Students are dropping Left-wing ideals and distancing themselves fast from any connection or labelling as being Left-wing in identity or thought.
But why the sudden turnaround and the massive flood from Left-wing so called moral idealism?
Below we present a fascinating essay that we are sure will top student internal reading on campus for years to come.
We have all witnessed of late, the extreme left-wing so called ‘progressive’ student movement within our universities.
The left-wing self righteous (law unto themselves) thought police and politically correct fascists.
What the majority of students who fall for this nonsense and rubbish fail to understand, is that the so called moral left-wing agenda and ideal that has been force fed into the student identity and thinking is a very clever ploy used by the much darker and sinister side of what this charade is actually used for to keep concealed from the students in the first place.
Left-wing progressive PC thinking and activism is a direct ideological political platform of nazism.
Left-wing Fascism and Nazism
The tribalism, cultural Marxism, and anti-liberalism that permeates the identity politics promoted by the regressive PC left-wing is self-evident to anyone who has been paying attention to the metastatic growth of the contemporary “social justice” movement over the last few years.
While liberalism as a philosophy has always supported things like freedom of speech and expression, civil discussion and the free exchange of ideas, and judging individuals based on their character, not superficial things like skin color or gender.
The (illiberal left-wing PC fascists) oppose all of these things, and in order to understand why, it is first necessary to understand the ideology behind the “social justice” movement.
At its core, the philosophy of the social justice movement is one firmly rooted in Nazism and Cultural Marxism.
Just as Karl Marx saw the capitalist as the exploitative oppressor of the working class, illiberal leftism adopts a worldview in which white people are the oppressor class and minorities, are the oppressed.
Consequently, illiberal leftism has rejected liberalism’s tendency to judge individuals as individuals and instead adopted the Marxist approach of judging people on the basis of what group they belong to while substituting “race and gender identities for economic ones.”
Left-wing Racist Goldsmith Diversity Officer
Consider a student union diversity officer at Goldsmith University, who banned white people and men from an event promoting equality.
After accusations of what was obvious racism and sexism, the woman denied the allegations, stating that,
“I, an ethnic minority woman, cannot be racist or sexist towards white men, because racism and sexism describe structures of privilege based on race and gender.”
You may be thinking, “that’s not the definition of racism,” and you’d be correct.
Racism, by definition, is the belief that some races are naturally superior to others and that race is the primary determinant of human traits.
Racial discrimination is treating people differently solely on the basis of their race, and has nothing to do with “structures or privilege.”
Social justice extremists like this woman have literally redefined what racism is in order to justify their own racism.
In their view, their actions are justified as they are a natural response to oppression.
In another clear case of the tribalism promoted by social justice advocates, a young girl in a viral video, to the applause of her classmates, tells her teacher that white people have never been oppressed.
I suppose totalitarian African dictators evicting white people from their lands and telling them never to come back doesn’t count as oppression.
It seems very likely that the rise of the regressive left has resulted in more racial animosity between whites and non-whites.
When a person is told, or it is implied, that they are a bad person because of their skin color, sexual orientation, or what not, it is natural for them to start to associate even more with that group- identity based on those characteristics rather than seeing themselves as an individual.
If you put people into groups based on superficial characteristics and then designate one group (white people) as an oppressor class, members of whom are only successful because of some unearned privilege, and another as the oppressed class (minorities), members of whom are only unsuccessful because their oppressed status, naturally division and hatred between the members of these groups is going emerge.
The rise of right-wing populism is thus almost certainly a reaction to left-wing identity politics which paints whites in a negative light.
Instead of fostering a unified society where people see themselves as individuals rather than a part of a particular group, the social justice movement is likely responsible for further dividing people along tribalistic lines.
There are vastly better means to which eradicate racism and sexism from society than the identity politics upon which the social justice movement is based.
As is by now apparent, the dichotomy between the oppressor vs. the oppressed is also central to understanding Marxist doctrines like that of illiberal left-wing nazism.
It is also crucial in explaining why these doctrines are so hostile to the individual liberties promoted by liberalism.
Economic Marxism sees free markets and private property rights (i.e economic freedom) as a means to protect the capitalist class from the proletariat that they exploit in order to maintain their socio economic hegemony.
Consequently, economic Marxists have always been hostile to economic freedom and attempted to curtail it or abolish it outright whenever they have had the power to do so.
Cultural Marxism similarly understands fundamental political freedoms, like freedom of speech and expression, to be mechanisms by which those in power, mainly white heterosexual men, use in order to maintain their socioeconomic hegemony to benefit themselves at the expense of minorities and women.
“The Marxist left has always dismissed liberalism’s commitment to protecting the rights of its political opponents … as hopelessly naïve.
If you maintain equal political rights for the oppressive capitalists and their proletarian victims, this will simply keep in place society’s unequal power relations.
Why respect the rights of the class whose power you’re trying to smash?
So, according to Marxist thinking, your political rights depend entirely on what class you belong to.”
Thus, instead of seeing freedom of speech as an individual right that is sacrosanct, the illiberal left sees it as an obstacle in the way of “social justice.”
Sadly, this fact has become increasingly obvious.
Links Left-wing Fascism Nazism
(Click here to see Daniel Hannan article comprehensively proving that Nazism was socialism). (Click here for article by George Watson with the facts, proving Hitler was a socialist). (Click here for a Mises Institute article about Nazism, Socialism and totalitarianism). (Dr Rachel Frosh writes about why Nazism is Socialism, with references to more facts, click here). (Chapter 12 of Friedrich Hayek’s famous book The Road to Serfdom is titled “The Socialist Roots of Naziism” and gives the intellectual and philosophical background. Click for more details). (Joseph Goebbels explains why Nazis are socialists, click to see the truth from the horses mouth!). (Click for extract from book The Ominous Parallels, by Leonard Peikoff, in which he explains the nature of Nazi Socialism).
NAZI GERMANY LEFT-WING SOCIALIST STATE
The purpose of this essay is to make just two main points: (1) To show why Nazi Germany was a socialist state, not a capitalist one. And (2) to show why socialism, understood as an economic system based on government ownership of the means of production, positively requires a totalitarian dictatorship.
The identification of Nazi Germany as a socialist state was one of the many great contributions of Ludwig von Mises.
When one remembers that the word “Nazi” was an abbreviation for “der Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiters Partei — in English translation: the National Socialist German Workers’ Party — Mises’s identification might not appear all that noteworthy. For what should one expect the economic system of a country ruled by a party with “socialist” in its name to be but socialism?
Nevertheless, apart from Mises and his readers, practically no one thinks of Nazi Germany as a socialist state. It is far more common to believe that it represented a form of capitalism, which is what the Communists and all other Marxists have claimed.
The basis of the claim that Nazi Germany was capitalist was the fact that most industries in Nazi Germany appeared to be left in private hands.
What Mises identified was that private ownership of the means of production existed in name only under the Nazis and that the actual substance of ownership of the means of production resided in the German government.
For it was the German government and not the nominal private owners that exercised all of the substantive powers of ownership: it, not the nominal private owners, decided what was to be produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it was to be distributed, as well as what prices would be charged and what wages would be paid, and what dividends or other income the nominal private owners would be permitted to receive. The position of the alleged private owners, Mises showed, was reduced essentially to that of government pensioners.
De facto government ownership of the means of production, as Mises termed it, was logically implied by such fundamental collectivist principles embraced by the Nazis as that the common good comes before the private good and the individual exists as a means to the ends of the State.
If the individual is a means to the ends of the State, so too, of course, is his property. Just as he is owned by the State, his property is also owned by the State.
But what specifically established de facto socialism in Nazi Germany was the introduction of price and wage controls in 1936. These were imposed in response to the inflation of the money supply carried out by the regime from the time of its coming to power in early 1933.
The Nazi regime inflated the money supply as the means of financing the vast increase in government spending required by its programs of public works, subsidies, and rearmament. The price and wage controls were imposed in response to the rise in prices that began to result from the inflation.
The effect of the combination of inflation and price and wage controls is shortages,that is, a situation in which the quantities of goods people attempt to buy exceed the quantities available for sale.
Shortages, in turn, result in economic chaos. It’s not only that consumers who show up in stores early in the day are in a position to buy up all the stocks of goods and leave customers who arrive later, with nothing — a situation to which governments typically respond by imposing rationing.
Shortages result in chaos throughout the economic system. They introduce randomness in the distribution of supplies between geographical areas, in the allocation of a factor of production among its different products, in the allocation of labor and capital among the different branches of the economic system.
In the face of the combination of price controls and shortages, the effect of a decrease in the supply of an item is not, as it would be in a free market, to raise its price and increase its profitability, thereby operating to stop the decrease in supply, or reverse it if it has gone too far.
Price control prohibits the rise in price and thus the increase in profitability. At the same time, the shortages caused by price controls prevent increases in supply from reducing price and profitability.
When there is a shortage, the effect of an increase in supply is merely a reduction in the severity of the shortage. Only when the shortage is totally eliminated does an increase in supply necessitate a decrease in price and bring about a decrease in profitability.
As a result, the combination of price controls and shortages makes possible random movements of supply without any effect on price and profitability. In this situation, the production of the most trivial and unimportant goods, even pet rocks, can be expanded at the expense of the production of the most urgently needed and important goods, such as life-saving medicines, with no effect on the price or profitability of either good.
Price controls would prevent the production of the medicines from becoming more profitable as their supply decreased, while a shortage even of pet rocks prevented their production from becoming less profitable as their supply increased.
As Mises showed, to cope with such unintended effects of its price controls, the government must either abolish the price controls or add further measures, namely, precisely the control over what is produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it is distributed, which I referred to earlier.
The combination of price controls with this further set of controls constitutes the de facto socialization of the economic system. For it means that the government then exercises all of the substantive powers of ownership.
This was the socialism instituted by the Nazis.
And Mises calls it socialism on the German or Nazi pattern, in contrast to the more obvious socialism of the Soviets, which he calls socialism on the Russian or Bolshevik pattern.
Of course, socialism does not end the chaos caused by the destruction of the price system. It perpetuates it. And if it is introduced without the prior existence of price controls, its effect is to inaugurate that very chaos. This is because socialism is not actually a positive economic system.
It is merely the negation of capitalism and its price system. As such, the essential nature of socialism is one and the same as the economic chaos resulting from the destruction of the price system by price and wage controls.
(I want to point out that Bolshevik-style socialism’s imposition of a system of production quotas, with incentives everywhere to exceed the quotas, is a sure formula for universal shortages, just as exist under all around price and wage controls.)
At most, socialism merely changes the direction of the chaos. The government’s control over production may make possible a greater production of some goods of special importance to itself, but it does so only at the expense of wreaking havoc throughout the rest of the economic system.
This is because the government has no way of knowing the effects on the rest of the economic system of its securing the production of the goods to which it attaches special importance.
The requirements of enforcing a system of price and wage controls shed major light on the totalitarian nature of socialism — most obviously, of course, on that of the German or Nazi variant of socialism, but also on that of Soviet-style socialism as well.
We can start with the fact that the financial self-interest of sellers operating under price controls is to evade the price controls and raise their prices. Buyers otherwise unable to obtain goods are willing, indeed, eager to pay these higher prices as the means of securing the goods they want. In these circumstances, what is to stop prices from rising and a massive black market from developing?
The answer is a combination of severe penalties combined with a great likelihood of being caught and then actually suffering those penalties. Mere fines are not likely to provide much of a deterrent. They will be regarded simply as an additional business expense. If the government is serious about its price controls, it is necessary for it to impose penalties comparable to those for a major felony.
But the mere existence of such penalties is not enough. The government has to make it actually dangerous to conduct black-market transactions. It has to make people fear that in conducting such a transaction they might somehow be discovered by the police, and actually end up in jail.
In order to create such fear, the government must develop an army of spies and secret informers. For example, the government must make a storekeeper and his customer fearful that if they engage in a black-market transaction, some other customer in the store will report them.
Because of the privacy and secrecy in which many black-market transactions can be conducted, the government must also make anyone contemplating a black-market transaction fearful that the other party might turn out to be a police agent trying to entrap him. The government must make people fearful even of their long-time associates, even of their friends and relatives, lest even they turn out to be informers.
And, finally, in order to obtain convictions, the government must place the decision about innocence or guilt in the case of black-market transactions in the hands of an administrative tribunal or its police agents on the spot. It cannot rely on jury trials, because it is unlikely that many juries can be found willing to bring in guilty verdicts in cases in which a man might have to go to jail for several years for the crime of selling a few pounds of meat or a pair of shoes above the ceiling price.
In sum, therefore, the requirements merely of enforcing price-control regulations is the adoption of essential features of a totalitarian state, namely, the establishment of the category of “economic crimes,” in which the peaceful pursuit of material self-interest is treated as a criminal offence, and the establishment of a totalitarian police apparatus replete with spies and informers and the power of arbitrary arrest and imprisonment.
Clearly, the enforcement of price controls requires a government similar to that of Hitler’s Germany or Stalin’s Russia, in which practically anyone might turn out to be a police spy and in which a secret police exists and has the power to arrest and imprison people.
If the government is unwilling to go to such lengths, then, to that extent, its price controls prove unenforceable and simply break down. The black market then assumes major proportions. (Incidentally, none of this is to suggest that price controls were the cause of the reign of terror instituted by the Nazis.
The Nazis began their reign of terror well before the enactment of price controls.
As a result, they enacted price controls in an environment ready made for their enforcement.)
Black market activity entails the commission of further crimes. Under de facto socialism, the production and sale of goods in the black market entails the defiance of the government’s regulations concerning production and distribution, as well as the defiance of its price controls.
For example, the goods themselves that are sold in the black market are intended by the government to be distributed in accordance with its plan, and not in the black market. The factors of production used to produce those goods are likewise intended by the government to be used in accordance with its plan, and not for the purpose of supplying the black market.
Under a system of de jure socialism, such as existed in Soviet Russia, in which the legal code of the country openly and explicitly makes the government the owner of the means of production, all black-market activity necessarily entails the misappropriation or theft of state property.
For example, the factory workers or managers in Soviet Russia who turned out products that they sold in the black market were considered as stealing the raw materials supplied by the state.
Furthermore, in any type of socialist state, Nazi or Communist, the government’s economic plan is part of the supreme law of the land. We all have a good idea of how chaotic the so-called planning process of socialism is.
Its further disruption by workers and managers siphoning off materials and supplies to produce for the black market, is something which a socialist state is logically entitled to regard as an act of sabotage of its national economic plan. And sabotage is how the legal code of a socialist state does regard it. Consistent with this fact, black-market activity in a socialist country often carries the death penalty.
Now I think that a fundamental fact that explains the all-round reign of terror found under socialism is the incredible dilemma in which a socialist state places itself in relation to the masses of its citizens. On the one hand, it assumes full responsibility for the individual’s economic well-being.
Russian or Bolshevik-style socialism openly avows this responsibility — this is the main source of its popular appeal. On the other hand, in all of the ways one can imagine, a socialist state makes an unbelievable botch of the job. It makes the individual’s life a nightmare.
Every day of his life, the citizen of a socialist state must spend time in endless waiting lines. For him, the problems Americans experienced in the gasoline shortages of the 1970s are normal; only he does not experience them in relation to gasoline — for he does not own a car and has no hope of ever owning one — but in relation to simple items of clothing, to vegetables, even to bread.
Even worse he is frequently forced to work at a job that is not of his choice and which he therefore must certainly hate. (For under shortages, the government comes to decide the allocation of labor just as it does the allocation of the material factors of production.)
And he lives in a condition of unbelievable overcrowding, with hardly ever a chance for privacy. (In the face of housing shortages, boarders are assigned to homes; families are compelled to share apartments. And a system of internal passports and visas is adopted to limit the severity of housing shortages in the more desirable areas of the country.) To put it mildly, a person forced to live in such conditions must seethe with resentment and hostility.
Now against whom would it be more logical for the citizens of a socialist state to direct their resentment and hostility than against that very socialist state itself?
The same socialist state which has proclaimed its responsibility for their life, has promised them a life of bliss, and which in fact is responsible for giving them a life of hell. Indeed, the leaders of a socialist state live in a further dilemma, in that they daily encourage the people to believe that socialism is a perfect system whose bad results can only be the work of evil men.
If that were true, who in reason could those evil men be but the rulers themselves, who have not only made life a hell, but have perverted an allegedly perfect system to do it?
It follows that the rulers of a socialist state must live in terror of the people. By the logic of their actions and their teachings, the boiling, seething resentment of the people should well up and swallow them in an orgy of bloody vengeance. The rulers sense this, even if they do not admit it openly; and thus their major concern is always to keep the lid on the citizenry.
Consequently, it is true but very inadequate merely to say such things as that socialism lacks freedom of the press and freedom of speech. Of course, it lacks these freedoms. If the government owns all the newspapers and publishing houses, if it decides for what purposes newsprint and paper are to be made available, then obviously nothing can be printed which the government does not want printed.
If it owns all the meeting halls, no public speech or lecture can be delivered which the government does not want delivered. But socialism goes far beyond the mere lack of freedom of press and speech.
A socialist government totally annihilates these freedoms. It turns the press and every public forum into a vehicle of hysterical propaganda in its own behalf, and it engages in the relentless persecution of everyone who dares to deviate by so much as an inch from its official party line.
The reason for these facts is the socialist rulers’ terror of the people. To protect themselves, they must order the propaganda ministry and the secret police to work ’round the clock. The one, to constantly divert the people’s attention from the responsibility of socialism, and of the rulers of socialism, for the people’s misery.
The other, to spirit away and silence anyone who might even remotely suggest the responsibility of socialism or its rulers — to spirit away anyone who begins to show signs of thinking for himself.
It is because of the rulers’ terror, and their desperate need to find scapegoats for the failures of socialism, that the press of a socialist country is always full of stories about foreign plots and sabotage, and about corruption and mismanagement on the part of subordinate officials, and why, periodically, it is necessary to unmask large-scale domestic plots and to sacrifice major officials and entire factions in giant purges.
It is because of their terror, and their desperate need to crush every breath even of potential opposition, that the rulers of socialism do not dare to allow even purely cultural activities that are not under the control of the state. For if people so much as assemble for an art show or poetry reading that is not controlled by the state, the rulers must fear the dissemination of dangerous ideas.
Any unauthorized ideas are dangerous ideas, because they can lead people to begin thinking for themselves and thus to begin thinking about the nature of socialism and its rulers.
The rulers must fear the spontaneous assembly of a handful of people in a room, and use the secret police and its apparatus of spies, informers, and terror either to stop such meetings or to make sure that their content is entirely innocuous from the point of view of the state.
Socialism cannot be ruled for very long except by terror. As soon as the terror is relaxed, resentment and hostility logically begin to well up against the rulers. The stage is thus set for a revolution or civil war.
In fact, in the absence of terror, or, more correctly, a sufficient degree of terror, socialism would be characterized by an endless series of revolutions and civil wars, as each new group of rulers proved as incapable of making socialism function successfully as its predecessors before it.
The inescapable inference to be drawn is that the terror actually experienced in the socialist countries was not simply the work of evil men, such as Stalin, but springs from the nature of the socialist system.
Stalin could come to the fore because his unusual willingness and cunning in the use of terror were the specific characteristics most required by a ruler of socialism in order to remain in power. He rose to the top by a process of socialist natural selection: the selection of the worst.
I need to anticipate a possible misunderstanding concerning my thesis that socialism is totalitarian by its nature. This concerns the allegedly socialist countries run by Social Democrats, such as Sweden and the other Scandinavian countries, which are clearly not totalitarian dictatorships.
In such cases, it is necessary to realize that along with these countries not being totalitarian, they are also not socialist. Their governing parties may espouse socialism as their philosophy and their ultimate goal, but socialism is not what they have implemented as their economic system.
Their actual economic system is that of a hampered market economy, as Mises termed it. While more hampered than our own in important respects, their economic system is essentially similar to our own, in that the characteristic driving force of production and economic activity is not government decree but the initiative of private owners motivated by the prospect of private profit.
The reason that Social Democrats do not establish socialism when they come to power, is that they are unwilling to do what would be required. The establishment of socialism as an economic system requires a massive act of theft — the means of production must be seized from their owners and turned over to the state.
Such seizure is virtually certain to provoke substantial resistance on the part of the owners, resistance which can be overcome only by use of massive force.
The Communists were and are willing to apply such force, as evidenced in Soviet Russia. Their character is that of armed robbers prepared to commit murder if that is what is necessary to carry out their robbery.
The character of the Social Democrats in contrast is more like that of pickpockets, who may talk of pulling the big job someday, but who in fact are unwilling to do the killing that would be required, and so give up at the slightest sign of serious resistance.
As for the Nazis, they generally did not have to kill in order to seize the property of Germans other than Jews. This was because, as we have seen, they established socialism by stealth, through price controls, which served to maintain the outward guise and appearance of private ownership. The private owners were thus deprived of their property without knowing it and thus felt no need to defend it by force.
I think I have shown that socialism — actual socialism — is totalitarian by its very nature.
In the United States at the present time, we do not have socialism in any form. And we do not have a dictatorship, let alone a totalitarian dictatorship.
We also do not yet have Fascism, though we are moving towards it. Among the essential elements that are still lacking are one-party rule and censorship. We still have freedom of speech and press and free elections, though both have been undermined and their continued existence cannot be guaranteed.
What we have is a hampered market economy that is growing ever more hampered by ever more government intervention, and that is characterized by a growing loss of individual freedom.
The growth of the government’s economic intervention is synonymous with a loss of individual freedom because it means increasingly initiating the use of physical force to make people do what they do not voluntarily choose to do or prevent them from doing what they do voluntarily choose to do.
Since the individual is the best judge of his own interests, and at least as a rule seeks to do what it is in his interest to do and to avoid doing what harms his interest, it follows that the greater the extent of government intervention, the greater the extent to which individuals are prevented from doing what benefits them and are instead compelled to do what causes them loss.
Today, in the United States, government spending, federal, state, and local, amounts to almost half of the monetary incomes of the portion of the citizenry that does not work for the government.
Fifteen federal cabinet departments, and a much larger number of federal regulatory agencies, together, in most instances with counterparts at the state and local level, routinely intrude into virtually every area of the individual citizen’s life. In countless ways he is taxed, compelled, and prohibited.
The effect of such massive government interference is unemployment, rising prices, falling real wages, a need to work longer and harder, and growing economic insecurity. The further effect is growing anger and resentment.
Though the government’s policy of interventionism is their logical target, the anger and resentment people feel are typically directed at businessmen and the rich instead. This is a mistake which is fueled for the most part by an ignorant and envious intellectual establishment and media.
And in conformity with this attitude, since the collapse of the stock market bubble, which was in fact created by the Federal Reserve’s policy of credit expansion and then pricked by its temporary abandonment of that policy, government prosecutors have adopted what appears to be a particularly vengeful policy toward executives guilty of financial dishonesty, as though their actions were responsible for the widespread losses resulting from the collapse of the bubble.
Thus the former head of a major telecommunications company was recently given a twenty-five year prison sentence. Other top executives have suffered similarly.
Even more ominously, the government’s power to obtain mere criminal indictments has become equivalent to the power to destroy a firm, as occurred in the case of Arthur Andersen, the major accounting firm.
The threatened use of this power was then sufficient to force major insurance brokerage firms in the United States to change their managements to the satisfaction of New York State’s Attorney General. There is no way to describe such developments other than as conviction and punishment without trial and as extortion by the government. These are major steps along a very dangerous path.
Fortunately, there is still sufficient freedom in the United States to undo all the damage that has been done. There is first of all the freedom to publicly name it and denounce it.
More fundamentally, there is the freedom to analyze and refute the ideas that underlie the destructive policies that have been adopted or that may be adopted. And that is what is critical. For the fundamental factor underlying interventionism and, of course, socialism as well, whether Nazi or Communist, is nothing but wrong ideas, above all, wrong ideas about economics and philosophy.
There is now an extensive and growing body of literature that presents sound ideas in these two vital fields. In my judgment, the two most important authors of this literature are Ludwig von Mises and Ayn Rand. An extensive knowledge of their writings is an indispensable prerequisite for success in the defense of individual freedom and the free market.
This institute, The Ludwig von Mises Institute, is the world’s leading center for the dissemination of Mises’s ideas. It presents a constant flow of analyses based on his ideas, analyses that appear in its academic journals, its books and periodicals, and in its daily website news articles that deal with the issues of the moment.
It educates college and university students, and young instructors, in his ideas and the related ideas of other members of the Austrian school of economics. It does this through the Mises Summer University, the Austrian Scholars Conferences, and a variety of seminars.
Two very major ways of fighting for freedom are to educate oneself to the point of being able to speak and write as articulately in its defense as do the scholars associated with this institute or, if one does not have the time or inclination to pursue such activity, then to financially support the Institute in its vital work to whatever extent one can.
It is possible to turn the tide. No single person can do it. But a large and growing number of intelligent people, educated in the cause of economic freedom, and speaking up and arguing in its defense whenever possible, is capable of gradually forming the attitudes of the culture and thus of the nature of its political and economic system.
You in this audience are all already involved in this great effort. I hope you will continue and intensify your commitment.
These leftist and communist ideas include anti-capitalism, total destruction of the individual in favor of the state, and big government takeover.
We have all heard this stereotype in our universities.
However, we think there is a far more accurate political ideology floating in the minds of modern leftists, thirsty for revolution to take down “the man” and change the “bourgeois system.”
We are speaking of fascism – left-wing politically correct progressive fascism.
“What!” you say.
“James O’Brien on LBC Radio would strongly disagree”.
He would, wouldn’t he?
Fascism is left-wing and that is fact.
According to the (left-wing fascists) fascism itself is reserved only for the so called British evil white conservative men who spout evil fascist rhetoric like small government, individualism, self-reliance, capitalism, less dependency on government, traditionalism, and self-responsibility with strong ties to self-sustaining autonomous Christian family units!!!”
Just slow down, put down your vegan burger and eco warrior climate change book, slip off the (leather shoes) you are wearing and let us explain.
After peeling back some layers of the Orwellian leftist language and indoctrination that has been hounded over many years into young students heads that fascism is always of the evil British nasty right-wing, closer examination reveals the undeniable factual evidence and truth, the horrific reality that you were never meant to know or find out.
Fascism is Left-wing.
Fascism could not be any further from the British or American right-wing conservative (Classical Liberalism at its heart).
Very few realize that fascism by its very nature was an extremely leftist populist movement taking root in Mussolini’s Italy and later Hitler’s Nazi Germany spreading like wildfire throughout Europe.
Left-wing self righteous guilt tripping British hating smug PC luvvies shudder when they realise that they have been misled and fed lies on a scale that even the nazis would of been proud of.
But the full horror really hits home when the people who have been morally hoodwinked and convinced (brainwashed) to follow these so called progressive left-wing crank organisations learn the truth that nazism and fascism were, and are, very much indeed LEFT-WING.
This could be looked at as very amusing if it were not for the simple fact that these self righteous left-wing luvvies who go around calling everybody a (fascist) or a (racist) who happen to have a different opinion, are in actual fact very much racist fascist nazis themselves.
These people have caused untold damage and suffering to people’s lives, and they have driven others to suicide.
This is no laughing matter in any sense of the word, or in the reason and common decency of a civilised democratic society and humanity.
History of Fascism – the real ideology of the left-wing and enforced through Political Correctness
Fascism was born out of socialism (the prized ideology among the left) and was an evolved state-centric version of socialism which became popular around the early to mid 1900s.
It was “new” and full of revolutionary change.
Benito Amilcare Andrea Mussolini (a name consisting almost entirely of Socialist revolutionaries) was raised a charismatic Italian Socialist (his Socialist father being a huge influence on him) (Goldberg 31).
After Mussolini incorporated socialism and nationalism within Italy, fascism spread quickly (without much pretense to race that would come later with German Nazism).
Political Correctness is a tool used by the left-wing fascists as the ideal way of silencing opposition or debate against the regime.
Anybody who spoke out against left-wing fascism was labelled as (politically incorrect) in contrast to being (politically correct).
To be (politically correct) means nothing more than – (do as you are told, stay silent and only say what you are told you can say) or you will be branded as (politically incorrect) and viewed as a social outcast and called a variety of names intended to bring disgrace and shame on the non-conformist.
The above can be clearly seen in the way that the left-wing fascists intimidate and oppress people today.
Fascism would eventually compete with International Socialism for the young revolutionary, the working man, the poor, and the masses in places such as Germany, France, and Italy.
To many individuals, fascism state-centric ideology seemed far more of a “working system” rather than that delusional idea of “uniting the workers of the world”, which was the motto of the International Socialist.
With fascism, as with all large bloated governments that leftists think can cure all our qualms, the utopian lie is propagated by the state which supposedly aims to build a communal National Socialism state-sponsored family.
Fascism was to transcend class differences exactly like socialism preached.
Below are first-hand accounts according to working class Germans and their views on Hitler’s Nationalist Socialist ideas:
…Though I was interested in the betterment of the workingman’s plight, I rejected Marxism unconditionally. I often asked myself why socialism had to be tied up with internationalism- why it could not work as well or better in conjunction with nationalism’. Another German states ‘I shuddered at the thought of Germany in the grip of Bolshevism.
The slogan ‘Workers of the World Unite!’ made no sense to me. At the same time, however, National Socialism with its promise of community…barring all class struggle, attracted me profoundly’. Another German stated they embraced Nazism because of the ‘uncompromising will to stamp out the class struggle, snobberies of caste and party hatreds. The movement bore the true message of socialism to the German workingman. (Goldberg 74)
Below are key points from Mussolini and the Fasci di Combattimento (a Fascist organization created by Mussolini) circa 1919 (Goldberg 46):
- The abolition of the senate and the creation of a national technical council on intellectual and manual labor, industry, commerce and culture
- The creation of various government bodies run by worker’s representatives
- The obligation of the state to build “rigidly secular” schools for the raising of “the proletariat’s moral and cultural condition”
All of this seems like the modern leftist’s wet dream.
Modern UK and American leftist rhetoric is far closer to fascism than the UK or American right’s strong stress on individualism, capitalism, and reduced government intervention.
Fascism – ideology of the left-wing
Fascism stressed huge nanny state governments, just like the left-wing politically correct liberal elite nanny state.
This huge fascist government included expanding health services, enforcing anti-elitism, wealth-confiscation, and secularism (Goldberg 46) all in the name of the state and the common good.
Fascism offered “anti-bourgeois, anti-capitalistic, and anti-individualist nationalism” (Sternhell 214-220).
The state was always before the individual under fascism; taking from some and redistributing to the many.
This is the core of modern American leftist ideology as well as the British.
To illustrate this comparison further, let’s look at just a few of the Nazi Party’s key points (Goldberg 411):
- We demand the nationalization of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).
- We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.
- The first obligation of every citizen must be to work both spiritually and physically. The activity of individuals is not to counteract the interests of the universality, but must have its result within the framework of the whole for the benefit of all.
We can’t tell the difference when the Nazi points end and the leftist points begin.
Not to mention, positive discrimination (prized among the left) is just race privilege enforced by left-wing PC fascist undemocratic discriminatory intervention against one kind.
Positive discrimination is similar to the notorious government enforced Aryan privilege in Nazi Germany regardless of skill.
Historic dangers of the left
In all leftist evil extremes, be it Communism, Nazism, Socialism, or Fascism; murder, violence, and censorship are sure to be the eventual outcome of huge government.
It is a historic pattern and if history is cyclical, which we believe it is, we are at the beginning of what will be the eventual violence found among extreme Leftist purity tactics dating back to the French Revolution (Jacboins), up through Soviet Russia(Bolsheviks), Ukraine, and Communist China.
Nothing has been more devastating and dangerous politically in the 20th century than leftist thought.
If we look at 20th century communism alone we come to a whopping 85-100 million worldwide that perished under such leftist regimes, not to mention the censorship, labor camps, violation of civil liberties, and imprisonment.
One should think of fascism not as the complete opposite of socialism and communism, but yet another kindred spirit in extreme leftist political ideologies that were competing for the hearts and minds of the populous.
Not much has changed with fascist ideology of collectivism (another prized belief of the left) were individual twigs bundle together to make a strong piece of collective wood.
Allow this article to be a possible warning sign of modern day ideology, as their quest will devolve into a loss of civility and violence as we move farther and farther left.
As the left ideologies become more and more resembling a preacher preaching piety from the pulpit, “action” will be the next conclusive step.
Peel back the leftist language from moral PC sounding words like “Progressive” and “Bigot” or some other words that end with ‘phobe’, ‘ist’ or ‘ism’ to expose it for what it really is; left-wing fascist policies and huge government takeover in a pretty PC covered wrapper.
The beginning of the end
Whatever the case, one should keep in mind that socialism, communism, fascism, and nazism all are of the left; they were just different factions of the left.
What is occurring in the U.S. and UK today is not that different from what occurred in Europe some years ago.
Though it may be much more hidden under the cloak of political correctness to make it sound moralistic and acceptable, left-wing fascism and nazism are rooted in this evil ideology, and without doubt, left-wing fascism is pure evil.
Keep this in mind when you are sitting in your cube at the Ministry of Truth, hunched over your keyboard, editing and bowdlerizing Wikipedia pages for “the party”; just remember this article and the quintessential fascist party ideology:
…(the) quest to create an all-caring, all-powerful, all-encompassing state, a state that assumes responsibility for every desirable outcome and takes the blame for every setback on the road to utopia, a state that finally replaces God (Goldberg 20)
“But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished.
He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother.”
Do not become the protagonist of 1984.
Let’s keep fiction for the books and the reality for us here in the UK.
The philosophical and political fate of the country depends on it.
Yes, the National Socialist Workers Party of Germany, otherwise known as the Nazi Party, was indeed socialist, and it had a lot in common with the modern left.
Students who were brainwashed by the far left-wing elements within university campuses are now beginning to realise that they have been lied to and used by much more darker elements than those on the right-wing they were told they were making a stand against.
Hitler preached class warfare, agitating the working class to resist “exploitation” by capitalists — particularly Jewish capitalists, of course, hence the anti-Semitism we see today amongst the far left-wing nazis and progressives.
Their program called for the nationalization of education, health care, transportation, and other major industries.
They instituted and vigorously enforced a strict form of left-wing nazi political correctness fascism.
They encouraged pornography, illegitimacy, and abortion, and they denounced Christians as right-wing fanatics.
Yet a popular myth persists that the Nazis themselves were right-wing extremists.
This insidious lie biases the entire political landscape, and the time has come to expose it.
Left-wing fascism and left fascism are sociological and philosophical terms used to categorise real or perceived tendencies in extreme left-wing politics otherwise commonly attributed to the ideology of Fascism.
Fascism has historically been considered a far right ideology, but crossovers may be expected according to the theory of extremes meet(French: Les extrêmes se touchent), where the touching point between the far left and the far right may be the use of power and/or political terrorism. Syntagmas such as left-wing fascism provide shorthand labels.
They lack any universally understood or agreed meaning and in common parlance may be used as a pejorative for any left-wing political position, or where unusual (or contradictory) hybrid political positions are perceived.
The term has its origins with criticism by Vladimir Lenin of the threat of anti-Marxist ultra leftism, before being formulated as a position by sociologists Jürgen Habermas and Irving Louis Horowitz.
Nazism was inspired by Italian Fascism, an invention of hardline Communist Benito Mussolini.
During World War I, Mussolini recognised that conventional socialism wasn’t working.
He saw that nationalism exerted a stronger pull on the working class than proletarian brotherhood.
He also saw that the ferocious opposition of large corporations made socialist revolution difficult.
So in 1919, Mussolini came up with an alternative strategy.
He called it Fascism. Mussolini described his new movement as a “Third Way” between capitalism and communism.
As under communism, the state would exercise dictatorial control over the economy.
But as under capitalism, the corporations would be left in private hands.
Hitler followed the same game plan.
He openly acknowledged that the Nazi party was “socialist” and that its enemies were the “bourgeoisie” and the “plutocrats” (the rich).
Like Lenin and Stalin, Hitler eliminated trade unions, and replaced them with his own state-run labor organizations.
Like Lenin and Stalin, Hitler hunted down and exterminated rival leftist factions (such as the Communists).
Like Lenin and Stalin, Hitler waged unrelenting war against small business.
Hitler regarded capitalism as an evil scheme of the Jews and said so in speech after speech.
Karl Marx believed likewise.
In his essay, ‘On the Jewish Question’ Marx theorized that eliminating Judaism would strike a crippling blow to capitalist exploitation. Hitler put Marx’s theory to work in the death camps.
The Nazis are widely known as nationalists, but that label is often used to obscure the fact that they were also socialists. Some question whether Hitler himself actually believed in socialism, but that is no more relevant than whether Stalin was a true believer.
The fact is that neither could have come to power without at least posing as a socialist. And the constant emphasis on the fact that the Nazis were nationalists, with barely an acknowledgement that they were socialists, is as absurd as labeling the Soviets “internationalists” and ignoring the fact that they were socialists (they called themselves the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics).
Yet many who regard “national” socialism as the scourge of humanity consider “international” socialism a benign or even superior form of government.
According to a popular misconception, the Nazis must have been on the political right because they persecuted communists and fought a war with the communists in Russia.
This specious logic has gone largely unchallenged because it serves as useful propaganda for the left, which needs “right-wing” atrocities to divert attention from the horrific communist atrocities of the past century.
Hence, communist atrocities have received much less publicity than Nazi war crimes, even though they were greater in magnitude by any objective measure.
R. J. Rummel of the University of Hawaii documents in his book Death by Government that the two most murderous regimes of the past century were both communist: communists in the Soviet Union murdered 62 million of their own citizens, and Chinese communists killed 35 million Chinese citizens.
The Nazi socialists come in third, having murdered 21 million Jews, Slavs, Serbs, Czechs, Poles, Ukrainians and others. Additional purges occurred in smaller communist hellholes such as Cambodia, Vietnam, North Korea, Ethiopia, and Cuba, of course.
Communism does more than imprison and impoverish nations: it kills wholesale. And so did “national socialism” during the Nazi reign of terror.
But the history of the past century has been grossly distorted by the predominantly left-wing media and academic elite.
The Nazis have been universally condemned — as they obviously should be — but they have also been repositioned clear across the political spectrum and propped up as false representatives of the far right — even though Hitler railed frantically against capitalism in his infamous demagogic speeches.
At the same time, heinous crimes of larger magnitude by communist regimes have been ignored or downplayed, and the general public is largely unaware of them.
Hence, communism is still widely regarded as a fundamentally good idea that has just not yet been properly “implemented.” Santayana said, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” God help us if we forget the horrors of communism and get the historical lessons of Nazism backwards.
The Nazis also had something else in common with the modern left: an obsessive preoccupation with race. Hitler and his Nazis considered races other than their own inferior, of course. Modern “liberals,” who vociferously oppose the elimination of racial quotas, seem to agree.
They apparently believe that non-white minorities (excluding Asians, of course) are inferior and unable to compete in the free market without favoritism mandated by the government.
Whereas Hitler was hostile to those racial minorities, however, modern white “liberals” condescend benevolently.
Hitler’s blatant and virulent form of racism was eradicated relatively quickly and very forcefully, but the more subtle and insidious racism of the modern left has yet to be universally recognized and condemned.
The media often focuses its microscope on modern neo-nazi lunatics, but the actual scope of the menace is relatively miniscule, with perhaps a few thousand neo-nazis at most in the United States (mostly “twenty-something” know-nothings).
The number of communists and communist sympathizers in the UK and United States dwarfs that figure, of course — even among tenured professors!
While the threat of neo-nazi terrorism is indeed serious, the chance of neo-nazis gaining any kind of legitimate political power anywhere is virtually zero.
Neo-nazi rallies incite violence and they should be looked upon as beyond contempt, but no less so than the left-wing nazis themselves, who are the real heirs to nazism and totalitarian fascism.
Students were once in favour of free speech. In the mid-1960s, students of the University of California, Berkeley undertook a mass-movement for free speech. Under the leadership of Leftist heroes like Jack Weinberg, Bettina Aptheker and Jackie Goldberg, students demanded that the university administration retracted their on-campus ban of political activities. They demanded their freedom of speech. Mario Savio delivered what is generally recognised as the iconic speech of the University of California, Berkeley’s (UCB) free speech movement. Here is the speech’s most powerful section:
“There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can’t take part. You can’t even passively take part!
And you’ve got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you’ve got to make it stop! And you’ve got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it — that unless you’re free, the machine will be prevented from working at all!”
Savio’s speech helped push the movement towards success. Berkeley students won their full rights. Students, now liberated from the “machine” of university censorship, were able to create the anti-Vietnam student movement, another famous campus protest.
Nowadays, the student Left are unwilling to honour Savio’s legacy. On the 2nd of February, violent protests at Berkeley shut down a talk by popular conservative speaker Milo Yiannopoulos. Instead of maintaining a liberal and free atmosphere for speech and argument, Berkeley students have become the gears, wheels and levers of the machine.