My memory says that Mister Obama once expressed admiration for, and envy of, the power of the leader of communist China, saying that he (Obama) wished he could just mandate policy on his own, and not have to deal with the messy legislative process.
Is my memory accurate? I cannot locate that specific quote on the web.
Efficiency. The debate over systems of governance centers around the pursuit of maximum efficiency. When exploring the history of Fascism and Mussolini's affection for it we ought to explore who Mussolini learned from, helped him shape his ideas. One of the most important figures he studied under as a young man living in Switzerland was Vilfredo Pareto, an engineer and social scientist. A social engineer.
Many of us are familiar with the "Pareto Principle" aka the 80-20 rule. Which tied in to some of his other theories on optimization and efficiency. Which are a a requisite for capitalistic high-profit systems and centrally controlled, centrally planned authoritarian/totalitarian systems. Teaser Wikipedia link as overview that can help focus independent research that's more credible than wiki:
Even at the height of the Cold War following the defeat of the Fascistic version of authoritarianism leaders in the west, the US and UK were lamenting how "inefficient freedom" is. Envious of the USSR's "efficient slavery" much like Rexford Tugwel said to FDR years earlier about Mussolini's regime:
‘Damned Efficient Slavery’ vs. ‘Inefficient Freedom’
Back to Vilfredo Pareto, he had many other ideas of "optimal" governance. He wrote of his theories on the the Mind and Society (propaganda and indoctrination?) and the "Circulation of the Elite." How the same people always retain their status in society no matter what system of governance is in power. Fascism. Marxism. Capitalism. Left. Right. One system goes out, another comes in and Voila! the same managerial and "elite" class rides atop it. As Trump brings many of his friends--->foes---friends back into his administration who rode roughshod over individual liberty and freedom since 2020. They circulate. And land back on top.
As Noam Chomsky wrote about how the same person can be champion of capitalism, a corporate head honcho and as the power structure changes become a champion of Marxism in the role of commissar:
Because those who are in privileged positions with wealth and power got there chasing maximum efficiency, and at the end of the day, that's what those in power under any system end up chasing. Even the Founders of the United States. The first Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, John Jay, famously said, "The people who own the country ought to govern it." Contradicting the US Constitution and Bill of Rights that grew out of the Declaration of Independence that propelled the people to try to break that circulation of elite asserting that all men are created equal, endowed by their creator with inalienable rights. Setting the judiciary on a course to completely eviscerate the Constitution's founding principles by means of linguistic interpretations that nullify the governing contract and ideals it's charged with upholding.
The Supreme Court, hegemony, and Its Consequences
Minnesota Journal of Law & Inequality, December, 1987
The authoritarians never lost power. They just lurked in the background, scheming to continue their rule that maximizes efficiency without being out front, designing sophisticated illusions for slaves to believe they are free. And what they fear most of all is the slaves seeing them behind the illusions, the Wizards behind the curtains. Knowing that when the slaves see how weak and pathetic they are they will lose their status. Hence, censorship, imprisonment and murder of those who get to close to pulling the curtain back. Where's a innocuous little Toto to pull it back undetected when we need one? Or a Fox?
"As many readers know, the left-right ideological terminology arose from the seating arrangement in France’s National Assembly at the time of the revolution (1789). Traditional monarchists sat on the right, whereas more liberal and radical members sat to the left. Using this same schema to describe modern political systems would presumably put fascism to the “right” of traditional monarchists — an absurdity."
I do not believe this is correct.
When you consider the radical reimaginings of French society championed by the Jacobins and the Montegnards, you quickly see that their view of what French society would be is completely antithetical to what the traditional monarchists wanted.
While the French monarch especially during the reign of Louis XIV an absolute monarch, the Sun King did not champion the idea of a Legalistic State as the moral arbiter of all things French. The quote apocryphally attributed to Louis XIV, "L'etat c'est moi" ("I am the state"), is the antithesis of the impersonal, bureaucratized, regimented State that Robespierre sought for France. Even his deathbed statement on State permanence, "Je m'en vais, mais l'État demeurera toujours" (I am leaving but the State will always remain) is an acknowledgment of his role in shaping the French governing structures, and the role his successor would play in evolving them. Both of these are fundamentally expressions of individual rather than State power. At the same time, monarchial views embraced traditional functions and limitations upon even absolute monarchs which the Jacobins rejected (it is worth noting that a century earlier Oliver Cromwell rejected the idea of becoming King Oliver I of England, preferring to rule in absolute fashion as Lord Protector, which gave him GREATER power than being king).
While monarchists are hardly libertarian in their thinking, neither are they fans of the depersonalized State which Mussolini championed in his corporatist views on Socialism which became the foundation of our understanding of what fascism is, and which Hitler absorbed in crafting the political ideology of the National Socialists during the 1920s. Similarly, Hitler himself was opposed to the restoration of the Hohenzollerns to the throne of an imperial Germany, viewing the monarchy as weak institution unable to withstand the threat of Bolshevism.
When we look at how the National Assembly was arrayed in the chamber in terms of the ideologies espoused by the various factions, we see that those on the right side of the chamber were far more interested in maintaining or restoring the governing and social order that had existed before the French Revolution, while those on the left actively sought to dismantle that same governing and social order, crafting new institutions with no historical or philosophical connection to what had gone before.
If we apply that understanding of the "left-right" paradigm to modern political theories, we see that fascism is very much part of that same radical restructuring of society as Communism and socialism, that indeed the primary differences between the three systems are how the governing structure is articulated, not in the absolute power that governing structure enjoys. Fascism is thus not even remotely "right wing", but is quintessentially left-wing in its theory and in its practice.
Milo Yiannapoulos back during Trump’s first election campaign projected that the transformation we were seeing in US politics was not so much a shift along the left-right spectrum but a re-orientation along a libertarian-authoritarian axis, which exists more or less orthogonally to the left-right axis that we typically use. I do believe this to be an accurate assessment of what we’re seeing now.
What neither progressives nor conservatives will ever admit is that there are within their ranks both authoritarians and libertarians. Donald Trump broke the Democratic voter coalition by appealing to the libertarian elements across the board, and Kamala Harris attempted to break the Republican voter coalition by appealing to the authoritarian elements across the board.
I always like to harken back to the actual term Mussolini used to describe or explain his political methods. “Fasces” is the Latin word for a bundle of sticks, and Mussolini claimed his Fascist Party would wield strength through this bundling effect-a bundle of sticks is stronger than any individual stick.
Whether socialist or communist, Nazi or Antifa, white or black, a party or movement who uses groups of people to intimidate opponents, usually through violence or other disruptive means, is fascist. Brown shirts, black shirts, PETA, BLM, vagina hats, anyone traveling in groups to shout down or beat down their opponents are FASCISTS.
In today’s political environment, fascists are almost invariably leftist, progressives and the like.
My memory says that Mister Obama once expressed admiration for, and envy of, the power of the leader of communist China, saying that he (Obama) wished he could just mandate policy on his own, and not have to deal with the messy legislative process.
Is my memory accurate? I cannot locate that specific quote on the web.
I would say so, from his statements on the facts, if nothing else.
Efficiency. The debate over systems of governance centers around the pursuit of maximum efficiency. When exploring the history of Fascism and Mussolini's affection for it we ought to explore who Mussolini learned from, helped him shape his ideas. One of the most important figures he studied under as a young man living in Switzerland was Vilfredo Pareto, an engineer and social scientist. A social engineer.
Many of us are familiar with the "Pareto Principle" aka the 80-20 rule. Which tied in to some of his other theories on optimization and efficiency. Which are a a requisite for capitalistic high-profit systems and centrally controlled, centrally planned authoritarian/totalitarian systems. Teaser Wikipedia link as overview that can help focus independent research that's more credible than wiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vilfredo_Pareto
Even at the height of the Cold War following the defeat of the Fascistic version of authoritarianism leaders in the west, the US and UK were lamenting how "inefficient freedom" is. Envious of the USSR's "efficient slavery" much like Rexford Tugwel said to FDR years earlier about Mussolini's regime:
‘Damned Efficient Slavery’ vs. ‘Inefficient Freedom’
Associated Press, January 4, 1958
https://archive.org/details/dailycolonist0158uvic_1/mode/2up?view=theater
Back to Vilfredo Pareto, he had many other ideas of "optimal" governance. He wrote of his theories on the the Mind and Society (propaganda and indoctrination?) and the "Circulation of the Elite." How the same people always retain their status in society no matter what system of governance is in power. Fascism. Marxism. Capitalism. Left. Right. One system goes out, another comes in and Voila! the same managerial and "elite" class rides atop it. As Trump brings many of his friends--->foes---friends back into his administration who rode roughshod over individual liberty and freedom since 2020. They circulate. And land back on top.
As Noam Chomsky wrote about how the same person can be champion of capitalism, a corporate head honcho and as the power structure changes become a champion of Marxism in the role of commissar:
https://chomsky.info/19890315/
Because those who are in privileged positions with wealth and power got there chasing maximum efficiency, and at the end of the day, that's what those in power under any system end up chasing. Even the Founders of the United States. The first Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, John Jay, famously said, "The people who own the country ought to govern it." Contradicting the US Constitution and Bill of Rights that grew out of the Declaration of Independence that propelled the people to try to break that circulation of elite asserting that all men are created equal, endowed by their creator with inalienable rights. Setting the judiciary on a course to completely eviscerate the Constitution's founding principles by means of linguistic interpretations that nullify the governing contract and ideals it's charged with upholding.
The Supreme Court, hegemony, and Its Consequences
Minnesota Journal of Law & Inequality, December, 1987
https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1371&context=lawineq
The authoritarians never lost power. They just lurked in the background, scheming to continue their rule that maximizes efficiency without being out front, designing sophisticated illusions for slaves to believe they are free. And what they fear most of all is the slaves seeing them behind the illusions, the Wizards behind the curtains. Knowing that when the slaves see how weak and pathetic they are they will lose their status. Hence, censorship, imprisonment and murder of those who get to close to pulling the curtain back. Where's a innocuous little Toto to pull it back undetected when we need one? Or a Fox?
Where indeed?
In “discussions” with so called
“educated” political scientists, I have have the same arguments. If people called Hitler’s party by its full name,
The National Socialist Workers Party, it would appear to have been one of many sub-groups of Marxism, Stalinism, or any other Communist titles.
In Matthew 7:16 it says: “Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?”
Or to put it more simply, If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck.
"As many readers know, the left-right ideological terminology arose from the seating arrangement in France’s National Assembly at the time of the revolution (1789). Traditional monarchists sat on the right, whereas more liberal and radical members sat to the left. Using this same schema to describe modern political systems would presumably put fascism to the “right” of traditional monarchists — an absurdity."
I do not believe this is correct.
When you consider the radical reimaginings of French society championed by the Jacobins and the Montegnards, you quickly see that their view of what French society would be is completely antithetical to what the traditional monarchists wanted.
While the French monarch especially during the reign of Louis XIV an absolute monarch, the Sun King did not champion the idea of a Legalistic State as the moral arbiter of all things French. The quote apocryphally attributed to Louis XIV, "L'etat c'est moi" ("I am the state"), is the antithesis of the impersonal, bureaucratized, regimented State that Robespierre sought for France. Even his deathbed statement on State permanence, "Je m'en vais, mais l'État demeurera toujours" (I am leaving but the State will always remain) is an acknowledgment of his role in shaping the French governing structures, and the role his successor would play in evolving them. Both of these are fundamentally expressions of individual rather than State power. At the same time, monarchial views embraced traditional functions and limitations upon even absolute monarchs which the Jacobins rejected (it is worth noting that a century earlier Oliver Cromwell rejected the idea of becoming King Oliver I of England, preferring to rule in absolute fashion as Lord Protector, which gave him GREATER power than being king).
While monarchists are hardly libertarian in their thinking, neither are they fans of the depersonalized State which Mussolini championed in his corporatist views on Socialism which became the foundation of our understanding of what fascism is, and which Hitler absorbed in crafting the political ideology of the National Socialists during the 1920s. Similarly, Hitler himself was opposed to the restoration of the Hohenzollerns to the throne of an imperial Germany, viewing the monarchy as weak institution unable to withstand the threat of Bolshevism.
When we look at how the National Assembly was arrayed in the chamber in terms of the ideologies espoused by the various factions, we see that those on the right side of the chamber were far more interested in maintaining or restoring the governing and social order that had existed before the French Revolution, while those on the left actively sought to dismantle that same governing and social order, crafting new institutions with no historical or philosophical connection to what had gone before.
If we apply that understanding of the "left-right" paradigm to modern political theories, we see that fascism is very much part of that same radical restructuring of society as Communism and socialism, that indeed the primary differences between the three systems are how the governing structure is articulated, not in the absolute power that governing structure enjoys. Fascism is thus not even remotely "right wing", but is quintessentially left-wing in its theory and in its practice.
Peter, thanks you for that, even the French couldn’t mess it up!
Milo Yiannapoulos back during Trump’s first election campaign projected that the transformation we were seeing in US politics was not so much a shift along the left-right spectrum but a re-orientation along a libertarian-authoritarian axis, which exists more or less orthogonally to the left-right axis that we typically use. I do believe this to be an accurate assessment of what we’re seeing now.
What neither progressives nor conservatives will ever admit is that there are within their ranks both authoritarians and libertarians. Donald Trump broke the Democratic voter coalition by appealing to the libertarian elements across the board, and Kamala Harris attempted to break the Republican voter coalition by appealing to the authoritarian elements across the board.
Hear hear 👂!
Damn right. More than thankful, really.
It occurs to me, that our globalist are the epitome of fascism.
It's from the old days, many into one, a bundle of arrows. We use it ourselves. Modern usage is stupid. The alternative to fascism is no state.
Which, you know...
I always like to harken back to the actual term Mussolini used to describe or explain his political methods. “Fasces” is the Latin word for a bundle of sticks, and Mussolini claimed his Fascist Party would wield strength through this bundling effect-a bundle of sticks is stronger than any individual stick.
Whether socialist or communist, Nazi or Antifa, white or black, a party or movement who uses groups of people to intimidate opponents, usually through violence or other disruptive means, is fascist. Brown shirts, black shirts, PETA, BLM, vagina hats, anyone traveling in groups to shout down or beat down their opponents are FASCISTS.
In today’s political environment, fascists are almost invariably leftist, progressives and the like.
Just my tuppence (yeah, the monetary kind).