Democrats Words versus Democrats Actions

EdmundBurkeQuotesDemocrats

Even Edmund Burke (1729-1797) understood the democrats

Democrats decry the war on women in America when the real war in America are on the traditional male figure, father, husband, head of the family, and Caucasian males specifically.

Democrats who are quick to defend the Islamic religion and say you can’t condemn the ‘religion’ because of the acts of a few extremists who are said to ‘pervert’ the ‘religion of peace’ [sic]. Vast numbers of ‘extremists’ who torture, rape and murder children and women as well as men, never being condemned by the ‘moderate Muslims’ who vote for Sharia Law which denies women and children any rights, where the men have complete control over their lives, liberties, and far too often their deaths. Yet these same democrats are just as quick to condemn the entire Christian religion due to the acts of a truly insignificant minority of charlatans and reprobates who pervert and / or use the Christian religion for their own ends, or hide among the sheep to take advantage of and / or victimize those same sheep.

Democrats and so-called Liberals accuse Tea Party Patriots and conservatives of using racist ‘code words’ like welfare, thug, tax cuts, etc., Then we find out from Timothy Geithner the democrats themselves are the ones who use code words they call “dog whistles” as shout-outs to their democrat base voters, which gives you an idea about how they feel about their base and the people who vote for them. I guess that’s why they throw them a bone occasionally to keep them happy and their tails wagging.

The democrats accuse republicans of being partisan with the IRS and Benghazi hearings, when in truth they are only partisan because the democrats are more interested in covering up the truth, than in finding the truth, getting the facts, holding people accountable and making sure it doesn’t happen again. They’re more interested in covering up the truth, hiding the facts and hoping it doesn’t happen again until they can blame the republicans, or at least deflect peoples attention from them by saying all politicians or both parties do it. I disagree, only the democrats use the lower, more base and insidious politics their current leadership seems to be extremely adept at. Seems the current crop of democrats in leadership, their intelligence is specifically honed in covering up their own incompetence and despotic behavior.

In the Benghazi scandal the democrats have continually accused republicans of playing politics with the issue, when it is they themselves who politicized it when they chose to cover up the incompetence of Obama and Hillary Clinton to help ensure his election to a second term.

In the IRS scandal, we learn that it is the democrats who use tactics and measures that oppress the free speech of the common people, suppress voters, and use the government to strong-arm their opponents after having accused republicans of all these things for decades without any proof.

Senator Harry Reid accuses people of not paying taxes who have paid, then we learn it is the democrat employees of the IRS and the Obama administration who have not paid their taxes, many of them even getting bonuses after not having paid them.

As I have said many, many times, if you really want to know what the democrats, so-called liberals and progressives are doing? All you have to do is listen to what they are accusing their opponents of.

I will be adding to this list as they come to mind, feel free to add your own examples in the comments below. Have a great and profitable day.

Democrats Have Shown With The Obamacare Law The Height Of Their Hypocrisy

Democrats & Obamacare as Foreseen in Anti-Federalist Paper No. 1 (Click to enlarge)

Democrats & Obamacare as Foreseen in Anti-Federalist Paper No. 1 (Click to enlarge)

The free market healthcare system we had before Obamacare was taking care of those who were sick. It was doing it the way the liberals contend they want it done, by spreading the wealth. The free market healthcare system paid for those that did not have insurance, when people went to the hospital and were unable to pay, as required by law they (the hospitals) have to treat people who come to the emergency room, regardless of ability to pay. The hospital and it’s medical associates would then charge each paying customer a little more, thereby spreading the cost among their many customers.

The democrats however, when they talk about these people going to the hospital and not paying, they then say “but, I don’t want to have to pay for your, or their, healthcare.” For the deniers out there, I have heard them say it too many times in the last year or so, for you to even try to deny it.

The liberal progressive democrats do not like this system as evidenced by Michelle Obama and the University of Chicago Medical Centers patient dumping scheme where they received a good deal of justly opprobrious press over its policy of “redirecting” low-income patients to community hospitals while reserving  its own beds for well-heeled patients requiring highly profitable procedures. Substantial coverage was given to a recent indictment of the program by the American College of Emergency Physicians. ACEP’s president, Dr. Nick Jouriles, released a statement suggesting that the initiative comes “dangerously close to ‘patient dumping,’ a practice made illegal by the Emergency Medical Labor and Treatment Act, and reflected an effort to ‘cherry pick’ wealthy patients over poor.”

They want the government to impose even more egregious taxes on the middle class and the so-called wealthy. Those making more than 200k (according to democrats) who turn out to be small business owners, because the people who are really wealthy are like all enterprises including government, they are going to pass the costs onto someone else or protect what they have from being further encroached upon.

No, liberals say I don’t want to have to pay for that person going to the hospital, I want government to impose a tax system by which we can pick the winners and losers, where we can impose our idea of social justice on those evil people who don’t want to have to pay for other peoples healthcare insurance. Those who have gamed the system too long by lying to the American people, and have forced people to not be able to insure themselves.

It’s like the LA Times opinion piece where the liberal was all for the Obamacare law until they found out they were going to have to pay for it. I think the quote went something like “I was all for the law until I learned I was going to have to pay for it”. As we are finding out, and as was predicted by everyone on the right. The Patient Protection and Affordable Healthcare Act does nothing to protect the patient as evidenced from the lack of security testing on the healthcare.gov website to people losing the healthcare insurance plans and doctors they were happy with by the millions. Nor is it affordable as the liberal in the LA Times story found out along with millions of others.

Obama said one of the most incredibly incompetent things I’ve heard from him in his last press conference on Nov. 14th. He said “What we’re also discovering is, that, insurance is complicated to buy.” How out of touch can you be? This is what you get with people who have never had to exist outside of academia and government. How could they not know insurance was complicated to buy? Every single one of the intellectual professors who authored Obamacare, that I’ve heard speak about it. It is obvious they should never have been given the task of designing a system they have never had any involvement with, outside of abstract studies. It is incredible and incredulous how out of touch they truly are with the reality of humanity.

The democrats started this debate by saying there were an estimated 30 million before the Obamacare law without insurance, then they went to 40 million, then to 50 million. Now they are saying there are not only 50 million without insurance, but that all 50 million of them are sick, implying they’ll have access to healthcare for the first times in their lives. What they have really done is narrow your choices, your choice of insurance coverage and your choice of doctors, hospitals, and medical services. All of this from the so-called party of choice, sure they want to give you choices, their choices, not your own.

The lies will never stop with progressives, because they have to lie to get their policies passed by the American people. They have also shown their true feelings for minorities, by their flippant dismissive attitudes toward the 5 million Americans who have already lost their insurance due to the regulations imposed by the Obamacare law.

Out of the 20-30 million Americans who did not have insurance to begin with, most of them were young and healthy who do not need large healthcare plans. I seriously doubt out of that 20-30 million we were first informed about, that even 5 million of them didn’t have insurance because they wanted or needed it and could not pay for it.

As I pointed out months ago, the Obamacare law was designed to make the people lose their insurance on the individual market and the employer markets because the Obamacare law needs the people who already pay for insurance to be kicked out of their plans and be forced into the Obamacare market. They could not depend on the people who are not already paying for medical insurance to suddenly run out and buy insurance just because of the Obamacare law. No, they needed at least those on the individual market to come into the Obamacare exchanges to get the ball rolling, and boosting the number of enrollees by 5 or 10 million in the first year would help convince the American people that the law was working. This fact is evidenced by the authors of the law themselves, as professor Ezekiel Emanuel admitted the fact, they needed those people to be forced into the exchanges.

I used to think democrats studied history to learn how to implement harmful policies of the past to hurt America, it’s not that, they’re not that smart. In fact they are so devoid of intelligence, they do not realize they just have the same spirit as other despotic reprobate peoples before them, it therefore causes them to use the same tactics and rhetoric.

Cyber security experts say Healthcare.gov website for Obamacare is less safe and secure than it was in October.

They are also finally reporting something I told my family a few months ago. Not only can hackers get the information that you submit to the healthcare.gov website. Every computer system that healthcare.gov website is tied into is vulnerable because hackers can use the Obamacare website as a doorway into all the other systems, i.e. IRS, DHS, HHS, State computer systems, you name it.

Therefore every Americans information is vulnerable. For an identity thief this could not be better, they now have a way to make a complete profile on you, your assets, addresses, bank accounts, everything!

It is incomprehensible that a political party is so invested in a program that they would allow anywhere near this threat level to the American people and their information.

You keep hearing people say they need the young and healthy to buy into the exchanges to make Obamacare work. Why then does the law allow young adults to stay on their parents healthcare plans until they are 26 years of age? They were never counting on the young and healthy, they were depending on the millions and millions of people that have lost, are losing, or will be losing their current medical insurance plans to be kicked into the exchanges.

This was never about healthcare, this Obamacare law was simply about control. I do hope one of the consequences of this incredibly intrusive and abusive law is, that it will force out of business, those insurance companies who thought it was a good idea to join with government in this fascist manner because it forced with threat of penalty, the American people to buy those same insurers products, just as it is now forcing many small business people out of business and keeping others from growing the businesses they are able to keep. This would be the correct form of social justice!

See liberals, democrats or progressives are never really for, the things they say they are for, they consistently tell you the exact opposite of the truth. They have tried to destroy the best healthcare system in the world because they wanted to control the outcomes. The free market was doing a more efficient and cheaper job of spreading the wealth around with their policies, than the government will ever be able to do with theirs.

If the democrats and Obama anticipated the slow or low sign up for Obamacare, why would they now need to extend the 2014/15 sign up period from 45 days to 60 days and move the date of the beginning of the sign up period from 2 weeks before the election to 2 weeks after?

Democrat actions on Obamacare have proved beyond doubt; Liberals think it’s okay to force someone to do something that is good for them. Christian principles are good for people. Should people be forced to live by those principles, faith, prayer, church? No, and they should not be forced by government to do other things their conscience informs them is wrong, or that their hearts are against!

And no, I wasn’t serious in questioning  whether people should be forced to adopt christian principles, God, nor Jesus would approve of that. I am serious however, just as people should not be forced into religion, they certainly should not be forced into anything else!

As anyone can see they are making it up as they go and it’s anything goes with them when it comes to the lengths they will go to screw the American people

UPDATE: Now we have Jonathan Gruber one of the main Obamacare architects validating everything conservative Christians and TeaParty Patriots were warning about the Obamacare law were and are true.

UPDATE: Now since the mid-term elections of 2014 we have democrat Sen. Chucky Schumer coming out trying to save his job, saying democrats were wrong to do Obamacare, along with democrat Rep. Steny Hoyer trying to revise history and distance himself from the disastrous effects of the Obamacare law or Affordable Care Act as they like to mistakenly call it. I won’t even go into democrat Sen. Mary Landreu of Louisiana trying to save her job. Isn’t it amazing how the rats always desert the ship after they demo it, thus the name democrats.

My Response To My Liberal / Progressive Detractors

LiberalChoiceSomething I wrote a number of months ago when I was writing for Rant, in response to loony leftist bloggers who kept leaving ignorant and irrelevant comments on my articles, it still rings true and should be shared.

Are you so desperate for traffic to your own articles that you have to keep making nonsensical comments on others pieces. Comments that make you out to be, either a mental patient, or someone who is completely devoid of understanding, and honesty.

You would do well to avoid these scenarios that reveal you to be, what you truly are. Your words speak volumes about who you are as a person. Where you once again stooped to the liberals typical antics, trying to denigrate the character of those better than you, as you did with the Tea Party, and where, you also said some very profane, sexually degenerate things about the Palin’s and Tea Party people.

You liberals, truly show your lack of character on a daily basis, with your irrelevant comments, idiotic excuses, and ridiculous arguments, due to your own inability to face reality. A reality that does not fit your small minded narratives.

You who keep twisting the truth, or completely lying about your opponents, because of your own ineptness, and lack of leadership, being completely without moral compasses to give you the guidance, or the wisdom to avoid these situations that reveal you to be, who you truly are.

Your President; Barack Obama is also experiencing some of these situations with Seal Team Six, Extortion 17, Fast & Furious, AP, Benghazi, the Statist Dept., the Dept. of InJustice i.e. DoJ, the Internal Reward Service i.e. IRS, the Now Spying on Americans agency i.e. NSA, Environmental Propaganda Agency i.e. EPA, Federal Bureau of Intimidaters i.e FBI, Department of the inDefensible i.e. DoD, Bureaucratic Arm Targeting Federal Foes i.e. BATF, etc., that have shown, he has the same liberal problems you do.

Benghazi: A situation in which, he either:

1. Did not have the personal intelligence, integrity or wisdom, to face facts, to gain an understanding of the enemy, and who had no plan to deal with conditions on the ground in Libya after the overthrow of Gaddhafi. Whose administration, according to testimony at the recent House Oversight Committee hearings, for the appearance of “normalcy” did not beef up security at the consulate in Benghazi. Thereby showing an administration who callously denied repeated pleas by the Ambassador himself, and his security personnel on the ground in Libya for more boots on the ground. An administration who had been made fully aware of terrorist attacks and activity, and the presence of Al Gaeda in the area, whose flag had been seen flying over buildings in the weeks and months prior to the final attack in which the Ambassador and three other brave Americans were senselessly murdered by Islamic Muslim terrorists,

2. He is so ideologically bound that no matter what evidence exists to show him the error of his policies, he unreasonably holds to his erroneous ways, because he is blinded by his beliefs, to the realities of a world that does not fit his narrative. Or;

3. He is complicit with the terrorists, due once again to his leftist ideological beliefs about Muslims terrorism.

Lastly; as their threats do not cause any fear in the hearts of brave Americans around the world. Neither will there be any fear in people like me, due to your infantile threats of violence. You liberal leftists do not have the courage to back up your words, with physical action, but come ahead, you will only decimate your own ranks with your misguided actions.

These may also interest you: 
Bi-Partisanship and The Left
Open Letter to #Congress Concerning Amnesty
A Different Look At Racism In The United States
History of Climate Change Hysteria and Fear Mongering
California’s New Confiscation Scheme of Workers Earnings
Quote by Thomas Jefferson You’ll Never Hear From The Democrats
The Nexus of the IRS Abuse of Power Targeting Conservatives and Christians
PSA: IRS Employees Involved in Malfeasance Targeting Conservative & Religious Groups

The Failure of Marxism and Socialism

The Failure of Marxism: by John Dos Passos

Just a few notes from Classical Liberalism blog

When we hear about fascism, naturally many first start to think about nationalism, militarism and antisemitism of Hitler’s National Socialist Germany or perhaps similar things about Italy’s Fascist Mussolini. Once you peel the top layers back, one will see that fascism is socialism in disguise.

Keynes’ most important book, The General Theory of Employment Interest and Money, was first published in 1936 and was immediately hailed by Socialists everywhere. It is important to stress that Mrs. Joan Robinson, an internationally recognized Marxist, was one of the main economic experts who collaborated with Keynes on his project. Another leading Socialist economic expert, R. F. Kahn, contributed so much that “his share in the historic achievement cannot have fallen very far short of co-authorship.”

Mrs. Joan Robinson was highly regarded by Keynes, who in The General Theory generously praises her for her contribution to his work. It is therefore important to note carefully Mrs. Robinson’s statement that the differences between Marx and Keynes are only verbal. Writing in the Communist journal, Science and Society, winter, 1947, p. 61, Mrs. Robinson said:  “‘The time, therefore, seems ripe to bridge the verbal gulf.” The only real difference between the Marxians and the Fabians is one of degree and tactics.

As an economic system, fascism is SOCIALISM with a capitalist veneer. In its day fascism was seen as the happy medium between liberal (Free market) capitalism and revolutionary MARXISM. Fascism substituted the particularity of nationalism and racialism—“blood and soil”—for the internationalism of both classical liberalism and Marxism.

Where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society’s economic processes through direct state operation of the means of production, fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners. Where socialism nationalized property explicitly, fascism did so implicitly, by requiring owners to use their property in the “national interest”—that is, as the autocratic authority conceived it. (Nevertheless, a few industries were operated by the state.) Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities. Where socialism abolished money and prices, fascism controlled the monetary system and set all prices and wages politically. In doing all this, fascism denatured the marketplace. ENTREPRENEURSHIP was abolished. State ministries, rather than consumers, determined what was produced and under what conditions. 

Source: Concise Encyclopedia of Economics-Fascism
 Here we can see that fascism gives the illusion that “private property” exists so long as it is used for the “greater good”, “national good”, “public good”, and so on.

Communism and socialism are more honest about what they claim to be: they admit that no one has a private life any longer, and that all goods, services, and human beings are the property of the state. One may argue, as I do, that this is evil, but it is also honest.

Fascism, however, is both dishonest and evil. The fascists claim that there is such a thing as private property, with all the responsibilities of ownership, and the facade of ownership — yet, the state controls the “owner’s” every decision on penalty of fine or imprisonment (or both).

In the ultimate analysis, there is no real difference between any of these systems. The divergences in specifics of ideology are debatable in academia but not to the regular individual being oppressed by the State. All hold human beings as right-less. Individuals cannot act freely provided that they respect the rights of others; they can only act with permission from the state.

John Dos Passos

John Dos Passos1896-1970

Both socialism and communism, as they actually work out, betray the hopes for the better life that they once inspired.

“Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it.” – Thomas Sowell

Socialist Utopia2

Picture: Beguiled by Utopian visions, many wishful thinkers refuse to recognize the facts of socialism as it has worked out in practice. This drawing by Abner Dean, shows bewildered men and women, including two who are gagged and so can ask questions only with their eyes, watching a self-deluded, “wooly-headed” artist happily at work.

Not long ago I found myself talking to a pleasant and well-informed woman reporter in a newspaper office in a prosperous city in the Middle western corn belt. Although the region is usually chalked up as “black Republican” in politics, the paper she worked for wore a “liberal” complexion. I was trying to explain to her that socialism as I had seen it working last summer in Great Britain was not necessarily a force for progress. “But I thought you were a liberal,” she kept saying almost tearfully, “and now you have turned reactionary.” “The socialists are the conservatives now,” I told her, “and the communists are the real reactionaries.” But she remained unconvinced. The reason our conversation was so fruitless was that she decided that certain words like “liberal,” “labor” and “rationing” had a virtuous connotation and there was no way of getting her to look directly at the events that lay behind the words.

It was just this sort of wall of incomprehension you used to meet years ago when you argued the right of working people to form unions and to strike for improved working condition, or tried to explain that we ought to show a sympathetic interest in the social experiments that were going on in the Soviet Union. Then it was the capitalist slogans that were holding the fort; but during the past 20 years a new set of words has gradually become charged with a virtuous aura in the public mind. Now public ownership, planned economy, controls and socialized, have become words heavy with virtue, while profits, free enterprise, investment and even dividends have taken on an evil context that needs to be explained away.

Socialist Utopia

Picture: Work reproducing on canvas the scene which is spread before him. Where there is starvation he smugly paints a land flowing with milk and honey, where there is ugliness he is charmed by beauty, where there is slavery he finds a life of gracious ease, where there is graceless, violent death he sees only a graceful swan placidly swimming in its pond.

The public mind in America that 20 years ago dismissed unheard anything that smacked of a socialistic notion is now receptive to socialistic notions. Partly this comes from a reasoned change of attitude brought about by the success of some of the socialistic measures of Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal, but partly it comes from the unthinking acceptance of the vocabulary of “liberal” propaganda that spread out in ripples from New Deal Washington, becoming vaguer and more confused and more destructive of clear thinking as the ideas that engendered it lost their vitality at the source. It is in this confused region of the popular mind that the communists have been able to carry on their most successful propaganda operations. Thus it comes to pass that the “liberals” who think a man is defeated in argument when they call him a “reactionary” show very little curiosity about the actual functioning of socialistic-going concerns that have come into being in the last 20 years. The “liberal” vocabulary that had some meaning in the 1920’s has now become a definite hindrance to understanding events in the world of the ‘40s.

Exactly 100 years have passed since Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels issued the Communist Manifesto, which became the first document in the formulation of modern socialism. Nineteen years later the bible of Marxism, Dos Kapital, was published, giving immense documentation to Marx’s theories that the collapse of capitalism was imminent; that it would inevitably be followed by a socialist utopia.

In the 1920’s there were a number of us in the U.S. who were convinced that this doctrine was valid. Those of us who were willing to be called socialists had some definite things in mind we thought would be achieved if ownership of industry were taken out of the hands of the finance capitalists and vested in the community.

We thought public service could be substituted for money profit as the driving motive of human behavior. We thought that with the ascendancy of an anti-militarist working class throughout the world war, and the threat of war would be replaced by peaceful cooperation in the international affairs. Of course it must be admitted that we were caught by the illusory belief that revolution would instill utopia. We were carried away by the blind enthusiasm for a new dispensation at hand that was sweeping the masses of the Western World. The revolutions have happened and regimes and empires have crashed in the mud, but the old problem of how to control man’s domination by man remains unsolved.

Enough socialized systems and institutions have been going concerns over a long enough period of time for us at least to begin to get some idea of how they are working out. It’s a most curious comment on the blindness induced by dogmatically held beliefs that in all the avalanches of print for and against socialism and free enterprise there’s so little comparative examination of capitalist and socialist organizations; there’s so little effort to try to discover how they work out for the men and women directly involved.

First let me give an example of a socialized institution that seems to me to have been a success. Rural electrification was one of the New Deal’s pet projects. It encouraged the establishment of local committees that gave a much needed impetus to local self-government in a very important field. Not only did it furnish increased electric service all over the country but by its brisk competition it shook the private companies out of their lethargy, so they greatly increased their service too.

At the other end of the scale in the experience of the average American come the Army and the Navy. We are not accustomed to thinking of the Army and the Navy as socialized institutions but that is exactly what they are. We all admit that in the time of ruin and rapine in which we live we can’t do without these vast engines for waste and destruction, but I’ve yet to meet a veteran of wither of these services who thinks that the Army way or the Navy way or even the Air Force way is the best way of running human affairs. About the best face we can put on our military establishment is to say that in spite of its cumbrous bungling it so far has managed to defeat our enemies in battle, and that up to now our civilian setup for production has been so monstrously efficient that we’ve been able to afford the waste of materials and the frustration of individual effort that the military system implies.

As citizens of a self-governing community it is our first duty continually to be asking ourselves what it is we want from our institutions.

At home in America we have seen enough of the working of socialized enterprises, successful and unsuccessful, to begin to understand the basic problem. We must realize that from the point of view of the well-being of men and women the contradiction is not between “capitalism” and “socialism” but between the sort of organization that stimulates growth and the sort that fastens on society the dead hand of bureaucratic routine or the suckers of sterile vested interests. We should by now have learned that the road must be kept open for experiment. We should have begun to learn that no society is stronger than its weakest members. By our habit of government we are committed to trying to keep a rough balance between the demands of different sections of the population. We haven’t solved the problem of defending every man’s freedom against domination by other men, but we have made a little bit of a beginning.

The museum of socialist failures

The rest of the world is becoming a museum of socialist failures. Our first problem now is to understand clearly the needs of our society and its relationship to the shaky socialized regimes of Europe and to the regime of the law of the club that centers in the Soviet Union. To do this we must free our minds of the stale and rotting verbiage left over from the noble aspirations of oldtime socialist theory.

Parents of British Socialism

It was failure to see the world clearly on the part of Franklin Roosevelt and his advisers that deprived us of the fruits of our wartime victory to the point that the things Americans hold most dear are in greater peril today than on the dreadful afternoon of Pearl Harbor. The responsibility for this loss of the peace lies not only in  the small group of political leaders in Washington but the whole body of thinking Americans whose thinking had just not caught up with the times.

The basic reason for this national failure was that as a nation we had forgotten that our sort of self-governing community can survive only in a world where new avenues for men’s ingenuity and enterprise are constantly opening up and where the areas of individual liberty are expanding. We had forgotten that liberty, like peace, is indivisible. We had forgotten that the only sensible foreign policy for the U.S. was to encourage liberty and oppose oppression.

While not forgetting our own shortcomings, if we are to catch up with the times and to see clearly the hideous world of growing servitude—a world of slavery like chattel slavery in the old South and the slavery of ancient times—which we have helped produce, we must understand the workings of the enemies of liberty and peace. The chief of these, in power and efficacy, is the government of the Soviet Union.

Wilson and Lenin

When the communist revolution exploded in Russia in the fall of 1917 the first World War had settled down to a stalemate along the trenches in northern France. The stubborn resistance the French were putting up to the equally stubborn German invasion was bleeding Europe to death. Among the rank and file of all the armies the feeling of mutiny against the senselessness of the butchery was rising to desperation. At that time two separate flares of hope appeared on the eastern and western horizons. In Washington Woodrow Wilson announced his Fourteen Points and in Petrograd Lenin and Trotsky fired the hungry and disorganized Russian mobs with the belief that communism would bring them peace, land and food. No one who was in Europe in 1917 and 18 can ever forget the surge of crazy confidence in the future that swept the Continent when Armistice Day came and the fighting stopped.

The people’s trust in the American way faded as Wilson let himself be trapped into the stale committee rooms of the old men or councils. To many of us at the time these soviets  seemed to be a new organ for self-government. For a moment it looked as if the working class under the Marxist leadership would succeed in renovating Europe.

It was not to be so easy. The old vested interests of Europe banded together for their own protection; by backing the reactionaries in the Russian civil war they ruined the hopes of free development for the new social system. The Communist party hardened fast into a military caste. The soviets and trade unions in the Soviet Union, instead of developing into organs of self-government, developed into machines run by tightly organized and fanatically dogmatic Marxist minority for the domination and exploitation of the masses. Lenin threw overboard the humanitarian baggage of Western socialism, and act symbolized in the transfer of the capital from European Petrograd to Asiatic Moscow. The civil war became a struggle for order, any kind of order. The only order the Russians knew was despotism. From the czarist autocracy the Communist government inherited the secret police. Individual liberty had hardly a breathing spell before it was stamped out again, first in the unorganized mass of people and then, as Stalin struggled for power against Trotsky, within the communist minority itself.

By the early ‘30s the social organization of the Soviet Union resembled much more the slave-run military autocracy of the Ottoman Turks than it did any of the European blueprints for a socialist utopia. This reaction to methods of government that had gradually been losing favor among civilized men for 500 years was accompanied by the building up of one of the most extraordinary propaganda facades in history. A constitution was promulgated on the Western model. The entire vocabulary of Western self-government was borrowed and applied to the machinery of despotism.

Utopia—with secret police

By killing off the old European trained Communists and exiling Trotsky, Stalin cleared out of the old Kremlin the last traces of Western humanitarianism. The organization of a free self-governing socialist community, which had been the first aim of the Russian revolutionists, was pushed forward in the future, when the millennium should come. Through the pull of this millennial dream Stalin’s regime managed to retain its grip over the aspirations of a large part of European working class. The Communist party, appealing through this basic utopian dogma to the emotions of confused and tortured people, backed and kept in line by the ruthless and skillfully exercised authority of the secret police, managed to create one of the most efficient machines for dominating and exploiting of mankind the world has ever seen.

It seems likely, from what we hear faintly through the screen of lies that hems in the Soviet Union, that there the illusions have lost their power in the face of the regime’s failure to produce even the rudiments of decent living for its subjects, and that the Kremlin now rules a depraved and exhausted people by brute force. Outside the Soviet Union, however, the utopian illusions of Communism still dominate many men’s hopes and dreams. Even some Americans opposed to the communists still talk as if it were an excess of progressiveness and idealism that caused Russian socialism to fail. We find Frenchmen and Americans and Canadians, in all other respects apparently capable of sane and normal thinking, who are willing to turn their backs on the traditions they were brought up in and to give their allegiance to the Kremlin, even to the point of committing treason. The success of the aggressions by the Soviet state in the last few years rests in great part on the Kremlin’s command over the adherents and sympathizers in the outside world. Largely because the rest of the world has not understood it the Russian socialized state has been allowed to develop into a military force for pillage and conquest. Still the faith of many of our “liberals” in the Kremlin’s idealistic aims has not faltered.

Those of us who believed in socialism in the ‘20s hoped it would promote self-government, expand individual liberty and make for a wider distribution of the good things of life. It is obvious even to Mr. Henry Wallace that the Soviet Union is not the place to look for these things. Not even the American communists really claim any of these achievements; what they say among themselves is that present miseries will be atoned for by the regime of justice and bliss that will be established once communism has completed its conquest of the world.

The Russians are barbarians, the Western socialists will tell you; in England it will be different.

Father of American Socialism

How different is it? If you go around Great Britain asking questions of as many different kinds of people as possible, as I did last summer, you sense that in its ultimate implications British socialism is turning out to be not so very different from the Russian brand. Of course there’s not the gory police terror of Stalin nor the Hitlerian pomp and parade through which the Kremlin daily expresses its power over the bodies and minds of men. There’s not the proselytizing enthusiasm of a quasi-religious dogma that accompanies the agents and armies of expanding Russia. There’s not the daily and visible and universal servitude; but neither has the socialism brought any broadening of personal liberty. On the contrary: personal liberty in Great Britain has been contracted.

The very humane and well-intentioned people who are running the Labor government are the first to deplore the losses of liberty you bring to their attention. They reassure you with pious hopes that the “direction of labor” measure, which limits the individual’s right to work where or when he likes, will be only a passing phase. Listening to the pious hopes, I couldn’t help remembering similar reassurances from equally humane and well-intentioned Russian communists who used to tell me, in the early days, that military communism was a passing phase which would disappear as soon as reactionary opposition was crushed. Thirty years have gone by, and military communism marches on to fresh massacres. A man has a right to ask the British Labor party whether 30 years from now direction of labor won’t be the cornerstone of a new system of exploitation of the productive workers by a new ruling class.

If there is one thing that mankind should have learned from the agonies of the last four decades it is that it’s never safe to do evil that good may come of it. The good gets lost and the evil goes on.

Distribution of poverty

Of course we must admit that the present situation of the people of Great Britain would be difficult enough if a choir of archangels, superhuman in brains and in self-abnegation, had assumed the government. The island’s economy was built up as the processing and financing center of an empire, which has irrevocably gone. The class that had ruled that economy through control of government, ownership of the land and domination of centralized finance and industry had become overweening rich and powerful. In their wealth and self-satisfaction the owners of Britain neglected to keep their industries tooled up to date or to protect the standard of living of their working people or to conserve their natural resources. When the Labor government came in after the war it inherited a concern that had long been bankrupt.

Government control of virtually the entire economy had already been instituted during the war. About all the Labor government has done is to amplify the wartime apparatus of bureaucratic management. The living standards of the working people who were Labor’s chief constituents had improved during the war, and the Labor government has continued that improvement, particularly for the lowest-paid third. Because there isn’t enough to go around anyway, this has been done at the expense of the middle class, traditionally the nursery of British brains and initiative. Virtually everybody has been reduced by high taxes and high prices to the same bare level of subsistence. Incentive for effort and innovation has tended to disappear. A man is better off if he soldiers along in the shop and spends his Saturdays betting on the races than if he works himself sick trying to rise in the world. The more his income rises the more taxation will take his earnings away from him and the more he’ll feel the dead weight of the bureaucratic tangle hampering his every move.

Bernard Baruch’s remark that socialism might not succeed in distributing wealth, but would certainly distribute poverty, has never been better exemplified. Up to now socialism in Great Britain has accomplished very little more than to freeze the bankrupt capitalist economy at its point of collapse. Its bureaucratic machinery, operating along the lines of the machinery of bankrupt capitalism, has not been able to stimulate the sort of revolutionary initiative thoroughgoing reorganization of the economy that might give the British people a chance to escape from their dilemma. Socialism has acted as a brake instead of as a stimulus to enterprise.

Man does not live by bread alone, the socialists will tell you. The answer is that as strong as the urge to eat, is the urge to exercise power over other men. In the past British institutions have done a moderately good job in curbing this deadliest of insticts. But in spite of political democracy British capitalism too often gave too much power to people whose only social gift was the knack of accumulating money. Now British socialism gives too much power to people whose only knack is getting themselves elected to offices in trade unions. At the same time the liberty movement and the freedom of action that allowed people to escape from under the heel of the capitalist have been seriously weakened.

The wrong leaders

England has a new ruling class. Added to such remnants of the old ruling class as have remained in office through holding administrative jobs in government, industry and the civil service, is an infusion of new blood from the trade-union leadership, leavened by an occasional intellectual who has talked or written his way into office. Now, the main training of trade-union officials is in hamstringing production for the purpose of wringing concessions from the owners for the workers. Neither idealistic intellectuals nor civil service employees have any training in industrial production. The result is that at the very moment when the British people need to throw all their energy into discovering new ways of production and training from doing anything effective to stimulate production. In recent months there has developed a tendency to give technicians an increasingly bigger share in policy-making, but on the whole Britain’s new ruling class tends to be so blinded by the utopian glamour of the word “socialism” that it has found it difficult to envisage the problem which confronts the nation.

Well if the government can’t help them, why can’t they help themselves? The British people, in my opinion, represent in themselves at this moment just about the highest development of Western civilized man. In the middle and upper classes you find a higher level of education than we have reached in America. The level of individual skill and craftsmanship in most trades is higher than ours. In the professionally trained part of the population, though there may be some flagging of creative spirit, there’s still a great reservoir of first-rate brains. The British people proved themselves to be still a great people by the dignity and discipline with which they fought off the German air attacks during the war. This great highly trained, highly disciplined and civilized nation is in danger of dying of inanition because in all the elaborate structure of the state there are so few cracks left where individual initiative can take hold.

The British will tell you that they are “quite free, quite.” But we don’t need to believe them. When a man can’t change his job without permission from someone sitting at an office desk, when he can’t perform any of the normal operations of buying and selling necessary to carrying on a business without a complicated correspondence to secure licenses from the Board of Trade, when he can’t appeal to the courts from administrative decisions, when he can be sentenced to jail for refusing to work in the mines, he’s no longer a free agent. The Briton still has his secret ballot in parliamentary and municipal elections. He’s free because he can vote, he’ll tell you. Unfortunately the record of history tends to prove that it’s very doubtful whether the vote alone, without economic and personal liberty of action, has ever protected any people against the exercise of arbitrary power.

A sinister footnote to the loss of concern for individual liberty that seems inevitably to follow the socialization of enterprise appears in the growing toleration of new forms of slavery. We are growing used to the stories of the vast slave camps in the Soviet Union and its satellite countries, but it comes somewhat as a shock to find the humane British tolerating the use of gangs of German prisoners to do agricultural labor. In all my conversation with farmers in England last summer I found only one man who disapproved of the practice. The farmers paid the prisoners nothing more than pocket money. The farmers found that they got more work out of prisoners if they fed them a hot meal in the middle of the day, but they didn’t seem to feel that the working of prisoners of war in this way constituted a backsliding in civilization; most of them regretted that the prisoners would soon be sent home. The wages of agricultural workers in England have been much improved in recent years and the socialists take justifiable pride in this achievement. The question they didn’t ask themselves when they tolerated the enslavement of the defeated Germans was how long a highly paid plowman or tractor operator would be able to compete with slave labor.

This brings us squarely up against the dilemma of our time. Under the cover of the dazzle of socialist illusions, and just at the moment when our technology is opening up the certainty of really widespread well-being in material things, the masses of mankind are being plunged back into a regime of misery and servitude such as has not existed in the West since the days of serfdom. We can’t  go on forever blaming on war damage a situation that results from the fact that socialized economics, instead of opening up new aspects of self-government and broader reaches of liberty for the individual, have backslid with dizzy speed into aboriginal oppressions. In the Soviet Union, failure to solve the problems of production at home has thrown Russian communism into a dangerous habit of aggression upon the rest of the world. As for Great Britain, we can hope they will find a way to combine socialism with liberty, or at least that the failure of socialized economy to provide its people with a decent life at home will produce a new explosion of British migration and colonization that will transmit to the future world of the West the valuable heritages from English culture. In America what we don’t want to forget is that we won’t have any Western world fit for a free man to live in unless we keep the avenues open for freedom and growth of individual man in the constantly proliferating hierarchical structure of modern industry.

Enemy of Socialism

Socialism is not the answer, we’ve got to do better than that.

This article was published in  magazine Jan 19, 1948. With Barack Obama and the modern democrat party we see history repeating itself, why do we want to establish in America which has been the greatest engine for the promotion of man and his ambitions with a failed concept that has been tried again and again with the same history of utter failure. You can see the results of socialism more pronounced now than at any other time in history, you need only to look at what is happening in Greece, France, Spain, etc.  It is apparent throughout the world socialism, marxism, communism, fascism, leninism, etc., are truly the “failed policies of the past.” All the democrats ever put forth are the “failed policies of the past” or while they do not offer solutions themselves, they simply demonize republican solutions, then blame the republicans for being obstructionists. Ridiculous!

See also:

The Marxist Roots of Black Liberation Theology, The Doctrine of Victimolgy

Victimology 101

Mussolini

The Doctrine of Fascism, Fascism Defined by Benito Mussolini

Fascism is absolute government control over private business; socialism is absolute government control over nationalized business. Both are huge-government liberalism, and no where near a conservative, capitalist society. Just as the left in America have tried to define and redefine moral and immoral behavior to suit their own agenda, so too, do the fascist, their agenda being that of the State.

The establishment GOP and the Democrat party have made U.S.A. a fascist nation, Political Correctness, Climate Change & Islam are the state endorsed religions. In doing so they have completely subverted, undermined and made the Constitution ineffective and void. A federal judge recently ruled that prayers before a state House of Representatives could be to Allah but not to Jesus.

I say they have made it Fascist, granted it may not be completely so at this point, but we are fast getting completely there. Fascism is absolute government control over private business, they do not have absolute control yet, although it could be argued they really do have it indeed. They control business by burdensome regulations, laws, corporate cronyism, using the power of government to limit competition, using it to force companies to act in the manner in which the federal government decides they should, there are many aspects to this in the federal and state governments.

In very broad strokes, socialism is an economic system in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy. While the word socialism is sometimes used interchangeably with communism, the two aren’t technically the same, communism is simply a more extreme form of socialism.

Communism advocates the “collective ownership of property and the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.” While communism is first and foremost an economic system, it’s also a political ideology that rejects religion. And just as communism is a form of socialism, Marxism, Maoism, and Leninism are branches of communism.

Like socialism and communism, fascism uses a central authority to maintain control, but terror and censorship are common. It results from economic failure in democratic political systems. They are all based on government control over the individual and the denial of the individual in favor of the “whole”. However as with all of them, the “whole” ends up consisting only of those who are in power positions and in government.

Keynesian economics, fascism and socialism;

Mussolini personally set his approval and signature over a book which proclaims:

“Fascism entirely agrees with Mr. Maynard Keynes, despite the latter’s prominent position as a [so called] Liberal. In fact, Mr. Keynes’ excellent little book, The End of Laissez-Faire (l926) might, so far as it goes, serve as a useful introduction to fascist economics. There is scarcely anything to object to in it and there is much to applaud..”

Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power. – Mussolini

Keynes himself admired the Nazi economic program, writing in the foreword to the German edition to the General Theory (1936): “[T]he theory of output as a whole, which is what the following book purports to provide, is much more easily adapted to the conditions of a totalitarian state, than is the theory of production and distribution of a given output produced under the conditions of free competition and a large measure of laissez-faire.” – John Maynard Keynes

Hitler was named “Man of the Year” in 1938 by Time Magazine. They noted Hitler’s anti-capitalistic economic policies.
“Most cruel joke of all, however, has been played by Hitler & Co. on those German capitalists and small businessmen who once backed National Socialism as a means of saving Germany’s bourgeois economic structure from radicalism. The Nazi credo that the individual belongs to the state also applies to business. Some businesses have been confiscated outright, on other what amounts to a capital tax has been levied. Profits have been strictly controlled. Some idea of the increasing Governmental control and interference in business could be deduced from the fact that 80% of all building and 50% of all industrial orders in Germany originated last year with the Government. Hard-pressed for food- stuffs as well as funds, the Nazi regime has taken over large estates and in many instances collectivized agriculture, a procedure fundamentally similar to Russian Communism.” (Source: Time Magazine; Jaunuary 2, 1939.)

Keynesian economics facilitates government intervention and regulation of the market. That’s why it appeals to socialists, fascists, communists, statists, i.e. leftists.

The chief Nazi newspaper, Volkischer Beobachter, repeatedly praised “Roosevelt’s adoption of National Socialist strains of thought in his economic and social policies” and “the development toward an authoritarian state” based on the “demand that collective good be put before individual self-interest.”

Mussolini saw the connection of FDR and himself: In a laudatory review of Roosevelt’s 1933 book Looking Forward, Mussolini wrote, “Reminiscent of Fascism is the principle that the state no longer leaves the economy to its own devices. … Without question, the mood accompanying this sea change resembles that of Fascism.”

Fascism is the religion of Statism: “The Doctrine of Fascism” 1932 Author: Mussolini, Benito.

In the Fascist conception of history, man is man only by virtue of the spiritual process to which he contributes as a member of the family, the social group, the nation, and in function of history to which all nations bring their contribution. Hence the great value of tradition in records, in language, in customs, in the rules of social life. Outside history man is a nonentity. Fascism is therefore opposed to all individualistic abstractions based on eighteenth century materialism; and it is opposed to all Jacobinistic Utopias and innovations. It does not believe in the possibility of “happiness” on earth as conceived by the economistic literature of the XVIIIth century, and it therefore rejects the theological notion that at some future time the human family will secure a final settlement of all its difficulties. This notion runs counter to experience which teaches that life is in continual flux and in process of evolution. In politics Fascism aims at realism; in practice it desires to deal only with those problems which are the spontaneous product of historic conditions and which find or suggest their own solutions. Only by entering in to the process of reality and taking possession of the forces at work within it, can man act on man and on nature.

Anti-individualistic, the Fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with those of the State, which stands for the conscience and the universal, will of man as a historic entity. It is opposed to classical liberalism which arose as a reaction to absolutism and exhausted its historical function when the State became the expression of the conscience and will of the people. Liberalism denied the State in the name of the individual; Fascism reasserts the rights of the State as expressing the real essence of the individual. And if liberty is to be the attribute of living men and not of abstract dummies invented by individualistic liberalism, then Fascism stands for liberty, and for the only liberty worth having, the liberty of the State and of the individual within the State. The Fascist conception of the State is all embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. Thus understood, Fascism, is totalitarian, and the Fascist State – a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values – interprets, develops, and potentates the whole life of a people.

No individuals or groups (political parties, cultural associations, economic unions, social classes) outside the State. Fascism is therefore opposed to Socialism to which unity within the State (which amalgamates classes into a single economic and ethical reality) is unknown, and which sees in history nothing but the class struggle. Fascism is likewise opposed to trade unionism as a class weapon. But when brought within the orbit of the State, Fascism recognizes the real needs which gave rise to socialism and trade unionism, giving them due weight in the guild or corporative system in which divergent interests are coordinated and harmonized in the unity of the State.

Mussolini

Notice the arrogant stance and look on the face of all dictators. See pic at bottom of the post

Just as the modern democrat party is made up of various minority groups, including unions, who have joined together with the State to eliminate the individual in America and bring about centralized State control. Mussolini was a union boss and activist who was expelled from Trentino by the Austrians for his union activities. In Italy under the Fascists, Mussolini was Chairman of the “National Council of Corporations”. Formed in 1924, it established 22 “corporations” overseen by representatives of workers and owners. Strikes were forbidden, as were lockouts. Contrary to current leftist rhetoric, Mussolini loved unions, he used them and they him just as the modern unions and democrat party do in the U.S. today.

Grouped according to their several interests, individuals form classes; they form trade-unions when organized according to their several economic activities; but first and foremost they form the State, which is no mere matter of numbers, the sums of the individuals forming the majority. Fascism is therefore opposed to that form of democracy which equates a nation to the majority, lowering it to the level of the largest number; but it is the purest form of democracy if the nation be considered as it should be from the point of view of quality rather than quantity, as an idea, the mightiest because the most ethical, the most coherent, the truest, expressing itself in a people as the conscience and will of the few, if not, indeed, of one, and ending to express itself in the conscience and the will of the mass, of the whole group ethnically molded by natural and historical conditions into a nation, advancing, as one conscience and one will, along the self same line of development and spiritual formation. Not a race, nor a geographically defined region, but a people, historically perpetuating itself; a multitude unified by an idea and imbued with the will to live, the will to power, self-consciousness, personality.

In so far as it is embodied in a State, this higher personality becomes a nation. It is not the nation which generates the State; that is an antiquated naturalistic concept which afforded a basis for 19th century publicity in favor of national governments. Rather is it the State which creates the nation, conferring volition and therefore real life on a people made aware of their moral unity.

The right to national independence does not arise from any merely literary and idealistic form of self-consciousness; still less from a more or less passive and unconscious de facto situation, but from an active, self-conscious, political will expressing itself in action and ready to prove its rights. It arises, in short, from the existence, at least in fieri, of a State. Indeed, it is the State which, as the expression of a universal ethical will, creates the right to national independence.

Mussolini Time mag

Time Magazine 1936

A nation, as expressed in the State, is a living, ethical entity only in so far as it is progressive. Inactivity is death. Therefore the State is not only Authority which governs and confers legal form and spiritual value on individual wills, but it is also Power which makes its will felt and respected beyond its own frontiers, thus affording practical proof of the universal character of the decisions necessary to ensure its development. This implies organization and expansion, potential if not actual. Thus the State equates itself to the will of man, whose development cannot he checked by obstacles and which, by achieving self-expression, demonstrates its infinity.

[Fascism is:] A party governing a nation “totalitarianly” is a new departure in history. There are no points of reference or of comparison. From beneath the ruins of liberal, socialist, and democratic doctrines, Fascism extracts those elements which are still vital. It preserves what may be described as “the acquired facts” of history; it rejects all else. That is to say, it rejects the idea of a doctrine suited to all times and to all people. 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. It is quite logical for a new doctrine to make use of the still vital elements of other doctrines. No doctrine was ever born quite new and bright and unheard of. No doctrine can boast absolute originality. It is always connected, it only historically, with those which preceded it and those which will follow it. Thus the scientific socialism of Marx links up to the Utopian socialism of the Fouriers, the Owens, the Saint-Simons ; thus the liberalism of the 19th century traces its origin back to the illuministic movement of the 18th, and the doctrines of democracy to those of the Encyclopaedists. All doctrines aim at directing the activities of men towards a given objective; but these activities in their turn react on the doctrine, modifying and adjusting it to new needs, or outstripping it. A doctrine must therefore be a vital act and not a verbal display. Hence the pragmatic strain in Fascism, its will to power, its will to live, its attitude toward violence, and its value.

The keystone of the Fascist doctrine is its conception of the State, of its essence, its functions, and its aims. For Fascism the State is absolute, individuals and groups relative. Individuals and groups are admissible in so far as they come within the State. Instead of directing the game and guiding the material and moral progress of the community, the liberal State restricts its activities to recording results. The Fascist State is wide awake and has a will of its own. For this reason it can be described as “ethical”.

At the first quinquennial assembly of the regime, in 1929, I [Mussolini] said “The Fascist State is not a night watchman, solicitous only of the personal safety of the citizens; nor is it organized exclusively for the purpose of guarantying a certain degree of material prosperity and relatively peaceful conditions of life, a board of directors would do as much. Neither is it exclusively political, divorced from practical realities and holding itself aloof from the multifarious activities of the citizens and the nation. The State, as conceived and realized by Fascism, is a spiritual and ethical entity for securing the political, juridical, and economic organization of the nation, an organization which in its origin and growth is a manifestation of the spirit. The State guarantees the internal and external safety of the country, but it also safeguards and transmits the spirit of the people, elaborated down the ages in its language, its customs, its faith. The State is not only the present; it is also the past and above all the future. Transcending the individual’s brief spell of life, the State stands for the immanent conscience of the nation. The forms in which it finds expression change, but the need for it remains. The State educates the citizens to civism, makes them aware of their mission, urges them to unity; its justice harmonizes their divergent interests; it transmits to future generations the conquests of the mind in the fields of science, art, law, human solidarity; it leads men up from primitive tribal life to that highest manifestation of human power, imperial rule. The State hands down to future generations the memory of those who laid down their lives to ensure its safety or to obey its laws; it sets up as examples and records for future ages the names of the captains who enlarged its territory and of the men of genius who have made it famous. Whenever respect for the State declines and the disintegrating and centrifugal tendencies of individuals and groups prevail, nations are headed for decay”.

Dictator-Obama

The following statement is embedded in a speech delivered by Mussolini at Naples, October 24, 1912:

WE HAVE created our myth. The myth is a faith, it is passion. It is not necessary that it shall be a reality. It is a reality by the fact that it is a good, a hope, a faith, that it is courage. Our myth is the Nation, our myth is the greatness of the Nation! And to this myth, to this grandeur, that we wish to translate into a complete reality, we subordinate all the rest.

From Michael J. Oakeshott:
The Social and Political Doctrines of Contemporary Europe, pp. 164-8.
Copyright 1939 by Cambridge University Press.

Benito Mussolini (1883-1945), Duce of fascist Italy from 1922 to 1945, needs no introduction. The following selections are from his article entitled “The Doctrine of Fascism” which appeared in the Italian Encyclopedia of 1932.

THERE IS no concept of the State which is not fundamentally a concept of life: philosophy or intuition, a system of ideas which develops logically or is gathered up into a vision or into a faith, but which is always, at least virtually, an organic conception of the world.

1. Thus fascism could not be understood in many of its practical manifestations as a party organization, as a system of education, as a discipline, if it were not always looked at in the light of its whole way of conceiving life, a spiritualized way. The world seen through Fascism is not this material world which appears on the surface, in which man is an individual separated from all others and standing by himself, and in which he is governed by a natural law that makes him instinctively live a life of selfish and momentary pleasure. The man of Fascism is an individual who is nation and fatherland, which is a moral law, binding together individuals and the generations into a tradition and a mission, suppressing the instinct for a life enclosed within the brief round of pleasure in order to restore within duty a higher life free from the limits of time and space: a life in which the individual, through the denial of himself, through the sacrifice of his own private interests, through death itself, realizes that completely spiritual existence in which his value as a man lies.

3. Therefore it is a spiritualized conception, itself the result of the general reaction of modem times against the flabby materialistic positivism of the nineteenth century. Anti-positivistic, but positive: not skeptical, nor agnostic, nor pessimistic, nor passively optimistic, as arc, in general, the doctrines (all negative) that put the centric of life outside man, who with his free will can and must create his own world. Fascism desires an active man, one engaged in activity with all his energies: it desires a man virilely conscious of the difficulties that exist in action and ready to face them. It conceives of life as a struggle, considering that it behooves man to conquer for himself that life truly worthy of him, creating first of all in himself the instrument (physical, moral, intellectual) in order to construct it. Thus for the single individual, thus for the nation, thus for humanity. Hence the high value of culture in all its forms (art, religion, science), and the enormous importance of education. Hence also the essential value of work, with which man conquers nature and creates the human world (economic, political, moral, intellectual).

4. This positive conception of life is clearly an ethical conception. It covers the whole of reality, not merely the human activity which controls it. No action can be divorced from moral judgment; there is nothing in the world which can be deprived of the value which belongs to everything in its relation to moral ends. Life, therefore, as conceived by the Fascist, is serious, austere, religious: the whole of it is poised in a world supported by the moral and responsible forces of the spirit. The Fascist disdains the “comfortable” life.

5. Fascism is a religious conception in which man is seen in his immanent relationship with a superior law and with an objective Will that transcends the particular individual and raises him to conscious membership of a spiritual society. Whoever has seen in the religious politics of the Fascist regime nothing but mere opportunism has not understood that Fascism besides being a system of government is also, and above all, a system of thought.

6. Fascism is an historical conception in which man is what he is only in so far as he works with the spiritual process in which he finds himself, in the family or social group, in the nation and in the history in which all nations collaborate. From this follows the great value of tradition, in memories, in language, in customs, in the standards of social life. Outside history man is nothing. consequently Fascism is opposed to all the individualistic abstractions of a materialistic nature like those of the eighteenth century; and it is opposed to all Jacobin utopias and innovations. It does not consider that “happiness” is possible upon earth, as it appeared to be in the desire of the economic literature of the eighteenth century, and hence it rejects all teleological theories according to which mankind would reach a definitive stabilized condition at a certain period in history. This implies putting oneself outside history and life, which is a continual change and coming to be. Politically, Fascism wishes to be a realistic doctrine; practically, it aspires to solve only the problems which arise historically of themselves and that of themselves find or suggest their own solution. To act among men, as to act in the natural world, it is necessary to enter into the process of reality and to master the already operating forces.

7. Against individualism, the Fascist conception is for the State; and it is for the individual in so far as he coincides with the State, which is the conscience and universal will of man in his historical existence. It is opposed to classical Liberalism, which arose from the necessity of reacting against absolutism, and which brought its historical purpose to an end when the State was transformed into the conscience and will of the people. Liberalism denied the State in the interests of the particular individual; Fascism reaffirms the State as the true reality of the individual. And if liberty is to be the attribute of the real man, and not of that abstract puppet envisaged by individualistic Liberalism, Fascism is for liberty. And for the only liberty which can be a real thing, the liberty of the State and of the individual within the State. Therefore, for the Fascist, everything is in the State, and nothing human or spiritual exists, much less has value,-outside the State. In this sense Fascism is totalitarian, and the Fascist State, the synthesis and unity of all values, interprets, develops and gives strength to the whole life of the people.

8. Outside the State there can be neither individuals nor groups (political parties, associations, syndicates, classes). Therefore Fascism is opposed to Socialism, which confines the movement of history within the class struggle and ignores the unity of classes established in one economic and moral reality in the State; . . .

9. Individuals form classes according to the similarity of their interests, they form syndicates according to differentiated economic activities within these interests; but they form first, and above all, the State, which is not to be thought of numerically as the sum-total of individuals forming the majority of a nation. And consequently Fascism is opposed to Democracy, which equates the nation to the majority, lowering it to the level of that majority; nevertheless it is the purest form of democracy if the nation is conceived, as it should be, qualitatively and not quantitatively, as the most powerful idea (most powerful because most moral, most coherent, most true) which acts within the nation as the conscience and the will of a few, even of One, which ideal tends to become active within the conscience and the will of all — that is to say, of all those who rightly constitute a nation by reason of nature, history or race, and have set out upon the same line of development and spiritual formation as one conscience and one sole will. Not a race, nor a geographically determined region, but as a community historically perpetuating itself a multitude unified by a single idea, which is the will to existence and to power: consciousness of itself, personality.

10. This higher personality is truly the nation in so far as it is the State. It k not the nation that generates the State, as according to the old naturalistic concept which served as the basis of the political theories of the national States of the nineteenth century. Rather the nation is created by the State, which gives to the people, conscious of its own moral unity, a will and therefore an effective existence. The right of a nation to independence derives not from a literary and ideal consciousness of its own being, still less from a more or less unconscious and inert acceptance of a de facto situation, but from an active consciousness, from a political will in action and ready to demonstrate its own rights: that is to say, from a state already coming into being. The State, in fact, as the universal ethical will, is the creator of right.

1 l. The nation as the State is an ethical reality which exists and lives in so far as it develops. To arrest its development is to kill it. Therefore the State is not only the authority which governs and gives the form of laws and the value of spiritual life to the wills of individuals, but it is also a power that makes its will felt abroad, making it known and respected, in other words demonstrating the fact of its universality in all the necessary directions of its development. It is consequently organization and expansion, at least virtually. Thus it can be likened to the human will which knows no limits to its development and realizes itself in testing its own limitlessness.

12. The Fascist State, the highest and most powerful form of personality, is a force, but a spiritual force, which takes over all the forms of the moral and intellectual life of man. It cannot therefore confine itself simply to the functions of order and supervision as Liberalism desired. It is not simply a mechanism which limits the sphere of the supposed liberties of the individual. It is the form, the inner standard and the discipline of the whole person; it saturates the will as well as the intelligence. Its principle, the central inspiration of the human personality living in the civil community, pierces into the depths and makes its home in the heart of the man of action as well as of the thinker, of the artist as well as of the scientist: it is the soul of the soul.

13. Fascism, in short, is not only the giver of laws and the founder of institutions, but the educator and promoter of spiritual life. It wants to remake, not the forms of human life, but its content, man, character, faith. And to this end it requires discipline and authority that can enter into the spirits of men and there govern unopposed. Its sign, therefore, is the Lictors’ rods, the symbol of unity, of strength and justice.

There’s a Long History of Wanna-be Dictators Like Obama

Little dictators: From the beginning of civilization, we have had men, who thought they were smarter, more clever, and had more insight than others on what the masses needed, including the masses themselves, both as a mass and as individuals. These same elite, and their fanatical followers, tried to force their dictates on those same masses. These elite were much more concerned though, with the control of the people that they were supposedly helping. They planned, how they could manipulate or dictate to the people through subterfuge and coercion, to gain power and control for themselves. They say, they do it all in the name of good intentions and compassion. We are faced with this today, when the journalistic, academic, business, and political elite in this country, have tried, and succeeded to a certain extent.

As I have been reading Reagan’s, and the Founding Fathers speeches and writings, it strikes me that we are fighting the same ideas, the same failed policies that he, and they also fought against. Policies and ideas that at this time in history, as no other, we can see around the world what these same ideas and policies have done. You look at France, Greece, Britain, the old USSR, North Vietnam, any of the countries that put communist or socialistic ideas and policies into practice, depending on how far they went down those dark paths, corresponds to the amount of suffering the people have endured, and are going through. Isn’t it something that it’s the people, i.e. the Masses, who always suffer while those same elites, you know “The smartest people in the room” are the only ones who prosper, all in the name of good intentions and compassion.

They’ll tell you, the ideas are good, it’s just the implementation of them, or the people in charge didn’t do it right. They didn’t go far enough or they became corrupt. I say they were corrupt to begin with. How many times, in how many ways, in how many different places, and, by how many different people, have to try these ideas and policies, AND fail, before the supposed smartest among us, (and those among us, who believe them) can figure out what all us simpletons can so easily see, and figure out? It’s more plain today, than at anytime in history, how these programs fail, it’s as plain as the nose on your face, to those with any amount of God given common sense. As I read these speeches and writings, I am struck by how this fight is never going to be over, how we must be forever vigilant and never forget….Power corrupts, and absolute power, corrupts absolutely. This is the beginning of a series of studies I am going to write about.

P.S. For those who look at China as an ideal nation like Barack Obama does….Do not forget to begin being prosperous, as they have been the last number of years, it took the USA helping them, and them implementing capitalistic policies to gain what they have. Considering the lack of freedom there, they are also doomed to eventual failure, just as the old Soviet Union went down on the ash heap of history.

Open letter to Speaker Boehner and the Republican party

Dear Mr. Speaker,

Let’s have a heart to heart! We the American people have compromised with the GOP while they put forth RINOS for us to elect.. While we compromised with the GOP and held our noses at the voting booth, the GOP were busy compromising with the democrats (more like demo-rats). Now you politicians have got us into a hole that it is going to take more than a generation to get us out of.

Is it REALLY ANY WONDER WHY,?,,,we don’t buy your arguments anymore? We stood by the GOP, while the GOP broke their promises time after time! They have been wishy-washy, and have sold WE THE PEOPLE out too many times! They did not stand for conservative principles, and now this country is on the brink of financial ruin.

When the GOP was in charge, WE THE PEOPLE by 70%+, told you we were sick of the tricks on the amnesty issue, the democrats did not listen to us at all, and the GOP did not listen, until they felt the noose around their necks, if they did not! We are sick and tired of the broken promises and lies!

We are sick of the compromise!!! If we wanted compromise, we would not have had a landslide victory, this last election (2010) for the Tea Party people, and republicans elected in places they hadn’t been voted in for a century! I cannot tell you how angry this is making us!

If the GOP doesn’t refuse to compromise with the demo-rats, we are simply going to replace the GOP with those who will!

Do not give me the 3rd party talking points! 3rd party option is strictly up to you in the GOP!! It is the choices you in the GOP make now, that is going to determine whether the 3rd party option is implemented! Do not think, this time, if the GOP does not stand with the tea party and conservatives, that it will be like 3rd party candidates in the past!

The sleeping giant is awake, and we, (I cannot stress this too much) are coming after the Dems, and the GOP Rinos! Those who do not stand with America, and the tea party now, are going to be swept aside in the next few elections!

Unlike the GOP, We the People do not go wobbly! We do not give in! Give up! Nor back down! We will take our country back, from the D.C. eastern corridor establishment, and we will put the power back in the hands of the American people!

Do not think we will fail America, like the GOP has failed us so many times in the past! We will do whatever it takes to take our country back! Do not doubt me!!! We are sick and tired of the same old dog and pony show!

Cut spending now! Start with the U.N., and the alphabet soup agencies that function only to oppress and restrict us the American people! Get the U.N. out of America, and America out of the U.N.!

Find out who knew what, when, on the fast & furious thing, and jail all those involved! If you do not listen to us! We will not listen to you! It is that simple!

We are done with the low living, high minded people on the left coast, and on the leftist coast in the east, telling us how we need to live our lives, and trying to regulate everything we do! We will replace you! We will defeat you! And your legacies will haunt you to your graves!

Believe me, these are not just idle words sir! Please understand this! We do not want to see a 3rd party option either! We are a Republic built on Republican Conservative Christian values! But if we must, to get the Republic back, without compromise! We will do what we have to do!

I hope you personally read these words sir! As long as you stand with us! We will stand with you! You compromise anymore with the Dems/leftist/progressives/​liberals! We will bowl you over with the stampede of new freshman in 2012! Do not think we will go back to sleep! Nor will we fail to take back our country! We are listening! We are watching! And we do mean business!

Do not think! That we the people, do not know that the first chance they get, that the GOP will sell us out farther, with the demo-rats on the amnesty issue! When 70% of the American people said, “no!”, you were all still hard of hearing! Lawlessness begets lawlessness! When you have people that have broken the law, to then be rewarded for doing so, you only encourage more of the same activity! We know why the Dems what so badly to make the 20 million illegal aliens in America legal, we know it is only for the votes that it will give them! It is unfair to those who legally immigrate to America, those who waited in line to come, to then have their citizenship cheapened, by those who break our laws to come here!

We are done with you, who compromise! It is that simple! We are simply done! You in the GOP, have this one last chance to do what is right! Do not fail us again! Do not fail America again!

Please sir, respectfully, I ask you to take these words to heart, America needs her patriotic sons, now more than any time since the revolution! She is hurt, and she is bleeding, but she is by no means out! We will not fail her, even if you in Washington do!

We are tired of Washington standing on ours, our children’s, and our grand-children’s necks, while Washington sells us out to numerous interests, around the world!

Please make us proud, and be inspiring, we are counting on you, in the GOP this one last time! Your time is now! Don’t “just do it”, “just do it right” for us, for God, for America!!!! May god have mercy on us all, and I pray that HE is still with us, because we have seen that Washington isn’t!

We the American people do not want to change America! We want to change Washington! We have counted on the GOP, too many times to help us do that! Almost, just as any times that we have counted on the GOP, in the last 100+ years, they have failed us! The only time in that period that they have not failed us! That time was when we had a true conservative named Reagan!

The age of Reagan is not over sir! The age of Reagan has only began to live! Though the Rinos in the GOP, and the Dems have tried to kill it! It still lives mightily in the hearts of we the people! It will not die! And we will overcome! As simple evidence that the age of Reagan is not over! All you have to do is look how the Dems invoke his name when they fail to get what they want otherwise!

STAND UP SIR! FOR US, FOR AMERICA! FOR THE PEOPLE!

Sincerely and God bless
R. Davis