Chazz my son's band Sol Asunder! BIG TOUR!~ YAYYYY Chazz! Way to go!..musology
Nov 24 2008 2:22 PM -Metal Maniacs Presents-THE GRIND YOUR MIND TOURwithEMBRYONIC DEVOURMENTLECHEROUS NOCTURNESOL ASUNDER
2/27/09 Los Angeles, CA @ Black Castle
2/28/09 San Marcos, CA @ The Jumping Turtle
3/1/09 Tempe, AZ @ The Sets
3/2/09 Albuquerque, NM @ The Compound
3/3/09 El Paso, TX @ Chic's Billiards
3/4/09 Dallas, TX @ Reno's Chop Shop
3/5/09 Houston, TX @ Jet Lounge
3/6/09 New Orleans, LA @ Dragon's Den
3/7/09 Tampa, FL @ The Brass Mug
3/8/09 Orlando, FL @ The Dungeon
3/9/09 Atlanta, GA @ Lenny's Bar
3/10/09 Baltimore, MD @ The Talking Head
3/11/09 Philadelphia, PA @ The Khyber
3/12/09 Pittsburgh, PA @ The Smiling Moose
3/13/09 Indianapolis, IN @ Melody Inn
3/14/09 Chicago, IL @ Metal Shaker Lounge
3/15/09 St Paul, MN @ Big V's
3/16/09 Kansas City, MO @ The Riot Room
3/17/09 Denver, CO @ The Funhouse
3/18/09 Salt Lake City, UT @ Club Vegas
3/19/09 Boise, ID @ The Gusto Bar
3/20/09 Seattle, WA @ The Comet Tavern
3/21/09 Portland, OR @ The Red Room
Saturday, November 29, 2008
Friday, November 28, 2008
Hope? Try Dispair
I am fortunate enough to have a libertarian newspaper in my town. This is the lastest op ed from our regional editor, Phil Lucas. I love reading his pieces...i hope he doesn't mind that I share it on my blog. ...musology
Hope? Try Dispair...Phil Lucas
We have done it. A nation of morons has finally elected a president of equal ability. A Zogby survey showed 57 percent of voters for Obama could not say which party controlled Congress. The other 43 percent just made a lucky guess.
I voted for Chuck Baldwin, Constitution Party, who suffered the handicap of belonging to a party that had heard of the Constitution and perhaps read it, too. He got three votes in my county, so I represented a third of his support. If he is ever elected, this clout should land me the job as chairman of the Federal Reserve, at which time I will do my patriotic duty and torch it.
The Yes We Can president will not burn the boys. He extracted his new Treasury secretary from the bowels of the New York Fed. Incest being what it is, his chief economic adviser came from Treasury, having headed that gang in the Clinton regime, which blew up the dot com stock market bubble and laid the foundation of the housing bust.
That Fed and Treasury make a living plundering taxpayers for their friends. The first $125 billion of the Wall Street bailout went to buy preferred stock in Federal Reserve member banks so they can pay themselves bonuses. Banks' bonuses will consume better than 85 percent of that $125 billion.
The President for Change is packing his administration with Wall Street insiders and Clinton retreads. Everything they touch turns to ruin, but he says they offer "sound judgment and fresh thinking." Hahaha. You can't make this stuff up. What a fine job we have done. A reader sent this last week: "Americans got tired of the rest of the world thinking they were dumb, so they went to the polls and removed all doubt."
Time magazine had a cover with Obama in an FDR pose. Perfect. Obama admires Abe Lincoln. So, we have the man himself admiring the worst president in the nation's history and Time has him posing as the second worst. Neck and neck, going for third, are LBJ and George Bush, but Obama, in economic ignorance, is closing fast. He says he will create jobs. That requires money.
Government has two ways to get money. First, take it from the people in taxes. Second, counterfeit loot on the federale printing press. As for the first, taxing one citizen $1,000 to give to another creates nothing. By spending or investing, the plundered citizen could have created as many jobs with his money as the party who stole it. Further, after lobbyists, politicians and bureaucrats take their cut, $1,000 shrinks to $350, meaning the beneficiary of the theft has less money to create jobs than the taxpayer who earned it. Taxation destroys jobs.
As for the second, monetary expansion via the printing press, this debases dollars in circulation, causing prices to rise. Purposeful attacks on the dollar's value is theft of the effort it takes to acquire them. Further, rising prices hurt us all, especially the poor. Inflation forces us to spend disproportionately on necessities, instead of on new cars or homes. Monetary inflation destroys buying power and the jobs that went with it.
The Man of Hope will continue funneling money into the wasteland of failed enterprises, rewarding failure and punishing success. Banks and businesses that did not loan or invest foolishly will pay those that did otherwise. Solid citizens who meet their obligations will be bled for the reckless and ignorant. Hope? Hardly. Try dispair, as producers, the backbone of the nation, are broken.
Obama is right. We can do better. He might start with himself.
Hope? Try Dispair...Phil Lucas
We have done it. A nation of morons has finally elected a president of equal ability. A Zogby survey showed 57 percent of voters for Obama could not say which party controlled Congress. The other 43 percent just made a lucky guess.
I voted for Chuck Baldwin, Constitution Party, who suffered the handicap of belonging to a party that had heard of the Constitution and perhaps read it, too. He got three votes in my county, so I represented a third of his support. If he is ever elected, this clout should land me the job as chairman of the Federal Reserve, at which time I will do my patriotic duty and torch it.
The Yes We Can president will not burn the boys. He extracted his new Treasury secretary from the bowels of the New York Fed. Incest being what it is, his chief economic adviser came from Treasury, having headed that gang in the Clinton regime, which blew up the dot com stock market bubble and laid the foundation of the housing bust.
That Fed and Treasury make a living plundering taxpayers for their friends. The first $125 billion of the Wall Street bailout went to buy preferred stock in Federal Reserve member banks so they can pay themselves bonuses. Banks' bonuses will consume better than 85 percent of that $125 billion.
The President for Change is packing his administration with Wall Street insiders and Clinton retreads. Everything they touch turns to ruin, but he says they offer "sound judgment and fresh thinking." Hahaha. You can't make this stuff up. What a fine job we have done. A reader sent this last week: "Americans got tired of the rest of the world thinking they were dumb, so they went to the polls and removed all doubt."
Time magazine had a cover with Obama in an FDR pose. Perfect. Obama admires Abe Lincoln. So, we have the man himself admiring the worst president in the nation's history and Time has him posing as the second worst. Neck and neck, going for third, are LBJ and George Bush, but Obama, in economic ignorance, is closing fast. He says he will create jobs. That requires money.
Government has two ways to get money. First, take it from the people in taxes. Second, counterfeit loot on the federale printing press. As for the first, taxing one citizen $1,000 to give to another creates nothing. By spending or investing, the plundered citizen could have created as many jobs with his money as the party who stole it. Further, after lobbyists, politicians and bureaucrats take their cut, $1,000 shrinks to $350, meaning the beneficiary of the theft has less money to create jobs than the taxpayer who earned it. Taxation destroys jobs.
As for the second, monetary expansion via the printing press, this debases dollars in circulation, causing prices to rise. Purposeful attacks on the dollar's value is theft of the effort it takes to acquire them. Further, rising prices hurt us all, especially the poor. Inflation forces us to spend disproportionately on necessities, instead of on new cars or homes. Monetary inflation destroys buying power and the jobs that went with it.
The Man of Hope will continue funneling money into the wasteland of failed enterprises, rewarding failure and punishing success. Banks and businesses that did not loan or invest foolishly will pay those that did otherwise. Solid citizens who meet their obligations will be bled for the reckless and ignorant. Hope? Hardly. Try dispair, as producers, the backbone of the nation, are broken.
Obama is right. We can do better. He might start with himself.
Monday, November 24, 2008
Controlled Opposition
In the effort to establish a singular global government, the powers that be recognized that opposition to their plan would be evident and unavoidable. These opposition forces must certainly be neutralized and their voices squelched, if the socialists' plans to conquer the world were to be rendered successful. How can one keep leaders from arising out of the teaming masses to speak out against the plan in favor of freedom? The diabolical would-be dictators understood the only way to accomplish this, was to create the perception that someone was already fighting the battle of liberty for them. Someone who both supported the plan, yet spoke out against it. Someone who would gain the trust of the masses, then employ diversionary tactics, leading them into tyranny. These are the controlled opposition. They come in many different forms, and organizations, and purport to stand for various causes. Some fill pulpits, others occupy public offices. Several are broadcasters. All are deceivers. All are players of a manipulation process called the Hegelian Dialectic. They hammer at issues, are vocal about matters that appeal to Christians and conservatives, and even do some good deeds. But their efforts always fail to mobilize their supporters to take the right action, leading the majority who never see through their scheme to ask, "Who silenced the outcry?"
ACLU FOR Civil Liberties? Look again.
2The ACLU enjoys the reputation of being a defender of civil liberties. In keeping with that image, it has spoken against
the Patriot Act and other legislation that denies civil liberties in the name of fighting terrorism.
So far, so good, but there
is a difference between speaking out on a topic and actually doing something about it. When it comes to applying its
legal and financial resources, the ACLU moves in other directions. At the time of this writing, the Executive Director of
the ACLU is Anthony Romero, a member of the CFR. Previously, he had been in charge of the Ford Foundation’s grant
program where he channeled approximately $90 million to organizations promoting “crisis” messages that frighten the
public into accepting bigger government, which means into accepting laws like the Patriot Act.
For example, The Ford
Foundation has funded studies and groups promoting the concepts of environmental crisis and population-growth crisis
and then calling for vast new government powers as the only way to head off global catastrophe. The Foundation has
been a major source of funding for MALDEF, LaRaza, and other Hispanic separatist groups, which means it finances
those who call for breaking away parts of California and Texas and giving them to Mexico. It also has funded the
American Indian Movement, which has a similar separatist agenda for parts of the U.S. where American Indian
populations are prominent. It is not likely that either movement would ever succeed; but if enough revolutionaries can
be funded and mobilized into the streets with violent demonstrations and riots, peaceful citizens are expected to
gratefully accept martial law and internationalization of these areas as acceptable alternatives to violence.
In all of these
cases, the role played by the Ford Foundation is to fan the flames of fear, to frighten us into accepting a police state at
home, comfortably merged with other police states at the UN, in a world government based on the model of
collectivism.
The ACLU supports these causes strongly and speaks against their consequences softly.
This is a classic
case of controlling one’s own opposition to insure that it does not succeed. It is an extension of the strategy described to
Norman Dodd in 1954 by Ford Foundation President, Rowan Gaither when he explained that war – and the dread of war
– was the most effective way to bring people to accept a rapid shift in society toward collectivism. Dread of war is still
the most powerful motivator, but collectivists have discovered that dread of terrorism, dread of environmental
catastrophe, and dread of overpopulation are also useful for this purpose. For that part of the story, see chapter twentyfour,
“Doomsday Mechanisms,” in The Creature from Jekyll Island; A Second Look at the Federal Reserve.
the Patriot Act and other legislation that denies civil liberties in the name of fighting terrorism.
So far, so good, but there
is a difference between speaking out on a topic and actually doing something about it. When it comes to applying its
legal and financial resources, the ACLU moves in other directions. At the time of this writing, the Executive Director of
the ACLU is Anthony Romero, a member of the CFR. Previously, he had been in charge of the Ford Foundation’s grant
program where he channeled approximately $90 million to organizations promoting “crisis” messages that frighten the
public into accepting bigger government, which means into accepting laws like the Patriot Act.
For example, The Ford
Foundation has funded studies and groups promoting the concepts of environmental crisis and population-growth crisis
and then calling for vast new government powers as the only way to head off global catastrophe. The Foundation has
been a major source of funding for MALDEF, LaRaza, and other Hispanic separatist groups, which means it finances
those who call for breaking away parts of California and Texas and giving them to Mexico. It also has funded the
American Indian Movement, which has a similar separatist agenda for parts of the U.S. where American Indian
populations are prominent. It is not likely that either movement would ever succeed; but if enough revolutionaries can
be funded and mobilized into the streets with violent demonstrations and riots, peaceful citizens are expected to
gratefully accept martial law and internationalization of these areas as acceptable alternatives to violence.
In all of these
cases, the role played by the Ford Foundation is to fan the flames of fear, to frighten us into accepting a police state at
home, comfortably merged with other police states at the UN, in a world government based on the model of
collectivism.
The ACLU supports these causes strongly and speaks against their consequences softly.
This is a classic
case of controlling one’s own opposition to insure that it does not succeed. It is an extension of the strategy described to
Norman Dodd in 1954 by Ford Foundation President, Rowan Gaither when he explained that war – and the dread of war
– was the most effective way to bring people to accept a rapid shift in society toward collectivism. Dread of war is still
the most powerful motivator, but collectivists have discovered that dread of terrorism, dread of environmental
catastrophe, and dread of overpopulation are also useful for this purpose. For that part of the story, see chapter twentyfour,
“Doomsday Mechanisms,” in The Creature from Jekyll Island; A Second Look at the Federal Reserve.
G. Edward Griffin - Love/Hate Between Leninists and Fabians
LOVE-HATE BETWEEN FABIANS AND LENINISTS
Fabians and Marxists are in agreement over their mutual goal of collectivism, but
they differ over style and sometimes tactics. When Marxism became fused with Leninism
and made its first conquest in Russia, these differences became the center of debate between
the two groups. Karl Marx said the world was divided into two camps eternally at war with
each other. One was the working class, which he called the proletariat, and the other was the
wealthy class, those who owned the land and the means of production. This class he called
the bourgeoisie.
Fabians were never enthusiastic over this class-conflict view, probably because most
of them were bourgeoisie, but Lenin and Stalin embraced it wholeheartedly. Lenin described
the Communist Party as the “vanguard of the proletariat,” and it became a mechanism for
total and ruthless war against anyone who even remotely could be considered bourgeoisie.
In the final paragraph of The Communist Manifesto, Marx wrote: “The Communists disdain
to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only
through the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions.” When the Bolsheviks came
to power in Russia, landowners and shopkeepers were slaughtered by the tens of thousands,
a process that continued well into the 1990s and eventually claimed the lives of over 100
million people murdered by their own government.
This brutality offended the sensibilities of the genteel Fabians, especially since most
of them were landowners or shopkeepers. It’s not that Fabians are opposed to force and
violence to accomplish their goals, it’s just that they prefer to use it as a last resort, whereas
the Leninists were running amuck in Russia implementing a plan of deliberate terror and
brutality. Fabians admired the Soviet system because it was based on collectivism but they
were shocked at what they considered to be needless bloodshed. It was a disagreement
primarily over style. When Lenin became the master of Russia, many of the Fabians joined
the Communist Party thinking that it would become the vanguard of world Socialism. They
likely would have stayed there if it hadn’t been for the brutality of the regime.
To understand the love-hate relationship between these two groups we must never
lose sight of the fact that Leninism and Fabianism are merely variants of collectivism. Their
similarities are much greater than their differences. That is why their members often move
from one group to the other – or why some of them are actually members of both groups at
the same time. Leninists and Fabians are usually friendly with each other. They may
disagree intensely over theoretical issues and style, but never over goals.
Margaret Cole was the Chairman of the Fabian Society in 1955 and ‘56. Her father,
G.D.H. Cole, was one of the early leaders of the organization dating back to 1937. In her
book, The Story of Fabian Socialism, she describes the common bond that binds
collectivists together. She says:
4
It plainly emerges that the basic similarities were much greater than the
differences, that the basic Fabian aims of the abolition of poverty, through legislation
and administration; of the communal control of production and social life …, were
pursued with unabated energy by people trained in Fabian traditions, whether at the
moment of time they called themselves Fabians or loudly repudiated the name….
The fundamental likeness is attested by the fact that, after the storms produced first
by Syndicalism1 and then by the Russian Revolution in its early days had died down,
those “rebel Fabians” who had not joined the Communist Party … found no mental
difficulty in entering the revived Fabian Society of 1939 –nor did the surviving
faithful find any difficulty with collaborating with them.2
Fabians are, according to their own symbolism, wolves in sheep’s clothing, and that
explains why their style is more effective in countries where parliamentary traditions are
well established and where people expect to have a voice in their own political destiny.
Leninists, on the other hand, tend to be wolves in wolf’s clothing, and their style is more
effective in countries where parliamentary traditions are weak and where people are used to
dictatorships anyway.
In countries where parliamentary traditions are strong, the primary tactic for both of
these groups is to send their agents into the power centers of society to capture control from
the inside. Power centers are those organizations and institutions that represent all the
politically influential segments of society. These include labor unions, political parties,
church organizations, segments of the media, educational institutions, civic organizations,
financial institutions, and industrial corporations, to name just a few. In a moment, I am
going to provide a partial list of members of an organization called the Council on Foreign
Relations, and you will recognize that the power centers these people control are classic
examples of this strategy. The combined influence of all these entities adds up to the total
political power of the nation. To capture control of a nation, all that is required is to control
its power centers, and that has been the strategy of Leninists and Fabians alike.
They may disagree over style; they may compete over which of them will dominant
the coming New World Order, over who will hold the highest positions in the pyramid of
power; they may even send opposing armies into battle to establish territorial preeminence
over portions of the globe, but they never quarrel over goals. Through it all, they are blood
brothers, and they will always unite against their common enemy, which is any opposition
to collectivism. It is impossible to understand what is unfolding in the War on Terrorism
today without being aware of that reality.
Fabians and Marxists are in agreement over their mutual goal of collectivism, but
they differ over style and sometimes tactics. When Marxism became fused with Leninism
and made its first conquest in Russia, these differences became the center of debate between
the two groups. Karl Marx said the world was divided into two camps eternally at war with
each other. One was the working class, which he called the proletariat, and the other was the
wealthy class, those who owned the land and the means of production. This class he called
the bourgeoisie.
Fabians were never enthusiastic over this class-conflict view, probably because most
of them were bourgeoisie, but Lenin and Stalin embraced it wholeheartedly. Lenin described
the Communist Party as the “vanguard of the proletariat,” and it became a mechanism for
total and ruthless war against anyone who even remotely could be considered bourgeoisie.
In the final paragraph of The Communist Manifesto, Marx wrote: “The Communists disdain
to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only
through the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions.” When the Bolsheviks came
to power in Russia, landowners and shopkeepers were slaughtered by the tens of thousands,
a process that continued well into the 1990s and eventually claimed the lives of over 100
million people murdered by their own government.
This brutality offended the sensibilities of the genteel Fabians, especially since most
of them were landowners or shopkeepers. It’s not that Fabians are opposed to force and
violence to accomplish their goals, it’s just that they prefer to use it as a last resort, whereas
the Leninists were running amuck in Russia implementing a plan of deliberate terror and
brutality. Fabians admired the Soviet system because it was based on collectivism but they
were shocked at what they considered to be needless bloodshed. It was a disagreement
primarily over style. When Lenin became the master of Russia, many of the Fabians joined
the Communist Party thinking that it would become the vanguard of world Socialism. They
likely would have stayed there if it hadn’t been for the brutality of the regime.
To understand the love-hate relationship between these two groups we must never
lose sight of the fact that Leninism and Fabianism are merely variants of collectivism. Their
similarities are much greater than their differences. That is why their members often move
from one group to the other – or why some of them are actually members of both groups at
the same time. Leninists and Fabians are usually friendly with each other. They may
disagree intensely over theoretical issues and style, but never over goals.
Margaret Cole was the Chairman of the Fabian Society in 1955 and ‘56. Her father,
G.D.H. Cole, was one of the early leaders of the organization dating back to 1937. In her
book, The Story of Fabian Socialism, she describes the common bond that binds
collectivists together. She says:
4
It plainly emerges that the basic similarities were much greater than the
differences, that the basic Fabian aims of the abolition of poverty, through legislation
and administration; of the communal control of production and social life …, were
pursued with unabated energy by people trained in Fabian traditions, whether at the
moment of time they called themselves Fabians or loudly repudiated the name….
The fundamental likeness is attested by the fact that, after the storms produced first
by Syndicalism1 and then by the Russian Revolution in its early days had died down,
those “rebel Fabians” who had not joined the Communist Party … found no mental
difficulty in entering the revived Fabian Society of 1939 –nor did the surviving
faithful find any difficulty with collaborating with them.2
Fabians are, according to their own symbolism, wolves in sheep’s clothing, and that
explains why their style is more effective in countries where parliamentary traditions are
well established and where people expect to have a voice in their own political destiny.
Leninists, on the other hand, tend to be wolves in wolf’s clothing, and their style is more
effective in countries where parliamentary traditions are weak and where people are used to
dictatorships anyway.
In countries where parliamentary traditions are strong, the primary tactic for both of
these groups is to send their agents into the power centers of society to capture control from
the inside. Power centers are those organizations and institutions that represent all the
politically influential segments of society. These include labor unions, political parties,
church organizations, segments of the media, educational institutions, civic organizations,
financial institutions, and industrial corporations, to name just a few. In a moment, I am
going to provide a partial list of members of an organization called the Council on Foreign
Relations, and you will recognize that the power centers these people control are classic
examples of this strategy. The combined influence of all these entities adds up to the total
political power of the nation. To capture control of a nation, all that is required is to control
its power centers, and that has been the strategy of Leninists and Fabians alike.
They may disagree over style; they may compete over which of them will dominant
the coming New World Order, over who will hold the highest positions in the pyramid of
power; they may even send opposing armies into battle to establish territorial preeminence
over portions of the globe, but they never quarrel over goals. Through it all, they are blood
brothers, and they will always unite against their common enemy, which is any opposition
to collectivism. It is impossible to understand what is unfolding in the War on Terrorism
today without being aware of that reality.
G. Edward Griffin - The Fabian Society
THE FABIAN SOCIETY
But there was another movement coming to birth at about this same time that
eventually gave competition to the hard-core Marxists. Some of the more erudite members
of the wealthy and intellectual classes of England formed an organization to perpetuate the
concept of collectivism but not exactly according to Marx. It was called the Fabian Society.
The name is significant, because it was in honor of Quintus Fabius Maximus Verrucosus,
the Roman general who, in the second century B.C., kept Hannibal at bay by wearing down
his army with delaying tactics, endless maneuvering, and avoiding confrontation wherever
possible. Unlike the Marxists who were in a hurry to come to power through direct
confrontation with established governments, the Fabians were willing to take their time, to
come to power without direct confrontation, working quietly and patiently from inside the
target governments. To emphasize this strategy, and to separate themselves from the
Marxists, they adopted the turtle as their symbol. And their official shield portrays an image
of a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Those two images perfectly summarize their strategy.
It is now 1884, and we find ourselves in Surrey, England observing a small group of
these Fabians, sitting around a table in the stylish home of two of their more prominent
members, Sydney and Beatrice Webb. The Webbs later would be known world wide as the
founders of the London School of Economics. Their home eventually was donated to the
Fabian Society and became its official headquarters. Around the table are such well-known
figures as George Bernard Shaw, Arnold Toynbee, H.G. Wells, and numerous others of
similar caliber. By the way, the Fabian Society still exists, and many prominent people are
members, not the least of which is England’s Prime Minister, Tony Blair.
H.G. Wells wrote a book to serve as a guide showing how collectivism can be
embedded into society without arousing alarm or serious opposition. It was called The Open
Conspiracy, and the plan was spelled out in minute detail. His fervor was intense. He said
that the old religions of the world must give way to the new religion of collectivism. The
new religion should be the state, he said, and the state should take charge of all human
activity with, of course, elitists such as himself in control. On the very first page, he says:
“This book states as plainly and clearly as possible the essential ideas of my life, the
perspective of my world…. This is my religion. Here are my directive aims and the criteria
of all I do.”1
When he said that collectivism was his religion, he was serious. Like many
collectivists, he felt that traditional religion is a barrier to the acceptance of state power. It is
a competitor for man’s loyalties. Collectivists see religion as a device by which the clerics
keep the downtrodden masses content by offering a vision of something better in the next
world. If your goal is to bring about change, contentment is not what you want. You want
discontentment. That’s why Marx called religion the opiate of the masses.2 It gets in the way
of revolutionary change. Wells said that collectivism should become the new opiate, that it
should become the vision for better things in the next world.
The new order must be built on
the concept that individuals are nothing compared to the long continuum of society, and that
only by serving society do we become connected to eternity. He was very serious.
The blueprint in The Open Conspiracy has been followed in all the British
dependencies and the United Sates. As a result, today’s world is very close to the vision of
H.G. Wells. A worship of the god called society has become a new religion. No matter what
insult to our dignity or liberty, we are told it’s necessary for the advancement of society, and
that has become the basis for contentment under the hardships of collectivism. The greater
good for the greater number has become the opiate of the masses.
G. Edward Griffin- The Political Spectrum
G. Edward Griffin-The Political Spectrum
THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM
We hear a lot today about right-wingers versus left-wingers, but what do those terms
really mean? For example, we are told that communists and socialists are at the extreme
left, and the Nazis and Fascists are on the extreme right. Here we have the image of two
powerful ideological adversaries pitted against each other, and the impression is that,
somehow, they are opposites. But, what is the difference? They are not opposites at all.
They are the same. The insignias may be different, but when you analyze communism and
Nazism, they both embody the principles of socialism. Communists make no bones about
socialism being their ideal, and the Nazi movement in Germany was actually called the
National Socialist Party. Communists believe in international socialism, whereas Nazis
advocate national socialism. Communists promote class hatred and class conflict to
motivate the loyalty and blind obedience of their followers, whereas the Nazis use race
conflict and race hatred to accomplish the same objective. Other than that, there is no
difference between communism and Nazism. They are both the epitome of collectivism, and
yet we are told they are, supposedly, at opposite ends of the spectrum!
There’s only one thing that makes sense in constructing a political spectrum and that
is to put zero government at one end of the line and 100% at the other. Now we have
something we can comprehend. Those who believe in zero government are the anarchists,
and those who believe in total government are the totalitarians. With that definition, we find
that communism and Nazism are together at the same end. They are both totalitarian. Why?
Because they are both based on the model of collectivism. Communism, Nazism, Fascism
and socialism all gravitate toward bigger and bigger government, because that is the logical
extension of their common ideology. Under collectivism, all problems are the responsibility
of the state and must be solved by the state. The more problems there are, the more powerful
the state must become. Once you get on that slippery slope, there is no place to stop until
you reach all the way to the end of the scale, which is total government. Regardless of what
name you give it, regardless of how you re-label it to make it seem new or different,
collectivism is totalitarianism.
Actually, the straight-line concept of a political spectrum is somewhat misleading. It is
really a circle. You can take that straight line with 100% government at one end and zero at
the other, bend it around, and touch the ends at the top. Now it’s a circle because, under
anarchy, where there is no government, you have absolute rule by those with the biggest
fists and the most powerful weapons. So, you jump from zero government to totalitarianism
in a flash. They meet at the top. We are really dealing with a circle, and the only logical
place for us to be is somewhere in the middle of the extremes. We need social and political
organization, of course, but it must be built on individualism, an ideology with an affinity to
that part of the spectrum with the least amount of government possible instead of
collectivism with an affinity to the other end of the spectrum with the most amount of
government possible. That government is best which governs least.
THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM
We hear a lot today about right-wingers versus left-wingers, but what do those terms
really mean? For example, we are told that communists and socialists are at the extreme
left, and the Nazis and Fascists are on the extreme right. Here we have the image of two
powerful ideological adversaries pitted against each other, and the impression is that,
somehow, they are opposites. But, what is the difference? They are not opposites at all.
They are the same. The insignias may be different, but when you analyze communism and
Nazism, they both embody the principles of socialism. Communists make no bones about
socialism being their ideal, and the Nazi movement in Germany was actually called the
National Socialist Party. Communists believe in international socialism, whereas Nazis
advocate national socialism. Communists promote class hatred and class conflict to
motivate the loyalty and blind obedience of their followers, whereas the Nazis use race
conflict and race hatred to accomplish the same objective. Other than that, there is no
difference between communism and Nazism. They are both the epitome of collectivism, and
yet we are told they are, supposedly, at opposite ends of the spectrum!
There’s only one thing that makes sense in constructing a political spectrum and that
is to put zero government at one end of the line and 100% at the other. Now we have
something we can comprehend. Those who believe in zero government are the anarchists,
and those who believe in total government are the totalitarians. With that definition, we find
that communism and Nazism are together at the same end. They are both totalitarian. Why?
Because they are both based on the model of collectivism. Communism, Nazism, Fascism
and socialism all gravitate toward bigger and bigger government, because that is the logical
extension of their common ideology. Under collectivism, all problems are the responsibility
of the state and must be solved by the state. The more problems there are, the more powerful
the state must become. Once you get on that slippery slope, there is no place to stop until
you reach all the way to the end of the scale, which is total government. Regardless of what
name you give it, regardless of how you re-label it to make it seem new or different,
collectivism is totalitarianism.
Actually, the straight-line concept of a political spectrum is somewhat misleading. It is
really a circle. You can take that straight line with 100% government at one end and zero at
the other, bend it around, and touch the ends at the top. Now it’s a circle because, under
anarchy, where there is no government, you have absolute rule by those with the biggest
fists and the most powerful weapons. So, you jump from zero government to totalitarianism
in a flash. They meet at the top. We are really dealing with a circle, and the only logical
place for us to be is somewhere in the middle of the extremes. We need social and political
organization, of course, but it must be built on individualism, an ideology with an affinity to
that part of the spectrum with the least amount of government possible instead of
collectivism with an affinity to the other end of the spectrum with the most amount of
government possible. That government is best which governs least.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
