal, state, or local authorities to
take your money in exchange for limiting your freedom to negotiate with
them?
Well, there's a strong possibility that
they'll read you your "rights" and flat out tell you that then you'll
need protection from them. That this fact so reminds any reasonable
thinker of the protection rackets of organized crime should cause any rational
person to look at the entire matter from a different perspective.
"In
order to become the master, the politician poses as the servant."
—Charles de Gaulle
While to a certain degree the views presented
here may be considered an over-simplification, or hyperbole for the benefit
of illustration, they still color every further thought we might have about
government. The worst thing about seeing our aging collectivist king without
his clothes is that you can never get his fat, hairy, greasy image out
of your mind again. |