Tag: Fascism is a collectivist disease like communism
Thomas Sowell again has a brilliant piece about whether Barack Obama is a socialist or fascist where he points out:
It bothers me a little when conservatives call Barack Obama a “socialist.” He certainly is an enemy of the free market, and wants politicians and bureaucrats to make the fundamental decisions about the economy. But that does not mean that he wants government ownership of the means of production, which has long been a standard definition of socialism.
What President Obama has been pushing for, and moving toward, is more insidious: government control of the economy, while leaving ownership in private hands. That way, politicians get to call the shots but, when their bright ideas lead to disaster, they can always blame those who own businesses in the private sector.
Politically, it is heads-I-win when things go right, and tails-you-lose when things go wrong. This is far preferable, from Obama’s point of view, since it gives him a variety of scapegoats for all his failed policies, without having to use President Bush as a scapegoat all the time.
The democratic party certainly has abandoned the concept of traditional socialist belief that state ownership of the means of production, unless you are one of Uncle Bernie’s retarded children, and has decided they can live quite well with control over the economic decision making process – the power to pick winners and losers behind a veneer of legality – coupled with a legal system, staffed with their cronies, that can be used as a weapon against their enemies, political or otherwise. Sowell is dead on that these crooks have chosen to run things in this way so they can take credit for things that go right, even if these happen despite their actions (think fracking, oil production, or energy production in the US), and lay blame with others when things go horribly wrong (think Obama administration period). In the mean time they can steal at their leisure (think TARP or Porkulous), making the rich they choose to favor richer, while both growing the dependent base that votes for them and destroying the middle class. From the article:
Government ownership of the means of production means that politicians also own the consequences of their policies, and have to face responsibility when those consequences are disastrous — something that Barack Obama avoids like the plague.
Thus the Obama administration can arbitrarily force insurance companies to cover the children of their customers until the children are 26 years old. Obviously, this creates favorable publicity for President Obama. But if this and other government edicts cause insurance premiums to rise, then that is something that can be blamed on the “greed” of the insurance companies.
Sowell gets it. I had several of the usual suspects point out that the only reason Obamacare is not working is resistance from evil republicans and corrupt business. These idiots used the exact same arguments Sowell mentions: the culprit is the profit makers, not the people that mandated a costly item without any stake in it. After all, the people that gave us this abomination said that they wanted to do good, so whenever things work out otherwise, it has to be someone else’s fault!
Remember that collectivism can only be made to function when it is a 2 cast system: the aristocracy and royals, and the serfs. The only equality these people can deliver constantly is equality of misery. That is not my opinion: it is history. Don’t be fooled by the temporary success some western democracies that embraced socialism have had so far either. Like California, once termed the promised land even in a prosperous US, sooner than later these socialist experiments will run out of other people’s money, and then things turn ugly. Like the frog put in water that is slowly brought to a boil, most of the sheeple will not even realize how the slow collapse of any collectivist system affects them until they are already cooked.
And don’t let any of the usual collectivists try to confuse you with that nonsense that fascism is rightwing. Acceptance by so many people that fascism isn’t just another flavor of collectivism because it was categorized as right of communism was one of the greatest snow jobs perpetrated by guilty collectivists that needed a right wing boogieman to play against the failure of communism. these totalitarian systems tend to all be left leaning. When the state dictates the economy, directly as communism where the state owns everything (well the people in charge own everything, including the life & death of the serfs) or indirectly (be it by command economies or a legal system like the one we now have in the US where government chooses winners and losers), you are dealing with collectivism. Collectivism deprives humans of their freedom and dignity, always under the pretense of doing something for the collective good, by focusing on the noble idea, but never on the results or consequences of its implementation. If these people were to be held accountable, the appeal of collectivism would have died a long time ago.
Today is May Day, a day where the vilest scourge to visit its ills on mankind celebrates its successes. That over 100 million people were murdered by their own governments, and billions imprisoned by the same, for some reason seems to be ignored. All this misery an suffering was brought to these poor people in the name of creating heaven on earth. The fellow travelers of communism, the modern day equivalent, concerned with noble sounding slogans like “social justice”, “inequality of income”, and “saving the planet”, would visit more of the same on us. The new breed might pretend they are neither communists nor fascists, but they all act from the same playbook, and if given power yet again, would just pick up where the other butchers left off.
Peter Hatcher at “The Sidney Morning Herald” has an editorial post titled Poll shock as Swiss vote to slam the door shut dealing with the recent vote in Switzerland to curtail immigration.
So it seemed unlikely the Swiss would vote to put new limits on their country’s immigration intake in the referendum held at the weekend. The opinion polls concurred – surveys showed most Swiss opposed the idea of putting a cap on annual immigration numbers.
But the surprise result late on Sunday was the slimmest of majorities in favour. By 50.3 per cent, the Swiss voted to impose an annual limit.
The government, however reluctantly, will be obliged to implement the policy advocated by the far-right Swiss People’s Party. The policy itself is not an extreme one – it simply means Switzerland can exercise the traditional sovereign right to limit its immigration intake, which is about 80,000 a year in a country of 8 million.
In a nutshell, despite whatever the polls said or wanted people to believe, Swiss voters, by a slim margin I admit, in a referendum on the subject, decided they would prefer some restrictions on immigration, and that’s being sold as a huge upset. The author is concerned with the impact this vote will have on the relationship between Switzerland and the EU, which up until now had an agreement that allowed people to move freely between the two, despite the fact that Switzerland is not an EU member (smart on their part I say), especially in the economic arena. He foresees some kind of retaliatory strategy from the EU, and I would tend to agree that the hoity-toity bureaucrats in Brussels would respond exactly like that. But that’s not my beef with the article, and my focus is elsewhere.
The author also is worried about the repercussion of this referendum’s success and the implication for similar movements in other EU countries, expecting voters there to be galvanized by this victory for what he coins as “the far-right Swiss” movement, and that’s where I disagree with the article. First off, there are no far-right movements in Europe. That concept is ludicrous. Europe has become a collectivist cesspool, and anything that doesn’t involve a massive government bureaucracy that controls all aspect of life, completely in opposition of what the real movement on the right believes in because it stifles individualism, dignity, and freedom,, has about zero chance of existing there. Big, all controlling, government are the only political entities that exists. Some are labeled as far right, by people that either bought into or want to propagate the left’s myth that fascism is not just another socialist disease, like communism. It plays well to revive those fears of fascism as motivation for whatever the leviathan nanny state leftists want to oppose. Don’t take my word for this: here is the author of this post making the point:
Third, this event will energise far-right parties across Europe in the approach to elections for the European Parliament, due in three months.
The echoes of Europe’s grim history of the early 20th century, during which economic downturn led to the rise of fascism, always intensify in times of economic hardship.
Get it? Far-right movements are shadow fascism. That’s pure and simple bullshit. As I already mentioned, there are no far-right – in the traditional sense of what the right really stands for – in Europe. What these people coin as far-right is anything but. The fact remains that fascism is another spawn of the socialist movement. It’s communism’s brother, and only has a bad reputation because the old left liked the idea of communism, where the few oligarchs or single dictator running the show controls and owns everything, while pretending that property belongs to the people through the state, more. Today’s left is far more enamored of the incestuous relationship between an all controlling state that picks winners and losers, in the name of idiotic concepts like “social justice” or other such pap, and those elements in the private sector that the state approves of.
That relationship between the state and the private sector is one of the key components of fascism and was part and parcel of Mussolini’s Italy or Hitler’s Germany. It’s pervasive through what we would label the modern Western nation, but they go out of their way to pretend they are not engaged in it. The left has pretended because they no longer pay homage to the whole nationalist component of old fascism, which is what they used to brand fascism as a right wing phenomenon, that they are not engaged in fascist behavior. So far-right parties in the EU are labeled as the only fascist movement, because one can say they have more of that nationalist component. These big government movements are all fascistic, whether they are nationalistic in nature or otherwise, and we should put an end to the abuse by those that want to pretend otherwise so they can keep people freaked out about their opposition. Soft fascism is fascism. Let’s quit kidding ourselves that it is otherwise. And no entity is a bigger example of this fascism at work than the all-encompassing and pervasive EU bureaucracy with the possible exception of the lawless Obama administration in the US.
Quit the scare mongering about fascism. We are already living under a version of it, and sooner than later it will show us its ugly side, so let us stop pretending otherwise. This shit ain’t far-right anything either: it’s just another incarnation of collectivism.