Socialism/Capitalism/Fascism: Why the Media and the Body Politic are wrong

I think it's sad that people think this is about the election, or taxes, or guns, and not what will soon be 12 years of pass-the-baton fascism across party lines.

This isn't Obama's first term, it's Bush's 3rd.

It's funny because the Left thinks they'll get what they want out of Obama, and the Right is busy screaming about socialism, and no one is smart enough to read a history book, if they were, they'd realize that it's just more Fascism.

Since Bush took office we have seen a multitude of new laws and government programs that, to an undiscerning people, appear to protect the lives and freedoms of Americans. Against terrorism, against recessions.

In 2001, on January the 20th, George W. Bush was inaugurated as the 43rd President of the United States of America. Upon taking office the Bush administration inherited a recession brought on by the over-inflation of what is now know as the "Tech-bubble". During that time we had managed to bailout several financial institutions and a few airlines, then September 11th... More money was to be spent dragging the economy out of what was supposed to be a much needed recession. YES, you heard right, a MUCH NEEDED Recession.

When a market is over-bought, over-inflated, and over-speculated, the market has to correct itself and come back to what economists call "Equilibrium"- a balance between actual market value as a result of actual market production. In 2001 we didn't do that, instead we filled in the unbalanced and fake "demand" with government money to maintain an artificially high market value out of sync with what this country was actually producing. Add to that artificially low interest rates-which gave rise to the sub-prime home lending all through the decade. Those actions caught up to us in 2007.

What does this have to do with "Socialism/Capitalism/Fascism"? Some would argue that Bush's actions were a socialist move out of Left field, and that it helped start the spiraling toward socialism that many feel they are seeing today. And while it may appear that way on the surface, it is not the case when you consider who actually benefited from these actions. Namely Corporate interests like Goldman Sachs(Now under fire over collusion with government).

Some also argue that this is the result of unfettered, unregulated capitalism. And while that may have political merit it has no base in reality. And here's why:

The banking industry makes up 40% of the corporate lobby in Washington, followed by big oil, big pharma, and agribusiness etc. When you consider how much money is thrown about in the halls of Congress and in the White House from these deep corporate pockets, you have to wonder who the government works for. If the answer to today's problems is more government regulation, then the question is, can we trust the foxes to guard the hen-house? It seems that "regulation" when written by lobbyists, is anything but, and throughout the Post-War history of US capitalism it has been this way.

So if what we're seeing today isn't socialism, and it isn't unhindered-capitalism, then what is it?

Fascism

The collusion of government and big business to make and enforce public policy:
Benito Mussolini once said "Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power."

He also said this "Fascism, the more it considers and observes the future and the development of humanity, quite apart from political considerations of the moment, believes neither in the possibility nor the utility of perpetual peace." What does this mean? After World War 2, Eisenhower said this in his farewell speech January 17, 1961:

"Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense. We have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security alone more than the net income of all United States corporations.

Now this conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual --is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources, and livelihood are all involved. So is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades. In this revolution, research has become central, it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers. The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present -- and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system – ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.

Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into society's future, we -- you and I, and our government -- must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering for our own ease and convenience the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow."

(Read the Whole Speech Here)

Google Video Link

Eisenhower could not have foreseen the use of the financial industry as a weapon of fascism, nor the use of health-care. He did warn of the profitability in war, though not specifically, as the number one threat to the security of freedom, not just in America, but around the world. The National Security state in which we live, and the collusion of large industry with government to subvert the will of the people seen today stands as a testament to the veracity of this man's unheeded warnings. It is high-time the debate about what is happening to America be made honest.

The true meaning behind what we see today has been skewed into a concept unrecognizable to the people, by the left and right wing fascists that exist among us. Some are only useful idiots in the perpetuation of this goal, some are actively seeking this agenda. None the less, one thing is clear, Obama is NOT a socialist, he certainly isn't a capitalist...Then what is he? What is he, and all of his predecessors who have actively and/or passively contributed to this agenda?

He's a Fascist. American blood was spilled-plenty fighting the roots of this ideology in Europe during the Second World War. To the avid study of history, and those with the presence of mind, this is a very challenging and frightening time to be an American. It is my conclusion that after all I have seen in the 20 years I've been in the US, that we have been, and still are being infiltrated and lead down the road to ruin by globalist fascists. Hitler and Mussolini were both Globalist fascists. It was, after all, their goal of world domination that brought about the Second World War.

Today, the question is this:

Does the world have to endure a 3rd World War fighting us-the USA? Or will the people stand up and say no to this tyranny? Will you stand up?

[edit on 30-7-2009 by projectvxn]

wow, incredibly well thought out and put.

i think you're bang on the money about facism being the predominant political attitude and not only in america, but in almost every "western" nation. it seems every government is totally dedicated to the health of the "economy", which is really just the health of a few big corporations these days.

reply to post by pieman


I'm not even sure the health of these corporations are in their interests either. Only the individuals to a degree. It seems to me that Crone-Capitalism(Fascism-lite) has exploded into a systemic and pervasive ideology. Here we are, at the onset of a new Reich. Only it isn't about the perfect race, or the conquest of the world through the military. It is now about total economic control to the benefit of those we call the elite. It is the ultimate expression of centralized power.

So few people understand what socialism and especially fascism really mean. There are elements of socialism but without the economic justice. There are elements of capitalism without the economic liberty. Indeed many have heard the recent coinage "socializing losses and privatizing gains." Of course any sensible person knows it should be the other way around. The current government is taking the worst qualities of both. One only has to look at the way the PTB are aligning themselves and the definition of fascism and see that is what is happening.

The nationalist aspect of fascism was appealed to during the bush administration, and I'm sure it will be called upon once crisis strikes. Of course your definition is the meat of fascism, the nationalism and divisiveness is what creates the useful idiots to help carry out the regime's goals.

I've always thought it strange how a military man like Ike, in such a conservative era, would be the president to best describe and predict the fascist takeover, but then again he saw it firsthand didn't he.

It would be interesting if the US were to take on the whole world, and to be a fly on the wall, gauging the reaction of the citizens to such a turn of events. You can see the world revolting from American economic tyranny by forming alliances, renouncing our currency, and generally blaming us for the economic crisis. Imagine what they will think when things get worse. The US is loosing it's grip on world politics. Up and comers like China are deciding they don't need the US and are taking on a leadership role in this century.

But to actually have a world war with the US so utterly isolated? Things will have to become quite dire before that happens.

[edit on 30-7-2009 by CapsFan8]

reply to post by CapsFan8


I have to admit I'm looking at this with a bit of foresight. And while I have no crystal ball to tell me the future, certain action and policies in place, and being put into place allow for a certain sense of clairvoyance. We are at the brink of what may be a rebellion, or a third world war.

And while I like being comfortable. I like being pampered by all things American, but I know that it is not sustainable, and that certain agendas afford me no peace of mind during this time.

I hope for rebellion, as those are usually over very quickly. It doesn't have to be an armed rebellion, perhaps a political rebellion with the implied notion of violent overthrow will be enough...I don't know, I'm am not a naturally violent person. But these are outstanding times we live in.

[edit on 30-7-2009 by projectvxn]

[edit on 30-7-2009 by projectvxn]

the nazi's called themselves national socialists, we call them fascist.

the words used in politics and the things they label are fairly arbitrary, one person says it is socialist for a bank to be supported by the state and another says it's fascist because it means the bank and the state are now in bed together. neither is exactly true but neither is entirely false.

the worst of it is, neither side wants you to know the whole truth, it doesn't suit either of them. you have to wade through both piles of horse manure and try to cross reference the facts in the hopes of coming up with something that makes sense.

you're left either not trusting anyone if you know what they're talking about, which leaves you impotent, or trusting what you see as the lesser of two evils if you're not sure what they're talking about, which makes you open to manipulation.

it's the politics of fear, plain and simple. that's why the christian right are so big in US politics these last few years, fire and brimstone preachers know how to play the fear card better than anyone else. that's why the media shouts about one health scare after another, that's why we hear about terrorist threats that never seem to materialise, that's why we all await the armageddon caused by climate change or overpopulation or a meteor strike or genetic manipulation or drug addiction or killer vaccines or a rise in autism and peanut alerigies.

a lot of money from corporations, a lot of nationalism from the body politik and a lot of fear from anybody with a platform, what a stressful mess we've gotten ourselves into.

maybe it will spark revolution, maybe it will, but the biggest hindrance to that is the fact that no-one is quite sure what's going on so no-one's quite sure what they'ld actually be rebelling against.

even us, we're fairly sure we have some idea what's going on, whats coming down the line, but none of us seem quite sure what do do about it or which way to jump.

it's confusing as hell.

[edit on 30/7/09 by pieman]

reply to post by pieman


Fascism almost always hides behind a thin veil of socialism. You can't just tell people that you're going to dictate their every move, and that you are hiring a private army to make sure it happens. No. First they'll rally behind a cause, indoctrinate the people, eliminate unemployment through "volunteerism" and a whole host of other crap that Obama/Bush have done and will do.

Maybe this could be to some help with the definition and to why they called it: National Socialism

Great interviews of the 20th century

This edited interview of Adolf Hitler by George Sylvester Viereck took place in 1923. It was republished in Liberty magazine in July 1932

I met Hitler not in his headquarters, the Brown House in Munich, but in a private home - the dwelling of a former admiral of the German Navy. We discussed the fate of Germany over the teacups.

"Why," I asked Hitler, "do you call yourself a National Socialist, since your party programme is the very antithesis of that commonly accredited to socialism?"

"Socialism," he retorted, putting down his cup of tea, pugnaciously, "is the science of dealing with the common weal. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists.

"Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Our German ancestors held certain lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic.

"We might have called ourselves the Liberal Party. We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists. We are not internationalists. Our socialism is national. We demand the fulfilment of the just claims of the productive classes by the state on the basis of race solidarity. To us state and race are one."

---

"We want a greater Germany uniting all German tribes. But our salvation can start in the smallest corner. Even if we had only 10 acres of land and were determined to defend them with our lives, the 10 acres would become the focus of regeneration. Our workers have two souls: one is German, the other is Marxian. We must arouse the German soul. We must uproot the canker of Marxism. Marxism and Germanism are antitheses.

"In my scheme of the German state, there will be no room for the alien, no use for the wastrel, for the usurer or speculator, or anyone incapable of productive work."

The cords on Hitler's forehead stood out threateningly. His voice filled the room. There was a noise at the door. His followers, who always remain within call, like a bodyguard, reminded the leader of his duty to address a meeting

Hitler gulped down his tea and rose.

Apparently, from Hitlers mouth in this interview - their National Socialism has little to do with the ordinary (as we know the definitions of) Socialism or Marxism.

It seems that they just used the word for their evil agenda & purposes!

Please read the rest of the interview, it's quite interesting.

www.guardian.co.uk...



[edit on 30-7-2009 by Chevalerous]

reply to post by Chevalerous


incredibly interesting interview, the most interesting thing, to me, is how clear and open hitler was in his aims way back in 1923 and how, couched in ambiguous terms, they seem almost reasonable.

for instance, he says;

In my scheme of the German state, there will be no room for the alien, no use for the wastrel, for the usurer or speculator, or anyone incapable of productive work.

this seems a fairly reasonable goal (in context alien seems to mean marxism), however the fruition of this, given hindsight, were concentration camps and industrialised genocide.

the reason i find it interesting is because of the lesson it teaches us about the nature of political phrasing. i imagine that it is possible that there are politicians today in every country that might say similar things who would happily carry out their plans to their full extent given the opportunity.

the rise of hitler came a couple of decades after the collapse of the old eurocentric world order and here we are a couple of decades after the collapse of one half of the dualistic world order of the cold war, just as the other half of that world order seems on the verge of collapse herself.

we live in interesting times.

Originally posted by projectvxn
This isn't Obama's first term, it's Bush's 3rd.

It's funny because the Left thinks they'll get what they want out of Obama, and the Right is busy screaming about socialism, and no one is smart enough to read a history book, if they were, they'd realize that it's just more Fascism.

Since Bush took office we have seen a multitude of new laws and government programs that, to an undiscerning people, appear to protect the lives and freedoms of Americans. Against terrorism, against recessions.

Notice how it all started after 911? And people say there was no reason for the shadow government to pull of 911.

Here’s great vid on the true nature of the political spectrum.

www.youtube.com...

Tyranny by any other name would taste as bitter. Pay no attention to the labels and look at the actions of the PTB, and the conditions the people live under. This will tell you whether freedom or tyranny prevails. All of these false dichotomies are used to keep the people double minded and confused. To make us think we’re voting for change when we’re really being led down the garden path.

reply to post by king9072


While I'm not convinced that Bush's programs were fascist, the final days and the TARP/bailouts certainly paved the way for an openly fascist approach in the BHO administration.

He has never made it a secret that his socialist agenda for health, education and energy would follow government control of the means of production and requisite financial resources.

The biggest question in my mind is how far the government-corporate mergers will go and how long they will last before Obama openly turns to the socialist objectives he denies in words but pursues in action.

jw