National Socialism (Fascism) “Based On Marx”

by Al Benson Jr.

A few weeks back I did an article dealing with the fact that fascism is not “right wing” as we have been informed that it is. But rather it is firmly over there on the left side of the political spectrum, right next to its “kissin’ cousin”, communism.

In all my growing up years and into my early years in political activism I can remember supposedly well-informed people emphasizing to me that Hitler was a “right wing fascist” which was, in its own way, just as bad or worse than a communist. I do not doubt that fascism is as bad as communism, but as far as it being on “the right” I have learned better and I am convined that that entire scenario was dreamed up to make the folks on the right look bad. Many of those folks that yarned about fascism being on the right sort of looked down their well-informed noses at me because I was politically on the right, and was, therefore, in their estimation, courting fascism. These folks had no problem being a wee-bit soft on communism, but oh, how they hated fascism. All I can say is that some of the “well-informed” ain’t so well informed as they think they are.

Years ago I heard a lecturer from the John Birch Society give a speech in which he explained the political spectrum–from left to right. He explained, quite plainly, that when it came to the political spectrum fascism (total government) was right over there on the left with communism (total government). He was the only person I heard say that for years, but now it seems that more are awakening to this fact.

A recent article on LewRockwell.com by Daniel Hannan very succinctly pointed all this out. His article originally appeared in The Telegraph in England. Hannan noted that before Hitler’s invasion of Russia, his henchman, Josef Goebbels “looked forward to the new order that the Nazis would impose on a conquered Russia. There would be no come-back, he wrote, for capitalists nor priests nor Tzars. Rather, in the place of a debased Jewish Bolshevism, the Wehrmacht would deliver…real socialism. Goebbels never doubted that he was a socialist. He understood Nazism to be a better and more plausible form of socialism than that propagated by Lenin.”

Hannan noted that, in the West, the cultural victory of the leftists has been so smotheringly pervasive that merely to hear such statements gets most people shook up. They literally, and politically, just can’t deal with that. It goes against all they were taught in school and so it must be wrong–but it isn’t.

And even Hitler, himself, admitted it wasn’t. Hannan stated that: “Hitler told Hermann Rauschning, a Prussian who briefly worked for the Nazis before rejecting them and fleeing the country, that he admired much of the thinking of the revolutionaries he had known as a young man; but he felt they had been talkers and not doers. ‘I have put into practice what these peddlers and pen pushers have timidly begun,’ he boasted, adding that ‘the whole of National Socialism was based on Marx.’

Now there’s a chunk of Red meat for the progressives to chew on! Hannan said that when such statements are made it “elicits an almost berserk reaction from people who think of themselves as progressives and see anti-fascism as part of their ideology.” In other words, these folks are doubleminded (and therefore “unstable in all their ways”)–they want it both ways. They just can’t stand the thought that their “arch enemy” fascism has the same root as their vaunted “progressivism.” Just two peas in the same socialist pod–and it is the same pod. It’s almost laughable.

The communists, socialists, and progressives should be made to march through the streets carrying signs that say We have met the fascists–and they are us.

Advertisements

Confused History–Fascism and Secession

by Al Benson Jr.

The other night I ran across some sort of forum on the Internet, and one of the contributors to it asked the question: What if? Abraham Lincoln goes Fascist instead of socialist. At this point, I can’t recall what the entire forum was all about and I only printed off the one page that had that comment on it. The person who asked the question seemed willing to acknowledge that Mr. Lincoln could fall into the socialist camp, which is more than many are willing to do. But they also considered the possibility that he might end up in the Fascist camp. This might seem an interesting argument to some folks, and I don’t doubt the sincerity of those debating this possibility, but I do have a problem with their conclusions, in that, from my understanding of the political spectrum Fascism is not a rightist, but rather a leftist position–therefore it belongs over there on the left next to socialism and communism.

Fascism, like communism and/or socialism, is a system of collectivism and government control, thus it belongs on the left side of the political spectrum, not on the right. If you are going to view the entire political spectrum from left to right, then you need to place all political systems with total government on the left, and on the right are systems with no government–anarchy–where everyone does that which is right in his own eyes, and that, in a sense, is almost as bad as the leftist position, due to the fact that man is a sinner and, if left to his own devices, he will trample the rights of others for his own personal benefit. And so there needs to be some government, but again, because man is a sinner, the amount of government needs to be limited and defined as to exactly what government can and should do (protection of life and property) and what it is not permitted to do.

So, in a sense, wondering if Lincoln would have ended up as a socialist or a Fascist is almost like saying “Would Lincoln have ended up in socialist party A or socialist party B?” Many forget that the term Nazi stood for “National Socialist.” The main difference between fascists and socialists or communists was that the Fascists were more concerned (at least theoretically) with practicing their total control in a nationalist venue, whereas the communist/socialist had bigger plans and he wanted (and still wants) to do it all on an international scale. Had Lincoln chosen Fascism he would still have been a socialist, just a little different kind than those friends of his that Donnie Kennedy and I wrote about in our book Lincoln’s Marxists.

The same night, I also came across an informative article by Tom DiLorenzo, originally published on LewRockwell.com back in July of 2013. For those who may not know, Tom DiLorenzo is an economics professor at Loyola College in Maryland and is the author of several books, among which are The Real Lincoln and Lincoln Unmasked. In this article Professor DiLorenzo made several comments pertaining to the Declaration of Independence. He stated: “The first several generations of Americans understood that the Declaration of Independence was the ultimate states’ rights document. The citizens of the states would delegate certain powers to a central government in their Constitution and these powers (mostly for national defense and foreign policy purposes) would hopefully be exercised for the benefit of the citizens of the ‘free and independent’ states, as they are called in the Declaration…If the day ever came that the national government became the sole arbiter of the limits of its own powers, then Americans would live under a tyranny as bad or worse than the one the colonists fought a revolution against.” Folks, I hate to have to say it, but that day has arrived, if only we will take our heads out of the sand and confront the sad fact. Ahh, but it’s so much easier to just watch the Reality shows and tune all that nasty stuff out. And the Christians will agree and say “Well, we don’t need to worry about all that. The Lord will return anytime now (momentarily if not sooner) and rapture us all out of this mess so we don’t have to deal with it. We don’t have to get involved. After all, politics is a dirty business anyway.” The fact that it might be a little less dirty if Christians had stayed involved instead of tucking tail and running, is a concept that totally eludes them. But I’m getting carried away here with one of my main concerns–Christian couch potatoes.

Professor DiLorenzo continued: “This was the fundamental understanding of the Declaration of Independence–that it was a Declaration of Secession from the British Empire-…” We seem to have lost that concept today. People don’t even want to think about it. I’ve been taken to task for even saying it in some quarters.

Interestingly enough, Professor DiLorenzo quotes the Kenosha, Wisconsin Democrat
for January 11, 1861, where it said: “The founders of our government were constant secessionists. They not only claimed the right for themselves, but conceded it to others. They were not only secessionists in theory, but in practice.” Such an editorial would never make it into a newspaper today–it would be considered “politically incorrect” and the vast majority of newspapers in our day strictly adhere to political correctness (Cultural Marxism).

Also quoted by Professor DiLorenzo was an editorial from the Washington, D.C. States and Union
newspaper for March 21, 1861, which said: “The people are the ruling judges, the States independent sovereigns. Where the people chose to change their political condition, as our own Declaration of Independence first promulgated, they have a right to do so. If the doctrine was good then, it is good now. Call that by whatever name you please, secession or revolution, it makes no sort of difference.”

And then DiLorenzo carefully noted: “This last sentence was in response to the Republican Party propaganda machine of the day that invented the theory that the Declaration allows for a ‘right of revoluton’ but not a right of ‘secession.’ The States and Union recognized immediately that this non-distinction was nothing more than a rhetorical flimflam designed to deceive the public about the meaning of their own Declaration of Independence. It is a piece of lying propaganda that is repeated to this day by apologists for the American welfare/warfare’police state, especially the Lincoln-worshipping neocons at National Revue, the Claremont Institute, and other appendages of the Republican Party.”

That’s a pretty telling analysis of something that has been used since the days of “Father Abraham” right up to and including our day, when we are informed that we have a “right to revolution” but no right to secession. I’m sorry, but I have to consider that rationale to be a pile of high-grade cow chips.

“Right-Wing” Fascism is Baloney!

by Al Benson Jr.

Over the years that I have kept track of things political I have, more times than I care to mention, been exposed to the spurious term “right-wing fascist.” Pardon my bluntness, but that is 100% pure, top-grade hogwash.

Several years ago I remember hearing a man give a speech on the political spectrum and how it worked and on the political situation in general. He knew his subject. He gave something like a 3 1/2 hour speech on the subject of politics and he had all the information in his head. He needed no notes and didn’t use any. Twice I heard him give the same speech and he did it the same way, no notes.

One thing he dealt with was the political spectrum, from left to right, and what he said made sense in light of the drivel we have been spoon-fed for years regarding this. I pulled the following definition off the Internet, the same Internet that Comrade Obama plans on signing over to some “international body” in the near future (guess who that will be”). I won’t embarrass the Internet site by giving its name, but what it had to say started out this way. “Far-right politics commonly includes authoritarianism, anti-communism, and nativism. Often the term ‘far-right’ is applied to fascists and neo-Nazis, and major elements of fascism have been deemed clearly far-right, such as its belief that supposedly superior people have the right to dominate society while purging allegedly inferior elements…Claims that superior people should proportionately have greater rights than inferior people are sometimes associated wit the far right.” This is the sort of drivel we are supposed to ingest and believe about those on the right–all potential fascists, just waiting to stand in line behind Hitler, with outstretched palms, giving the Nazi salute–the exact same one they used to have our kids in public school use while pledging allegiance to the Yankee flag.

So let’s stop for just a nano-second and view the political spectrum with a degree of common sense.  If the left side of the political spectrum represents total, authoritarian government, which it does, then the right side of the spectrum will represent the exact opposite of the left–no government whatever–anarchy. I know it will take awhile for this to sink in, but ask the Lord to help you with it. It’s not what we’ve been taught. We are not supposed to reason this way. The establishment does not approve. Therefore, what better reason to start?

The article above that I quoted from, which claims to define fascism, could, in fact, be used to define communism. Communism is certainly “authoritarian” and, in its own way, it’s “nativist” with its vision for the “new Soviet Man” and communists most certainly have their own elite, who are expected to rule with an iron hand over the ignorant masses. All you have to do to ascertain that is to read some of the books written by Soviet secret policemen who have defected to the West. They all talk about the “elite” group in the Soviet Union. The Politburo and the KGB were all part of the elite, and even with all the name changes they still are.

It’s true that fascism is authoritarian, or totalitarian if you prefer. However, in a sensible political spectrum, that puts fascism right over there on the left with communism. In fact, you might even say that fascism is a more efficient brand of leftism than communism is. With communism the state claims, in the name of some nebulous organism called “the people” to own everything.  Supposedly, the “people” own it, (yeah, right) but the state runs it, and not always very efficiently.

With fascism the state allows you to keep your name on your deed. Supposedly it is still yours–but the state can tell you what you can and can’t do with it, and when you can or can’t, and if you refuse to do it their way they will come and take “your” property and pass it along to someone who will use it their way.  In the meantime, you, not the state, are responsible for its upkeep and maintainence. You maintain it, they control it. Such a deal!

Therefore, if fascism and communism both represent total government, then they are both on the left side of the political spectrum–otherwise you have a political spectrum with two left sides and no right side–not that some folks wouldn’t love it that way.

On the other hand, the really far right represents anarchy–no government at all, and that’s no good either, lest you end up with the situation described in the Bible where “every man does what is right in his own eyes.” Since Adam’s fall, mankind has been sinful, therefore, some government is needed, but it should be extremely limited and confined to a very few specific areas, such as the protection of life and property, and as much of it as possible should be administered at the local level. When I ran for the town council in the town I live in a few years ago, one of the things I ran on was “less government at all levels and more individual responsibility.”

I don’t expect things to get to that point anytime soon. We’ve gotten too used to government at some level telling us what to do, and though we don’t especially like it, it’s a lot easier just to go along than it is to rock the boat. We used to have boat-rockers in this country. No more. Now we have chair-rockers. And as well, you have the elite (Council on Foreign Relations/Trilateral Commission) that controls both major political parties in this country. These groups, with their elite, have a fascist vision for this country, which they have hired a Marxist president to administer. “Why the president was fairly elected” you say?  Sure he was. When he got only 140% of the vote in some places, and several counties in Northern industrial states where he got 100% of the vote, how could he miss? I don’t know why Romney even bothered to run when there were entire areas where he never got a single vote. And the Republican Party never complained about that. Isn’t that strange? Or does it, in fact, show that one elite group does control both parties and they only say what they are told, or allowed, to say?

As long as the general public has been conditioned to believe that authoritarian fascism is over there on the right, then the leftists and their elitist masters can label all kinds of good folks, Confederate heritage folks, Tea Party folks, Ron Paul supporters, Second Amendment supporters, home schoolers, and others as “right-wing” fascists, and people who have been mis-educated or under-educated will never know that all these groups really stand for less intrusive government and not more. The term “right-wing fascist” is a handy leftist brush to tar lots of good folks with.

We need to begin to educate ourselves in this area so we will have enough wisdom to be able to discern between left-wingers (liberals, socialists, and communists) and fake right-wingers who are really left-wingers (fascists) and all the rest of the folks who just want to be left alone to live their lives in peace. However, if we do not learn to stand up and resist (in the Lord’s strength) those on the left who seek to remove our God-given liberties, then we will have no peace either–only bondage.