Some things floating around that have been bugging me terribly.
Benito Mussolini was exiled from Italy for a period of time due to his activities as a Radical Marxist. He was also a routine contributor to the leftist publication "Avante", which remains in existence as a socialist/leftist newspaper to this day. In his book "My Rise and Fall", also published under the title "My Autobiography" Mussolini himself said that he considered Fascism to be "the ultimate form of socialism."
Also of note.... Corporatism was defined in detail in that same book "My Rise and Fall", written by the radical marxist... Benito Mussolini. So be certain to remember that when some leftist or other tries to exclaim that fascism and corporatism are right wing and capitalist. Corporatism and Fascism boys, girls, attack helicopters and those who sexually identify as mayonnaise: is a socialist government and economic model written by a radical marxist who was exiled from his home country for his leftist activism.
More over, Fascism in and of itself by the way - is currently being contested as having been highly influenced, if not written by, a Jewish Woman. With the recent release of Margherita Sarfatti's memoirs, in which she claims to not only be Mussolini's Lover but also the lion's share of responsibility for the ideological principles of Mussolini's Fascist doctrines. Whether this is true or not has yet to be confirmed and I doubt it ever will be, I am simply providing the information to you.
Now given the political landscape in which so very many things are claimed to be the fault of the jews, claims of antismitism are rife anytime anything can be linked to having been the doing of a jew. Therefore the above link to the information I provided on the topic was from the Israeli News Service Haaretz. This way me, myself and I cannot be accused of publishing antisemitic materials or making claims based purely out of antisemitism.
Next topic of discourse: the left's favorite boogieman.... nazis....
Nazism and Nazi are abbreviations of "Nationalsozialismus", which translates to "National Socialism". the full name of the "Nazi" party was the "Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei", which translates to the "National Socialist German Workers' Party".
Here's a thought - let's read materials from a Fascist ideologue (Mussolini), a Nazi Ideologue (Hitler) and a Right Wing Ideologue just for the sake of doing a cross comparison, hm? Let's see if they appear similar, shall we?
First up - we have neato Benito with some fashionably fab Fash coming to you all the way from the roaring twenties. Take it away Beni-boy.
"That document has been welcomed by all the classes of Italy. The labor magistracy represents, in its consecration to duty, something worthy of a strong state, in contrast to the cloudy aspirations in the misty realms of high-sounding Liberalism, Democracy and communistic fantasy. The framing and realization were the tasks of Fascism. Old men of the socialist and syndicalist poses and postures were amazed and perplexed at the daring new reform. Another legend fell: Fascism was not the protector of any one class, but a supreme regulator of the relations between all citizens of a state. The Labor Charter found interpreters and attracted the attention of the studious in every part of the world. It became a formidable pillar of the new constitution of the Fascist State.
As a logical consequence of the Charter of Labor and of all the social legislation and of the magistracy of labor, came the necessity of instituting the Corporations. In this institution are concentrated all the branches of national production. Work in all its complex manifestations and in all its breadth, whether of manual or of intellectual nature, requires equally protection and nourishment. The citizen in the Fascist State is no longer a selfish individual who has the anti-social right of rebelling against any law of the Collectivity. The Fascist State with its corporative conception puts men and their possibilities into productive work and interprets for them the duties they have to fulfill."
Benito Mussolini - "My Autobiography". Published 1928
Not bad Musso the man lini, but get ready the head nazi. Hold onto your seats kids and get triggerkins out of the room because it's time the mustachioed daddio on enough meth to stave off even the great depression: here's Adolf singing you one of his classic goose stepping hits.
"There are two extreme poles which are characteristic of this mental lack:
(1) The opinion that the law as such is its own justification and hence cannot be made the subject of any critical analysis as to its utility, either in regard to its general principles or its relation to particular problems. According to this notion, the law would remain even though the world should disappear.
(2) The opinion that it is the main function of law to protect and safeguard the life and property of the individual.
Between these two extreme poles the idea of defending the larger interests of the community was introduced very timidly and under the cloak of an appeal to reasons of state.
In contradistinction to all this, the National Socialist Revolution has laid down a definite and unambiguous principle on which the whole system of legislation, jurisprudence and administration of justice must be founded.
It is the task of justice to collaborate in supporting and protecting the people as a whole against those individuals who, because they lack a social conscience, try to shirk the obligations to which all the members of the community are subject, or directly act against the interests of the community itself.
In the new German legal system which will be in force from now onwards the nation is placed above persons and property."
Adolf Hitler - Speech before the Reichstag. January 30, 1937
Thanks for that Adolf, love those Hugo Boss uniforms. That's not all folks, moving a head a few decades we've got the queen of anti-communism, our very own Lady of the Market. The only name more hated by lefties than John Birch, it's Ayn Rand.
"The moral code which is implicit in capitalism had never been formulated explicitly. The basic premise of that code is that man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others, that man must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself, and that men must deal with one another as traders, by voluntary choice to mutual benefit. This, in essence, is the moral premise on which the United States of America was based: the principle of man’s right to his own life, to his own liberty, to the pursuit of his own happiness.
This is what the philosophers and the intellectuals of the nineteenth century did not and could not choose to identify, so long as they remained committed to the mystics’ morality of altruism. If the good, the virtuous, the morally ideal is suffering and self-sacrifice—then, by that standard, capitalism had to be damned as evil. Capitalism does not tell men to suffer, but to pursue enjoyment and achievement, here, on earth—capitalism does not tell men to serve and sacrifice, but to produce and profit—capitalism does not preach passivity, humility, resignation, but independence, self-confidence, self-reliance—and, above all, capitalism does not permit anyone to expect or demand, to give or to take the unearned. In all human relationships—private or public, spiritual or material, social or political or economic or moral—capitalism requires that men be guided by a principle which is the antithesis of altruism: the principle of justice."
Ayn Rand - lecture at the Ford Hall Forum. March 26, 1961.
Now....
Do either of the first two seem anything similar to right wing ideologue?
Or, rather, do the first two seem utterly antithetical to last one?
If you said the later of those two options, you'd be correct.
The idea that fascism and Nazism are/were "far right" or "right wing" ideologies comes to us from the Communist Bolshevik Revolutionary Leon Trotsky, in several papers he published which were eventually collected into a single book "Fascism: What it is and how to Fight It". Calling these two ideologies "right wing" or "far right" ideologies, was nothing but a propagandic slander used to demonize those two movements.
Here's where the hilarity ensues. Leon Trotsky was the hand picked successor to become leader of the Bolshevik party, by no less than Vladimir Lenin himself. In spite of that, he was pushed out of the Communist party, then forcefully exiled from the Soviet union by his political rival, Joseph Stalin. This is the funny part: the way Stalin managed to muscle Trotsky out was by claiming that he (Trotsky) was a fascist Right Winger.
So you see - Communism has been employing "right wing", "extreme right wing", "Fascist", "Nazi" as a slur / slander / insult / dehumanization from it's very earliest beginnings.
Why most people know none of this information, in spite of it being not only readily but easily available: one can only wonder if this was "by accident or design" ?
Now, the left v right paradigm today is only important in so much as the fact that Leftists still use the same slander with which Stalin pushed out Trotsky. You see, given that the demonstrably fallacious myth that fascism and nazism are right wing ideologies: leftists continue to slander anyone on the right as being nazis and or fascists. Including people like me, for whom fascism and nazism, which both adhere to socialist economic models, are to my far left.
This is, however, why you see the left employ that same slander tactic and use it as a truncheon with which to defame people like Stefan Molyneux or Styxhexanhammer or Mike Cernovich, etc. etc. In example, the attacks by Right Wing watch against non-leftist YouTubers as being fascists, nazis, nazi enablers and right wing extremists.
I do not care about the left v right paradigm as it exists today, what I care about is the fact that leftists so often attempt to use the perceived horrors, atrocities or evils (be they real or not) of leftist dictators to shame people who are right wing.
Endlessly demanding that the right wing take collective responsibility for the actions of left wing parties, groups and individuals.
This, I do not care for and I will have none of it.
KKK? Left Wing.
Southern Lynchings? Left Wing.
Jim Crow Laws? Left Wing.
Fascists? Left Wing.
Nazis? Left Wing.
The left doesn't want to take any responsibility for it's own actions so it attempts to disown those groups and parties and then pretend it was all the evil boogie man: the right wing. I will have none of it.
Now, if you want to talk about some Right Wing dictatorial action... Pinochet. That's one of ours, I will not pretend otherwise. The Pinochet regime was a true right wing military dictatorship. At least it was before holding a democratic vote in which the people of Chile stated they'd prefer democracy, at which point the regime voluntarily forfeited power.
Just a tad bit different from your typical left wing dictatorship. I mean, it's almost the same, right? That's simply a menial difference at best. Almost completely inconsequential really. It's an utterly irrelevant source of differentiation between the two. I mean they're almost identical aren't they?
I have no bones about Pinochet being a right wing dictator, nor will I attempt to assign responsibility of the Pinochet dictatorship to leftists. That's one of ours, that's our guy, that's an era of events spawned by a right wing individual. It was kind of a response to Salvador Allende's Marxist policies utterly destroying Chile's economy and infrastructure in only three years, but let's not get bogged down in the details of controversy - let us focus on the big picture.
The Pinochet regime was a right wing pro-capitalist, free market, military dictatorship.
Simple as that, I will not exclaim that which it was, to be that which it was not. I tell no untruths, I provide and share information as it is available to me and as I am able to obtain. I make no false equivocations. The difference between Pinochet and the majority of right wingers: is that he was a right wing authoritarian. Pinochet is an example of what can transpire when an authoritarian regime seizes power, which is never an ideal situation, even if we are talking about the right wing.
Given Pinochet's penchant for removing Communists, full disclosure, I rather like him.
So If the left is going to "bash the fash",
and they're going to define anyone not leftist as being "fascist":
as their justification for initiating the use of force and violence,
Then I'm going to begin tying Commie-Knots.
Those who violate the non-aggression principle: shall be responded to in kind.
You see... That's something the left doesn't conceptually understand about the Libertarian Non-Aggression Principle. The NAP bars the initiatory use of force or violence. However, the NAP permits the retaliatory use of force and violence: in response to force having been initiated. The NAP is not a form of pacifism.
An important distinction to note, under the current left / right paradigm is how the geopolitical landscape sits today. As it is, today, National Socialists, Fascists and the Alt-Right for example are actually right wing. Currently, not classically. I've had to explain this phenomena before, if you're unfamiliar with the details I'll provide them to you here.
I take a spekr test: I’m almost as far right and south as it is possible to be.
So you see, in spite of being a dyed in the wool classical liberal, a constitutionalist and thereby quantitatively a centrist by definition and nature of the fact that I’m a constitutionalist: I plot on the political landscape as far right wing libertarian. How far right wing? Just look at that spekr result: which is mirrored by a host of other similar tests I’ve taken by the way.
That above image was screen capped from a political test I took some 10 years ago or so. I can tell you my political views haven’t changed. In anything: having expanded my library of western philosophers has only further convinced me that the premises upon which I was operating were correct if previously less refined. I have never considered myself left, on the left or a leftist. If the Constitution is held as the center (as it should be), then I’ve always considered myself to be a centrist. yet in the 10 year gap between those two political tests: I think my position relative to the rest of the political landscape has only gone further right.
Here’s the thing…
It’s not that I am moving to the right: it’s that the political landscape under me is moving continually left.
The political landscape has moved under my feet and there’s many many people who always considered themselves to be left leaning yet find themselves agreeing with conservatives in this day and age. Arguing against censorship, against authoritarian rule, against double standard laws. They often remark about how they feel abandoned by the left and begin describing themselves as “classical liberals.” Which, by the way, is exactly how that term came about.
People who didn’t follow suit with the “new left” and the “progressives” on their march ever onward left towards totalitarianism. People like me who adhere to classical liberal principles and philosophical ideas and find that they cannot agree with the left’s constant attempts at enacting illiberal or anti-liberal laws.
There’s a growing sentiment that conservatism is now the new punk because defending personal freedoms has become the counter culture against the double standard laws being proposed and supported by the identity grievance politics of the new left.
If the left doesn't like the fact that the evil boogie-men, which they invoke to fear monger, are actually their fellow left wingers: allow me to inform you - reality doesn't care about your feelings.
If your ideology is in conflict with reality: it is not reality which is wrong.