Tag Archives: Democrat Fascism

Obama Destroying our Constitution – But He’s a “Good Guy” ????

Posted by on September 4, 2012 6 comments
dictator-obama22-400x283

Some people insist Barack Obama is a good guy with a good heart. They say his only reason for seeking re-election is the good impulse to serve the best interests of the people and defend the defenseless. Do his words match his actions? Do his policies deliver the good outcomes he promised?

It cannot be denied Barack Obama cut Medicare to fund ObamaCare. It is clear his “reform” system deprives treatment for seniors deemed too old to justify the expense. He has done nothing to save Medicare or Social Security. It is clear his ideology makes second class citizens of seniors. If anybody is pushing Granny off a cliff, it’s Barack Obama.

This is a good guy? This is a good hearted man defending the defenseless?

His tax and spend and steal-from-one-to-give-to-another ideology is destroying the middle class and the hopes of college graduates. Half of them can’t find work. Obamanomics has successfully created crushing and rapidly growing debt that kills any chance of prosperity for our kids and grandkids. Instead of listening to his advisors and his party leaders and changing course to help people, he plays golf, campaigns, takes expensive trips, and sends his wife on even more expensive trips.

This is a good guy? This is a guy that cares?

Worse still, his horrendous economic policies coupled with drastic cuts in defense put us all at risk, especially our military volunteers.

Barack Obama encourages our enemies, insults and humiliates our allies, and then expects us to cheer him when he shows up to reassure us a vote for him is a vote for security.

His policy in Afghanistan—-disarming our soldiers when training Afghan personnel—resulted in at least 100 of our men being murdered by those very trainees. Many more have been wounded. Telegraphing our surrender by naming a pullout date encouraged Taliban and al Qaeda terrorists to escalate, resulting in even more American deaths. Afghanistan, where there was once the promise of freedom, has become little more than a killing ground spiraling downward into chaos.

This is a good commander making wise decisions in theater?

Barack Obama is actively engaged in prosecuting a Navy Seal for writing a book, actively engaged in trying to prevent our military from voting, actively engaged in trying to reduce military health benefits, and actively engaged in leaking classified intelligence to make himself look good during the campaign, even if it means putting our people in serious, unnecessary danger.

Barack Obama takes credit for killing Osama bin Laden every chance he gets, even though he had nothing to do with it, first refusing to give the order, then passing off responsibility to an admiral so that if it went badly, he’d have someone to blame.

Time and again he has said, in word and deed, America should be ashamed of our leadership position in the world, we have dictated to others, and we should therefore take a back seat to the U.N. Time and again he has thrown Israel under the bus, bowed to thugs and dictators, and claimed love of country, all in the same breath. It would appear his crowning achievement is lying through his teeth then convincing people he is Honest Abe.

It’s obvious that Barack Obama is anti-military. He neglects our security because he is against America remaining a super power in the world. This too is part of his ideology.

And this is a good guy? These are good outcomes? This is defending the defenseless?

He talks about religious liberty, then works to destroy it by forcing people to pay for abortion and birth control whether they like it or not.

He talks about protecting and defending the Constitution (the oath he took with his fingers crossed behind his back) then subverts it at every turn. Examples of his complete disregard for the rule of law and the Constitution:

  • Engages war in Libya by circumventing Congress altogether
  • Uses the most corrupt, underhanded and devious means possible, ramming ObamaCare against the will of the majority
  • ”Reforms” welfare law by reducing the work requirements WITHOUT consulting or involving Congress
  • Covert use of drones in other lands, including our own, with no authorization, engaging indiscriminate killing
  • Uses the EPA to install Cap ‘n Trade when Congress would not
  • Directs DOJ to ignore the penalty phase after the conviction of Black Panthers intimidating voters in 2008
  • Refuses to defend standing law, his sworn duty as Chief Executive according to the Constitution
  • Promotes indefinite detention without filing charges
  • Sues states that have every right to secure their borders and manage voter eligibility
  • Uses stimulus money to reward political allies and operatives, engaging in blatant and corrupt cronyism
  • Threatens and intimidates the Supreme Court whenever he senses they might rule against him
  • Demands an oil company put up $20 billion in reparations without a court ruling or legislative action, even before anyone had a chance to determine responsibility for the Gulf Oil spill
  • Funds and conspires with public employee unions to command electoral outcomes against the will of the majority
  • Destroys our ally in Egypt allowing the Muslim Brotherhood to set up shop, destabilizing the entire region

This is a good man with good intentions? This is a man whose words and deeds line up? This is an honest, law-abiding individual who only wants to serve the public interest and defend the defenseless?

It has taken years for people to start looking beyond the bright smile and the glittering words. It has taken years for them to start evaluating the man by watching his actual behavior and seeing the terrible results of his policies.

The majority now understands he cares more about his ideology than he does about them, that he will say and do anything to hold on to power, only to glorify himself.

And this is the essential reason he will lose in November.

Our Pending Decision: Socialism or Americanism

Posted by on August 31, 2012 2 comments

After listening to Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan at the Republican National Convention and reviewing the past three and half years of the Barack Obama and Joe Biden administration, the November election boils down to this: socialism or Americanism.

American was built upon the back of thousands of men and women who worked hard and long to build their own businesses. They all started small and the vast majority remained small. The backbone of the American economy is made up of the millions of small businesses across the nation that also supply jobs to millions of people.

Under the Obama administration, small businesses have been closing their doors at a record pace. Not only are the owners losing their livelihood, but so are millions of workers, other businesses and individuals that rely upon them. Like a human backbone, it cannot continue to support the body if it keeps weakening and losing pieces. When enough pieces of the backbone are removed, the body can no longer support itself and it collapses on the floor.

Socialism relies on the collapse of small businesses. The government assumes the role of provider in all areas and aspects of life. This is the path that the Obama administration is actively pursuing. This is socialism, not Americanism.

The Romney/Ryan ticket promises to help small businesses and entrepreneurship to help rebuild the economy, create jobs and strengthen America’s backbone. They’re not going to do it by borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars to use on another stimulus package, but by sound and reasonable business practices that have worked for years. This is Americanism, not socialism.

The hallmark of the Obama/Biden administration is Obamacare. Obamacare is nothing more than socialized healthcare. The government assumes the role of health provider and they will make the decisions on what medical care you do and don’t get. The cost of Obamacare is far greater than you know. Not only is it going to cost every American family, rich, middle class and poverty level, thousands of dollars in hidden taxes over the next decade starting this coming January, but it will also cost lives. Americans will die for lack of proper care. Others will die because the care dictated to them by the government will not be the right care as in the case of Jacob Stieler. Obamacare is socialism, not Americanism.

The Romney/Ryan ticket promises to repeal Obamacare and return ownership of your health to you. They do plan to try to work on a new health plan, but one that will not tax American’s into poverty. In the process, they will restore the money that Obama took from Medicare and strengthen the program to help make it last. This is Americanism, not socialism.

Under the Obama/Biden administration, they have reduced the middle class and increased the number of families living at or below the poverty level. A socialistic society does not have a middle class. It has the upper governmental elite and then everyone else. This is socialism, not Americanism.

The Romney/Ryan ticket promises to boost the economy, increase jobs and thus help bring more Americans out of poverty and back into the middle class. The middle class helped make America strong and will help to strengthen it once again. This is Americanism, not socialism.

Under the Obama/Biden administration, government entitlements and dependency has increased at an alarming rate. The administration has made it harder for religious and other non-profit organizations to operate and provide charity. Instead, the government has been assuming the role of charity and provider. This is socialism, not Americanism.

The Romney/Ryan ticket has promised to help get many Americans back on their feet so that they can provide for themselves and their families and get rid of the government handout lists. They will continue to provide care for those that really need it, while at the same time forcing many to take responsibility for their own wellbeing. This is Americanism, not socialism.

The real choice come November is whether you want a socialistic government and country or the free America of our past? If you want America to become like the old Soviet Union and Cuba, then cast your vote for Obama/Biden as this is socialism. If you want to save America and restore it to its former greatness and free enterprise system, then vote for Romney/Ryan for this is Americanism.

How Leftist ideologues Think.

Posted by on May 15, 2012 2 comments
Democratic Party Ideology is recycled Fascism

With a few exceptions, the entire ideology of today's leftists is just recycled fascism.

I have set out the case for what the actual motivations of Leftist ideologues are — but Leftists themselves would be very unlikely to salute any of it. It is of some interest therefore to try to see things from their own point of view. And Olavo de Carvalho has done sterling work there.

He deals principally with extreme Leftists (“Revolutionaries”) but points out that the same mentality pervades Leftist “thinkers” generally. He says that Leftists are fixated on a view of utopia. They justify themselves as seeking the betterment of mankind according to quite Christian standards. They want everyone to be loving and sharing to one-another at some future time.

And the fact that they are fixated on this beneficent vision excuses everything that they might do and gives them huge psychic benefits. It allows them to see themselves as kindly and wise even while they lie, cheat and brutalize others in pursuit of their goals. The vision is all and excuses all.

Utopia is of course unattainable but the thinking concerned is a powerful form of self-deception.

Lets consider Leftism in much more detail and focus on Leftist leaders and activists:

Because they are very influential, this monograph will focus primarily on Leftist leaders: Politicians, activists, ideologues, intellectuals, academics and preachers of Leftism generally. And there is no claim that what is true of them is also true of the average Leftist voter. Among the leaders too, there will be a variety of motivations but what the great majority of them say and do can be seen as fitting a common power-seeking and praise-hungry pattern — and that pattern is the one that is of greatest interest here. It will be seen that most Leftist policies can be traced back to that source

It is now clear that Rightists are not systematically opposed to change but that “Western” Leftists seek it eagerly — so attitude to social change is the defining characteristic of the political Left rather than of the political Right. Rightism (“conservatism”) and Leftism are not opposites or mirror images, however, so Rightists in general are neither for nor against change as such. When they do want change, the changes that they favour are usually ones that remove or reduce interference in their lives by others.

Today's Democrat party and their ideology is nothing more than recycled Fascism.

The Leftist’s dissatisfaction with the world about him and his burning desire to change it can come from many sources but for Leftist leaders and other preachers of Leftism in the economically successful “Western” democracies (“liberals” in contemporary North American terms), the major motivation is to fulfil the ego needs of the Leftist himself — needs for self-advertisement, self-promotion, excitement, influence and ultimately power. And the prime source of power is the state, so Leftists love the state.

It was all summed up rather well in the debate over ratification of the U.S. constitution that took place in the 1780s. The debate was between the Federalists and the anti-Federalists. The anti-Federalists distrusted central government power and could be seen as most akin to the conservatives of today — though both sides would be seen as conservative by today’s standards. With prophetic insight, the anti-Federalist “Brutus IV” wrote what could be seen as a pretty good description of today’s Democratic party leadership:

“…It is not to be expected that a legislature will be found in any country that will not have some of its members, who will pursue their private ends, and for which they will sacrifice the public good. Men of this character are, generally, artful and designing, and frequently possess brilliant talents and abilities; they commonly act in concert, and agree to share the spoils of their country among them; they will keep their object ever in view [government-controlled health care, anyone?], and follow it with constancy [sought since the 1930's]. To effect their purpose, they will assume any shape, and, Proteus like, mould themselves into any form – where they find members proof against direct bribery or gifts of offices, they will endeavor to mislead their minds by specious and false reasoning, to impose upon their unsuspecting honesty by an affectation of zeal for the public good; they will form juntos, and hold out-door meetings; they will operate upon the good nature of their opponents, by a thousand little attentions, and teize them into compliance by the earnestness of solicitation. Those who are acquainted with the manner of conducting business in public assemblies, know how prevalent art and address are in carrying a measure, even over men of the best intentions, and of good understanding. … It is probable, … the powerful influence that great and designing men have over the honest and unsuspecting, by their art and address, their soothing manners and civilities, and their cringing flattery, joined with their affected patriotism; when these different species of influence are combined, it is scarcely to be hoped that a legislature, composed of so small a number, as the one proposed by the new constitution, will long resist their force.”

And that was written in 1787!

The Marxist in Chief, Taking what is not his... (We call this theft... He calls it "Social Justice")

Leftists do not like all changes. Because power is their underlying motivation Leftists/liberals dislike the power-reducing changes that conservatives favour — such as neo-liberal (pro-market) change. Change of that sort threatens the Leftist’s access to power. We also see the primacy of power in the old Soviet system. We saw there that Leftists who had gained power suddenly became very opposed to change. The desire for change is at its base the desire for one particular sort of change: Putting Leftists in power so that they can reshape society into a mould that feels good to them. And why is power sought so single-mindedly? Why the single-minded egotism? At the deepest level, the Leftist leader appears to be psychopathic — with the psychopathic disregard for all norms, morals, standards and ethics in the ruthless quest for personal praise and satisfaction.

It is because of their quest for power that Leftists come into conflict with conservatives. History shows that what has always motivated conservatives is resistance to government power — in particular government encroachment on individual rights and liberties. So conservatives may either favour or oppose change to promote that cause.

A description of the political attitude domain in terms of two dimensions rather than a single Left/Right dimension is rejected here on both empirical and theoretical grounds. The pervasiveness and evolutionary origins of egotism and reality denial generally are also briefly considered below.

The most detailed causal chain proposed for preachers of Leftism, then, is as follows: Psychopathic personality > high ego need > hatred of an indifferent world > need for change > need for power > love of the State

Psychopaths are normally seen as lacking in emotions so it may seem perverse to say that Leftist leaders are both psychopathic and motivated by rage — and it is certainly not asserted that ALL Leftist leaders are psychopathic. Psychopaths are however not totally lacking in emotions. What they lack is normal emotions. And one emotion that they do definitely display is rage — in particular outrage at what they see as poor treatment of themselves by those around them. And Leftist intellectuals in particular display feeling of that sort too. It really burns them up that they are not as well-paid or as influential as successful businessmen, for instance.

Note that I am talking about sub-clinical psychopathy above: psychopaths who are not so extreme as to get themselves into trouble with the law and the mental health system. Most human characteristics exist in degrees so a subclinical psychopath has normal human emotions to some degree rather than a total absence of such emotions. And there are, sadly, various avenues in life where some lack of normal human emotions can be advantageous — anything requiring deceit, for instance. And Leftist leaders need a lot of deceit if they are to persuade people of the benefit in what are actually destructive schemes.

Communism… a leftist ideology.

Posted by on October 29, 2011 No comments

Although it seems most unlikely that it will ever happen again, there were many occasions in the 20th century when the most extreme form of Leftism — Communism — did gain great power in certain countries. Does that experience tell us anything about Leftism?

This series started out with an endeavour fairly characteristic of modern Anglo-American analytical philosophy (Hospers, 1967): An endeavour to analyse and make coherent the way terms like “Leftist”, “Liberal”, “Socialist”, “Communist” etc are commonly used. Once an underlying focus for such terms had been “discovered”, the psychology underlying that focus could be considered. And what was “discovered” was that a love of change — particularly mandated change — defined Leftism in its various guises and varieties. The analysis was however principally of what Leftism/liberalism is in the economically advanced countries of the contemporary “Western” world — where Leftists have only ever had partial success in implementing their programmes. So what happens when Leftists get fully into power? Does the same analysis apply?

For a start, it should be obvious that the personality and goals of the Leftist do not change just because he gets into power. He is still the same person. And that this is true is certainly very clear in the case of Lenin — who is surely the example par excellence of a Leftist who very clearly did get into power. In his post-revolutionary philippic against his more idealistic revolutionary comrades, Lenin (1952) makes very clear that “absolute centralization and the strictest discipline of the proletariat” are still in his view essential features of the new regime. He speaks very much like the authoritarian dictator that he was but is nonetheless being perfectly consistent with the universal Leftist wish for strong government power and control over the population — as long as they are in charge. So Leftists in power certainly do not cause the State to “wither away” — as Marx foresaw in “The Communist Manifesto”.

Lenin’s conception of the function of the State shows why:

“Essentially the state is the power exercised over the masses by a group of armed men separated from the people.” From the April Theses

“The state is a special organization of force: it is an organization of violence for the suppression of some class” From The state and revolution.

That makes the Leftist position pretty clear, I think. The State exists to suppress people. How useful that is! So power-mad people such as Leftists like big government and do all they can to foster it.

After 1917 change did continue for a few years in Russia while the Communists consolidated their power (e.g. by “liquidating” the Kulaks), but after that Russia settled into a tyranny where State-directed industrialization was the only form of change allowed. After the completion of the revolution, change in Russian society was in fact repressed ferociously. Certainly, no challenges to Russia’s new power structure were allowed. At its most basic it was power that mattered, not change. Stalin murdered millions without a qualm to ensure his power.

But that very State dominance of Russian life did of course eventually cause advanced social and economic sclerosis and stagnation in Russia and its satellites — leading ultimately to the complete collapse of the Soviet system via Gorbachev’s “perestroika” (reconstruction). “Perestroika” implies change so change was in fact the poison that finally destroyed Lenin’s legacy. So does that mean that the Soviets were not Leftists? If hunger for change is the defining feature of Leftism, then surely the Bolsheviks ceased to be Leftists in 1917! Surely Lenin and his comrades became conservatives at that point!

Ludicrous though that proposition sounds at first sight, it is precisely the common usage today. Defenders of the old Soviet order and those who wish to return to it in post-Gorbachev Russia are usually referred to in the press as “conservatives”. Clearly, the press has adopted the simple (though very unsatisfactory) dichotomy of being for and against change as the definition of Leftism and Conservatism. This does however create the very large problem that precisely the same political policies that are seen in one country (Russia) as being conservative are seen in other countries (e.g. the USA) as wildly Leftist (See also McFarland et al, 1992).

Since change IS in fact obviously somehow involved in the Left/Right dichotomy and since the aims and practice of the Bolsheviks were perfectly concordant with basic Leftist desires everywhere, this is something of a dilemma. Which is basic? Desire for change or desire for power? In earlier papers here and here, I have leant towards the solution of dismissing the role of change altogether and saying that either Leftists or Rightists will oppose or support change depending on whether they are in power or not. I proposed that it is simply the love or suspicion of State power that defines the Leftist or Rightist. And, as a statement about the psychology of Leftists and Rightists, I still adhere to that view. I think it is evident that most Leftists have a strong basic need for power and control and that that flows very simply into the policies that they advocate.

I also think, however, that a DEFINITION of any collectivity should rely primarily on what the collectivity does rather than on a theory about how the group is motivated. One has to define the group before one can study it. And a definition of the “Western” world’s Left (but only the Left) in terms of attitude to change both makes sense of common usage and is readily amenable to psychological explanation. Regrettably, however, it seems clear that one cannot define Leftists as being the change-hungry ones of ALL the world and of all times. It is a definition that is fully applicable only to the present economically successful “Western” democracies because it is only there that advocacy of change enables the Leftist to satisfy his/her ego needs.

If a definition of limited applicability is unattractive, however, we can also grasp the other horn of the dilemma and say that Leftists who attain power cease to be Leftists! This jars a little but does make sense psychologically: Once the Leftist’s hunger for power and control is satisfied, he no longer seeks change and in fact actively opposes it. He then opposes change for the same reason that he opposes neo-liberalism: It threatens his power and control. He becomes a conservative (opponent of change) in a way that a Rightist generally is not. There can be no doubt that Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan were Rightists but they actively worked to REDUCE the power, influence and control of the governments that they led. The contrast is very clear. Not everyone is as power-mad as the Leftist. And that hunger for power makes the Leftist IN POWER the most ferocious conservative (opponent of change) of all. Case in point: Barack Obama…  the single most arrogant, ppower hungry, tyrant ever to preside over the United States of America.

But there is an exception to every rule and the exception in this case is a most instructive one: Mao Tse Tung. Mao’s “cultural revolution” was a very strange phenomenon unparalleled in other Communist regimes. And it appeared to do nobody any good — including Mao himself. It was a vast but entirely destructive upheaval. But it is just what one would expect of someone in love with change. In the case of Mao, we saw a survival into the post-revolutionary era of the old pre-revolutionary longings. He was so in love with change that he had his revolution all over again. Mao was so thoroughly in charge of China, that he could indulge his natural inclinations without endangering his power and what those inclinations were is precisely what we see in Leftists of the economically successful “Western” democracies to this day: a love of change, preferably revolutionary change. So we can see that power comes first in a Leftist’s scale of values but the longing for change per se comes a close second.

In the “West”

This conclusion drawn from the grand sweep of history has some counterpart on a much more humble scale in findings from survey research in one of the economically successful “Western” democracies. Ray (1984) found from a large random sample survey of Australians conducted in the Cold War era that Leftists were sensation-seekers even when the sensations concerned were the sensations provided by consumerism. Rather contrary to their usual image, Leftists were found to be materialists who enjoyed buying mass-marketed “quality” consumer goods even more than Rightists did. Their love of new sensations was so great that they even sought out those provided by their ostensible “enemy” — consumer capitalism. Clearly, like Mao, their love of novelty was so deep-seated that it overcame other considerations.

Although Leftists in the economically successful “Western” democracies have never gained power on anything like the scale achieved by Mao and Stalin, there have of course been Leftist governments in the economically successful “Western” democracies on many occasions and these have certainly managed to lay the stifling and impoverishing hand of bureaucracy on many endeavours. The twin disciplines of the ballot box and constitutional constraints have however limited what such governments can do. Their power has always been far from absolute.

In summary, bitter experience has shown that Leftists in power are very dangerous and destructive people. Where their power is effectively unchecked, they generally seems to resort sooner or later to mass murder (as in the case of the French revolutionaries, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Jim Jones and many Communist regimes and movements worldwide) and where they are partially thwarted by strong democratic traditions and institutions, they at least bring about large-scale impoverishment (as in post-independence India and pre-Thatcher Britain). By contrast, conservatives just muddle along with piecemeal reforms that don’t require them to murder anybody. So giving any power to Leftists is a most dangerous thing to do and working to prevent that happening is a matter of no small importance.

Leftism is Fascism 2.0

Posted by on July 29, 2011 No comments
Democratic Party Ideology is recycled Fascism

With a few exceptions, the entire ideology of today's leftists is just recycled fascism.

The ideas of Benito Mussolini (1883-1945), the founder of Fascism, are remarkably similar to the ideas of modern-day Western Leftists. If Mussolini was not the direct teacher of modern-day Leftists, he was certainly a major predecessor. Modern-day Leftism is largely Fascist. What Leftists advocate today is not, of course, totally identical with what Mussolini was advocating and doing 60 to 80 years ago in Italy but there are nonetheless extensive and surprising parallels. Although Leftists today often call conservatives “Fascists”, the truth is the reverse. If the behavior of modern-day Leftists seems Fascist, it is because modern day Leftism IS Fascist!

Mussolini’s own summary of the Fascist philosophy: “Tutto nello Stato, niente al di fuori dello Stato, nulla contro lo Stato” (Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State)

A Leftist prophet

The ideas of Benito Mussolini (1883-1945), the founder of Fascism, are remarkably similar to the ideas of modern-day Western Leftists. If Mussolini was not the direct teacher of modern-day Leftists, he was certainly a major predecessor. What Leftists advocate today is not, of course, totally identical with what Mussolini was advocating and doing 60 to 80 years ago in Italy but there are nonetheless extensive and surprising parallels. Early in the 20th century, he prophesied that the 20th century would be the century of Fascism and he got that right in that most of his ideas are still preached by the modern-day Left.

The popular view

Popular encyclopedias such as Funk & Wagnalls (1983) lump together Hitler’s German regime, Mussolini’s Italian regime, General Tojo’s Japanese regime and Generalissimo Franco’s Spanish regime under the single rubric of “fascist” so it seems clear that it is the accepted wisdom that all four regimes were basically similar and differed only in matters of detail. Anyone who knows even a little of the history of the period concerned, however, must realize how far from the truth this is. The feudal warlords of Japan, the antisemitic socialist of Germany, the Catholic monarchist of Spain and the pragmatic socialist of Italy were in fact really united over only one thing: Their dislike of Lenin and Stalin’s Communism and “Bolshevism” generally. There clearly is some need, therefore, for us to look at what Mussolini and the Fascists really were and did.

The reality

In what follows, facts that should be easily checkable in popular encyclopaedias and textbooks will not be referenced. Less well-known facts, however, will be referenced. History is of course written by the victors and most summaries of historical Fascism are therefore written from a very anti-Fascist perspective so care is normally needed to tease out the facts behind the interpretations and value-judgments.

Unlike many other accounts, considerable emphasis will be given here to Mussolini’s early years. What politicians say in order to get into power and what they do once they gain power are notoriously two different things — with Lenin and Stalin being not the least examples of that. A major aim therefore will be to see where Mussolini came from and what he did and said in order to get into power.

To do so, however, is a considerable trip back in time and one effect of that is that the political terminology of nearly 100 years ago was somewhat different from today. In reading quotations from the early days one must keep in mind that those Mussolini refers to as “Socialists” were in fact Marxists rather than social democrats and those whom Mussolini refers to as “liberals” were advocates of laissez faire and would hence be described as conservatives today. Mussolini started out as a Marxist but eventually devised Fascism as a “third way” (sound familiar?). He saw it as offering a middle way between Marxism and capitalism — Leftist but not Marxist.

In Mussolini’s own words

Let us listen initially to some reflections on the early days of Fascism by Mussolini himself — first published in 1935 (See the third chapter in Greene, 1968).

“If the bourgeoisie think they will find lightning conductors in us they are the more deceived; we must start work at once …. We want to accustom the working class to real and effectual leadership”.

And that was Mussolini quoting his own words from the early Fascist days. So while Mussolini had by that time (in his 30s) come to reject the Marxist idea of a class-war, he still saw himself as anti-bourgeois and as a saviour and leader of the workers. What modern-day Leftist could not identify with that?

“Therefore I desire that this assembly shall accept the revindication of national trades unionism”

So he was a good union man like most Leftists today.

“When the present regime breaks down, we must be ready at once to take its place”

Again a great Leftist hope and aspiration.

“Fascism has taken up an attitude of complete opposition to the doctrines of Liberalism, both in the political field and in the field of economics”.

The “Liberalism” he refers to here would of course be called “Neo-liberalism” today — the politics of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan. Mussolini opposed such politics and so do Leftists today.

“The present method of political representation cannot suffice”.

Modern-day Leftists too seem to seek influence outside the normal democratic channels — from strikes and demonstrations to often successful attempts to get the courts to make law.

“Fascism now and always believes in holiness and in heroism; that is to say in actions influenced by no economic motive”

He here also rejects the Communist emphasis on materialism. Leftism to this day is often seen as a religion and its agitators clearly often long to be seen as heroic and unmaterialistic.

“Fascism repudiates the conception of “economic” happiness”

Leftists today also tend to regard consumerism as gross (or say they do as they drive off in their Volvos).

“After the war, in 1919, Socialism was already dead as a doctrine: It existed only as a hatred”.

Socialism has never been a buzzword in North American Leftist circles but it certainly was for a very long time in the rest of the world. And to modern day British Leftists too socialism has a meaning that is more nostalgic and emotional than concrete and many would be prepared to admit that it is functionally “dead”. Mussolini, however was 70 years earlier in announcing the death. It should be noted, however, that Mussolini was principally referring here to the policies and doctrines of his own former Socialist Party — which was explicitly Marxist — and which were far more extreme than the socialism of (say) Clement Attlee and the postwar British Labour party.

“Fascism ….. was born of the need for action and it was itself from the beginning practical rather than theoretical”.

Modern-day Leftist demonstrators too seem to be more interested in dramatic actions than in any coherent theory.

” one would there find no ordered expression of doctrine but a series of aphorisms, anticipations and aspirations”.

This is how Mussolini described early Fascist meetings. Modern-day Leftist agitators too seem more interested in slogans than in any form of rational debate.

“If the 19th century has been the century of the individual (for liberalism means individualism), it may be conjectured that this is the century of the State.

This is Mussolini’s famous prophecy about the 20th century in the Enciclopedia Italiana. It came true with the aid of the modern-day Left and their love of big government. To underline that, note that in 1900 the ratio of government spending to GDP in Italy was 10%, in the 1950s 30%, and it is now roughly 60% (Martino, 1998). In this prophecy, Mussolini rejected Marxian socialism because he disliked the Marxist notions of class war and historical inevitability but modern-day Leftists differentiate themselves from Marxists too.

But Mussolini was more like Lenin and Stalin in his overt rejection of democracy: “Fascism denies that the majority, by the simple fact that it is a majority, can direct human society”. Most modern-day Leftists in the Western world would undoubtedly like to get rid of democracy too but they are less open about it than Mussolini was.

“Laissez faire is out of date”

To this day the basic free market doctrine of “laissez faire” is virtually a swear-word to most Leftists. Quoted from Smith (1967, p. 87).

“The paid slaves of kings in their gaudy uniforms, their chests covered with crosses, decorations and similar foreign and domestic hardware ….. blinding the public with dust and flaunting in its face their impudent display”.

Here Hibbert (1962, p. 11) reports Mussolini’s youthful contempt for the armed forces. Such anti-militarism would surely resound well with most student antiwar demonstrators of today.

“The Socialist party reaffirms its eternal faith in the future of the Workers’ International, destined to bloom again, greater and stronger, from the blood and conflagration of peoples. It is in the name of the International and of Socialism that we invite you, proletarians of Italy, to uphold your unshakeable opposition to war”.

This from Carsten (1967, p. 46). It is from an article that was published by Mussolini in the Socialist Party organ “Avanti!” of 22 September, 1914 during Mussolini’s Marxist period. So Mussolini’s anti-militarism persisted until he was aged 31. When compared with Mussolini’s subsequent career this shows exactly where anti-militaristic and antiwar sentiments can ultimately lead.

“Our programme is simple. We want to rule Italy”.

As I have argued at length elsewhere, that is the real program of any Leftist. But Mussolini had the honesty to be upfront about it. Quoted from Carsten (1967, p. 62).

Mussolini ha sempre ragione (“Mussolini is always right”).

This is probably the most famous of the many slogans that were plastered up everywhere in Fascist Italy. It too has a resounding echo among Leftists today. I can think of examples where modern conservative politicians have apologized and retracted their views but I can think of no example where a Leftist has. In the old Soviet empire there was virtually no such thing as “negative” news reported in the media. Even plane crashes were ignored. And as Amis (2002) notes, even though the reality of the vast, destructive and brutal tyranny of the now collapsed Soviet regime is undeniable, Leftists to this day are almost universally unapologetic about their past support for it and may even still claim that Lenin was a great man.

And Mussolini’s “Fascist Manifesto” of 1919 includes in Fascist policy such socialist gems as (I quote):

 

  • The nationalization of all the arms and explosives factories.
  • A strong progressive tax on capital that will truly expropriate a portion of all wealth.
  • The seizure of all the possessions of the religious congregations and the abolition of all the bishoprics, which constitute an enormous liability on the Nation and on the privileges of the poor.
  • The formation of a National Council of experts for labor, for industy, for transportation, for the public health, for communications, etc. Selections to be made from the collective professionals or of tradesmen with legislative powers, and elected directly to a General Commission with ministerial powers.
  • A minimum wage.
  • The participation of workers’ representatives in the functions of industry commissions

 

There is of corse much more to say, but by now, you should be able to clearly see, that today’s leftist ideology is nothing more than recycled Fascism.

For an expanded view on why leftism is actually fascism 2.0, see this article