Before we begin, I want to issue a warning.  If you consider yourself to be a Socialist, Progressive or a Conservative, I am most likely going to provide you with a definition of ‘Fascism’ with which you are vehemently going to disagree.  So, with that warning issued, let’s just jump right in and start stirring the pot.

Modern America is a Fascist nation!

Sadly, this is true, and it has been for some time.  But, before you start lining up your arguments listing all the reasons I am wrong, let’s first define what ‘Fascism’ actually is, then we’ll see if you still disagree.  We’ll start with the dictionary’s definition:

Definition of fascism

1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.

2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control early instances of army fascism and brutality— J. W. Aldridge

[NOTE: we must be extremely diligent in dealing with the definition of ‘Fascism.’  This is because the definition has been made into a political weapon.  As such, it is prone to being altered — in real time.  Therefore, we should do everything we can to look for definitions of ‘Fascism’ that are both printed in hard format and date to a time prior to the start of this millennium.  Otherwise, we are liable to accept a definition that is part of a political weapon intended to smear political opponents and not the actual meaning of the word.]

The term, ‘Fascism,’ was coined by the first Fascist leader, Benito Mussolini.  He named it after an old Roman symbol.  Basically, a bundle of rods or reeds tied together to make them stronger and incorporating an axe head to make them into a weapon.  Unions started as an example of the ‘Fascist’ ideal symbolized by this bundle of reeds made into an axe.  A modern equivalent of this same symbol is known as ‘Community Organizing.’  In short, Fascism was about uniting different minority groups under a single dictatorial leader who would then ‘discern’ the will of these people and exercise the power of government to affect whatever changes that ‘discerned will’ required.  However, as with all promises made by Socialists, in practice, ‘Fascism’ was nothing more than a dictatorship.

Now, I do not want you to take my word for any of this.  No, since he invented it, Mussolini is the ultimate authority on what ‘Fascism’ means.  Therefore, I want you to take Mussolini’s word for what ‘Fascism’ means:

The Fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. Thus understood, Fascism is totalitarian, and the Fascist State–a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values–interprets, develops, and potentiates the whole life of a people. (p. 14)

Fascism recognises the real needs which gave rise to socialism and trade-unionism, giving them due weight in the guild or corporative system in which diverent interests are coordinated and harmonised in the unity of the State. (p.15)

Fascism is definitely and absolutely opposed to the doctrines of liberalism, both in the political and economic sphere. (p. 32)

The Fascist State lays claim to rule in the economic field no less than in others; it makes its action felt throughout the length and breadth of the country by means of its corporate, social, and educational institutions, and all the political, economic, and spiritual forces of the nation, organised in their respective associations, circulate within the State. (p. 41).

Benito Mussolini, 1935, The Doctrine of Fascism, Firenze: Vallecchi Editore.

Re-read that last quote from Mussolini, then read this one from another well-known Fascist:

“In relation to the political decontamination of our public life, the government will embark upon a systematic campaign to restore the nation’s moral and material health. The whole educational system, theater, film, literature, the press and broadcasting – all these will be used as a means to this end.”

~ Adolf Hitler  Volkischer Beobachter, 23 March 1933

If we allow the two men best known for defining ‘Fascism’ to do so, then it is clear that ‘Fascism’ is a totalitarian form of government where people are allowed to own private property, but only so far as they use it in a way with which the government agrees or directs.  As we will soon see, this most definitely applies to the current state of the U.S. government.  But first, we need to deal with a part of the definition of ‘Fascism’ that is probably going to upset our Socialist friends.  This is the fact that ‘Fascism’ is Socialism!

This is an absolute, indisputable fact: ‘Fascism’ is Socialism — just a different flavor of Socialism from that which most Socialists want you to eat.  We know this because Mussolini and Hitler both said it is true.  It is even in the very name, NAZI, which is an abbreviation for ‘National Socialist Workers’ Party.‘  Therefore, we should most accurately call ‘Fascism’ by a more accurately descriptive name, ‘National Socialism.’  Either way, ‘Fascism’ is Socialism, and the fact is just that: a fact.  The matter is not open for debate: it is true by definition, and the laws of logic say that one cannot rationally argue with a definition.  That ends this matter: ‘Fascism’ is best defined as ‘National Socialism.’

Now, let’s return to my statement that modern America is Fascist.

First, this nation is very nationalistic, but it is not quite ‘nationalist.’  By that, I mean we are still a patriotic nation, but we do not worship the nation (yet).  However, in recent years, we have started to focus on an ‘America First’ trend in policy.  Taken together, this gives modern America a decidedly ‘Nationalist’ flavor to it.  All that remains to determine is whether or not America is ‘Socialist.’

Under ‘Fascism,’ people can hold some semblance of private property, but the extent to which that property is actually private depends largely upon whether or not the ownership does what the government wants done.  Otherwise, in a ‘Fascist’ nation, the government is in total control.  Is there anything about the state of modern U.S. government that might lead one to believe it meets the definition of ‘total control’ over the country?  We’ll start with Mussolini’s description first:

“…it [govt] makes its action felt throughout the length and breadth of the country by means of its corporate, social, and educational institutions,…”

There can be no doubt that a symbiotic relationship between corporate America and the government definitely exists, but are the two equal, or is one over the other?  ell, TARP demonstrated that the government can and will dictate to private industry.  It even forced banks to take TARP money they did not need or want, thereby forcing those banks to comply with the government’s dictates or face legal penalties.  Obama also demonstrated that the government can and will take private property from one citizen and give it to another, or from a corporation and give it to a union in his bailout of he auto unions.  The government has also taken over the healthcare industry, even going to the point of forcing citizens to buy a product or be fined, then dictating to the industry what products they must provide and what they can charge to do so.  The government has gone so far as to demonstrate that its reach even extends to the individual, whose property is routinely taken for no other reason that the government has decided it should be used in a way that generates more taxes.  What’s more, much of this was done without any legal process whatsoever.  By definition, that is ‘dictation.’  So, yes, the modern U.S. government can and does wield dictatorial power over American industry and private property.

Does the government have any control over the social institutions in modern America?  Well, yes.  Here again, it has in the past and is talking again about controlling the press and other similar mediums through the ‘fairness doctrine.’  We have government regulations over social media, as well.  Government also controls art through its granting and denial of monies.  Currently, we are seeing that social media can openly discriminate based on race, religion and political orientation — so long as they discriminate against the enemies of the government.  True, the government is making noise as if this is a wrong that the government will correct, but this discrimination violates laws already on the books and the government does nothing to enforce them.  Truth be told, there is hardly a social institution the government does not control by dictate.

This leaves the educational system, at both the grade and university levels.  Grade school attendance has been made mandatory, and the national curriculum set by ‘Common Core.’  Home-schoolers have also been dictated to by being forced to meet government-set standards of education.  Religious and moral sentiments are being forced on children in the schools — often against their parents’ will and teaching.  Heck, children are even being removed from their homes if the parents object to what the schools are teaching to their children.  Then there are the colleges, where conservatism is openly discriminated against by the university administrations.  Government also took over the student loan programs.  Here again, the truth is, in modern America, the government has dictatorial control over the education system.

Looking at Hitler’s definition of ‘dictatorial’ once more, we see that it agrees with where we are now in America:

The whole educational system, theater, film, literature, the press and broadcasting – all these will be used as a means to this end.”

As we just illustrated, modern American government meets all the requirements of both Hilkter’s and Mussolini’s definition of how a ‘Fascist’ government operates.  So, we have a national flavor to a dictatorial government.  Ergo — by definition — modern America is ‘Fascist!’

Now for the ‘fun’ part.  This is why the American Left is so opposed to the modern government.  Because the modern American Left is Communist, and Communism is a form of Socialism naturally opposed to ‘Fascism,’ the modern American Left is a natural enemy of the current ‘Fascist’ American government.  It’s like red ants (the American Left) being tossed into a nest of black ants (the modern American government): whenever they come into contact with each other, there will be a fight to the death.

If you will please excuse me, I am going to charge head-long through a politically and emotionally charged minefield in an effort to help whoever will take the time to actually listen to and carefully consider what I have to say.  The goal here is to better understand what the modern issue of ‘Racism’ in America is really all about.

First, I wish people would stop accusing people of ‘Racism’ when they really mean ‘bigotry.’  I am not going to bother with the definition of ‘Racism’ — not yet, anyway.  But I am going to ask you to take a moment to read the definition of ‘bigotry:’

For reasons that will soon become clear, I am using the definition of ‘bigotry’ given in the Websters Dictionary 1828:

Bigotry

BIG’OTRY, noun Obstinate or blind attachment to a particular creed, or to certain tenets; unreasonable zeal or warmth in favor of a party, sect or opinion; excessive prejudice.

1. The practice or tenet of a bigot.

Why did I start with bigotry when I said I was going to discuss Racism in America?  Because of the way the whole issue of ‘Racism’ came to be.  You see, prior to the coining of the term, we still had the problem of Racism, but it was called by different names.  It was discussed using words like ‘bigotry,’ but also ‘prejudice.’  Back then, before the term, ‘Racism,’ was coined, people understood that all humans hold prejudices, and people who hold prejudices against other people based  on matters of race, ethnicity, religion or political ideology had a special form of ‘prejudice’ known as ‘bigotry.’  This is an inherent part of the human condition.  It has always been that way, and, until this universe is remade, with new laws, it will always be that way.  Man cannot change this.  All Man can do is work to insure that bigotry based on things that have no baring on moral law (things like race) are never allowed to become institutionalized in our laws.

According to ‘The Barnhart Concise Dictionary of Etymology: The Origins of American English Words,” ‘Racism‘ was first used in 1936, and the term ‘racist,’ in 1932 (pg.630).  Prior to this time, the term, “racist’ and ‘Racism’ were not used in America, or anywhere else in the world for that matter.  What’s more, the term was created in America, by Progressives (i.e. American Socialists).  Now, here is the really interesting part of this story: the Socialists who invented the term, ‘Racism,’ were also part of the Eugenics movement.

I say this is interesting for two reasons.  First, Hitler got his ideas for creating a ‘Master Race’ from these same American Eugenics ‘scientists.’  These are the same Eugenics ‘scientists’ who started Planned Parenthood.  Planned Parenthood was created to eliminate ‘undesirables‘ from American society.  In this case, this primarily meant the elimination of the negro race.  This work continues today, and for the same reasons.

But there is another reason the term, ‘Racism,’ was invented: to use it as a hammer against the culture the Progressives wanted to destroy — namely America.  By linking the notion of ‘Racism’ with the history of slavery in America, the Progressives have been able to create a political weapon that uses America’s cultural shame over the history of slavery to coerce government and business into doing what the Progressives demand of them.  If government and industry to not comply, they are supporting Racism.  It is also used to silence anyone who objects to the Progressive agenda.  If opponents do not shut up, they are labeled a ‘Racist’ and destroyed.  But none of this has anything to do with fighting institutional Racism based on racial bigotry or discrimination.  We know this because the Progressives were born out of the very same people who defended slavery in America.  Progressives come from the same stock of people who created the Jim Crow laws after the Civil War.  Progressives helped to create the KKK.  Progressives created Planned Parenthood to eliminate as many Negros as possible.  Progressives wrote and defended the segregation laws in the 1960’s.  Today, these same Progressives claim to be fighting ‘Racism,’ but, in truth, they are the actual racists in our society, and they are using America’s shame over our history of slavery and real Racism to destroy the nation.

This is what ‘Racism’ is in America today: a political weapon that is being used to coerce government and corporate policy and to silence and destroy any and all of their political opponents.  In short, it is a highly specialized form of Political Correctness.  It has no concern for minorities or race relations.  The truth is, the people who are using ‘Racism’ as a weapon are the very people who created the term and the practice.  They are the true racists in American society, and they have demonstrated this by destroying the very people they claim to be fighting to protect.  They defend Planned Parenthood even though Planned Parenthood was created to eliminate minorities.  They claim to be trying to help minorities by creating welfare programs even though it has been shown that these same welfare programs have destroyed the minority communities they were supposed to help.  Now they are destroying civil discourse and cultural unity in this country by claiming they are fighting to improve race relations.  And they do all of this by wielding the hammer they created: ‘Racism.’

Look, the Socialists (Progressives, etc) are not wrong in their observations (which is why they are so dangerous).  Institutionalized bigotry based on race is very real.  But it can only be addressed when it is just that: institutionalized. By ‘institutional Racism,’ I mean ‘Racism’ that is created, mandated and supported by law.   That is true ‘Racism:’ when it is a matter of law.  But this will not help the people who cray ‘Racism!’ in our society today because — honestly — we have not had institutional bigotry since the 1960’s.  Which means, America is no longer a ‘Racist’ nation.  So, if the Socialist admits this, how can they keep using the powerful and effective weapon they created?  The answer is: they can’t.  Therefore, their only coarse of action is to ignore reality and keep crying Racism by moving from real, institutional racism to individual prejudices and bigotries.  But that is tyranny in the truest sense because it demands that every individual conform to the way the Socialist says they must think.  In a free society, especially a Society organized to operate under Natural Law, the right to hold prejudices and bigotries against other people is not only a right, but a duty.  And while it may be wrong to hold a prejudice based on skin color, that is still a personal right in a free society.  Government has no business getting involved in individual prejudices.  To the extent that it assures bigotry based on race is not mandated by law, that is the limit of governmental authority in a free society.  But this is not enough for the ‘Race Baiters’ in our society today.  If they recognize the truth of reality, they lose one of their most potent weapons in the advancement of their tyranny.

Look, there is so much here that I wish I could explain, but it would require me to literally write a book to do so.  All I can do is urge you to start researching this for yourself because I know, if you do so, you will eventually realize that I am telling people the truth.  I do not make things up because I don’t have to do so.  The reality here is horrifying enough.  All I have to do is report it.  If the reader has any moral fiber at all, that will be enough to shock their conscience sensibilities.  But, for those who do not seek or even recognize the Truth, no amount of writing will ever reach them.  Their minds are literally depraved.  This is the state of the real ‘Socialist:’ the person who knows and understands what they are doing and why.  However, I do not excuse the rank-and-file ‘Socialist.’  By willingly aligning themselves with the real Socialist, whether knowingly or out of ignorance, the rank-and-file still allies themselves to evil.  For that, there can be no excuse.  There can be forgiveness — if the rank-and-file recognizes their mistake and turns away from it —  but their alliance with evil cannot be excused.

ADDITIONAL READING:

Social Engineering: Eugenics And The Progressives  (NOTE: the Glenn Beck video clip in this link is a MUST watch!)

DEFENDING THE LANGUAGE: Racism vs. Bigotry vs. Culture

How many times have you heard a Socialist accusing Capitalists of being rich, heartless and/or greedy?  If I have heard it once, I have heard it…, well, just about every time I try to listen to a Socialist.  The Capitalist — all Capitalists — are heartless and greedy and they get rich by exploiting the labor of their employees.  And, though they never say so, the Socialist almost always implies that this makes them morally superior to the Capitalist.  The solution is always the same: put the morally superior Socialist in charge of correcting the immoral system of Capitalism by putting the Socialist in charge of the government.  Well, where — exactly — have these Socialists found the angels necessary to run this perfectly altruistic government the want to set up for us?  Because, the last time I checked, all governments are run by people, and all people share the same moral failings; among which are greed and a lack of concern for the welfare of those who stand in the way of them satisfying their personal desires.  Or, to put it another way, no one is above being or doing evil — especially when they are in control of the government.

I am serious about this: where are these Socialist angels?  Unless they can be produced for the rest of us to examine, I am going to hold the Socialist in much less esteem than the Capitalist.  This is because the Capitalist is much more honest than the Socialist.  The Capitalist admits that he/she is working to make a profit.  They do not make any secret about what they are willing to pay those who wish to work for them.  Paying an employee is not ‘exploitation,’ it is a mutually agreed upon contract between the employer and employee.  By definition, it is impossible for such an arrangement to meet the criteria for ‘exploitation.’  Nor does the Capitalist apologize if they are successful and manage to acquire a great deal of wealth.  The Capitalist admits to all of this, but the Socialist never admits to his/her true agenda.

The Socialist is just as greedy as the Capitalist.  Just listen to them.  Everything they want and do to get it is driven by the desire for more money, and — with that money — the acquisition of power — so they can acquire more money.  But the Socialist cannot see themselves as they really are or, if they do see it, they will not admit it.  Neither will the Socialist be honest about what they offer their supporters.  Whereas the Capitalist is honest about the wage he/she offers employees, and the product or service they offer their customers, the Socialist offers lies about how much more money they will give to those who support/vote for them and lies about where that money will come from.  When the Socialist gets into power, the only people who seem to end up with more money is the Socialist.  The people who supported them always seem to get poorer, and more dependent upon the Socialist, which creates a dependency the Socialist then exploits to acquire more money and power.  In short, the Socialist becomes a corrupt Capitalist whose ‘capital’ is the people and whose product is dependency.

The Socialist also likes to call the Capitalist evil.  Why?  Because the Socialist is jealous of the Capitalist  You see, those employees that the Socialist claims are being exploited agreed to work for the money that the Capitalist offered them.  If they are not happy with what they agreed to do, they can leave, and go do something else — like start their own business.  However, if the employee wishes to work for the Capitalist, then the Capitalist pays them to learn a skill while being part of a business that serves other people.  But the Socialist — who lacks any socially redeeming skill set — looks at this relationship and says that it is heartless.  The Socialist claims that the worker is stuck, and has no choice but to work for the Capitalist.  Thus, the employee is really a victim of the Capitalist, and the only reason the employee is not as rich as the Capitalist is because the Capitalist is stealing the employees labor.  Therefore, if the employee wants to make what the Socialist tells him/her they deserve, all the employee has to do is vote for the Socialist. What’s more, as soon as the employee starts voting for the Socialist, the employee immediately becomes a ‘virtuous victim class.’  See how much more the Socialist cares about the ‘working class’ than the Capitalist?  In fact, the Socialist cares so much, he erases the employees individual identity and turns him in to a ‘class.’  Surely it goes without saying that this makes the Socialist a better, more moral person than the Capitalist can ever be — right?  WRONG!  All that happens when the Socialist gains control is the employee gets exploited by the Socialist who, now that they are in government, lives off the taxes of the employee — taxes the Socialist immediately raises in the name of ‘justice’ for the employee’s new ‘class,’ a class the Socialist is now exploiting.

On the other hand, the Capitalist has a rare skill set.  If it was not rare, then everyone would be a Capitalist.  But most people are employees, not Capitalists.  Why?  Because most employees lack the skill set required to get pass the government hurtles of licensing and regulating necessary to let them raise the money to buy the property and equipment and to buy the raw materials and to hire and train the employees  necessary to produce a product that serves other people and to then market and distribute that product at a profit so the Capitalist can pay the necessary taxes and wages to keep the whole process going.  Oh, and if any of the links in this chain fails, it is the Capitalist who goes bankrupt.  The employee just takes the skill set their failed employer paid to teach them down the road and uses that skill set to work for the failed employer’s competition.  However, if the Capitalist succeeds, he/she might eventually offer stocks in their company so they can raise the money to grow that business, which means they will hire even more people.  Oh, and by selling stock in their business, they give people who lack the skills needed to do what they do a chance to buy part of their company.  So, what is the Capitalist really doing?  The Capitalist is risking everything to give other people a job helping him/her make a product or provide a service that makes the lives of other people better.  If the Capitalist fails to do this, they go out of business.  So, when we are honest about the Capitalist, we see that he/she serves other people by giving them jobs and by making a product or providing a service that makes the lives of other humans better.  Still, according to the Socialist, this is all greed.  It can only be a virtue when the Capitalist focuses on making hi/her employees rich and nothing more.  Therefore, the Capitalist is evil because he/she only cares about his/her own profits.  What could be more clear than that?

But what about the Socialist?  What does the Socialist do that gives people a job or produces a product or a service that actually makes the lives of other people better?  Nothing!  The Socialist does not produce anything, nor do they provide a service.  They only exist to exploit.  Either they live off the government or off grant money from other Socialists, but, either way, they live off the product of others without returning anything of value in return.  In the first case, where the Socialist lives off the government, the Socialist is ultimately stealing from the Capitalist by way of taxes.  This means the Socialist is also exploiting the employee to make themselves rich.  Worse, the Capitalist is forced to pay to support the Socialist, who is using the force of government to destroy the Capitalist’s business, put their employees out of work and leave their customers without the products and services they are trying to provide.  Or, put another way, the Socialist is trying to destroy the Capitalist to satisfy the Socialists thirst for money and power.

Then there is the Socialist who is funded by the likes of people such as George Soros.  Yes, Soros has made his money from Capitalism, but he is actually one of the people the Socialist claims to oppose.  Socialist Capitalists are actually the people from whom the Socialist claims to be protecting the working class.  This is because the Socialist Capitalist is actually a Fascist, which is when business gets in to bed with their Socialist buddies already in the government to pass laws that put their competition out of business.  This makes the Socialist-owned businesses more profitable, which allows George Soros to then manipulate the stock market and even the currency of other nations, thereby destroying the retirement savings of millions of people for his own personal gain.  Soros then takes that ill-gotten gain and uses it to put more Socialists in office so he can repeat the cycle, only on a grander scale.  And the whole time, the people helping Soros steal from the masses are pointing their fingers at real, honest Capitalists and blaming the system of Capitalism for the destruction they and their Socialist business partners have actually created.  Worse still, these Socialists have the nerve to demand that we think of them as the moral and virtual people in all of this.

So we arrive back at my original question:

Given that Socialism is a morally corrupt system, and that any and all who support a morally corrupt system are corrupt, themselves, where are such morally corrupt people going to find the angels that will be necessary to run a government which will be free of their same brand of moral corruption?

Dear reader, I have just explained the moral flaw in the entire Socialist platform: the Socialists are actually the people against whom they claim to be protecting you.  Look at what they say, then compare it to what they and their supporters do.  If you look hard enough, long enough, you will find that they are the ones doing the things they accuse the Capitalist of doing, which means they are the ones with the moral failures they assign to the Capitalist.  The Socialist is the one whose entire system is based on greed, not Capitalism.  The Socialist is the one who can only exist by exploiting others, not Capitalism.  Ultimately, when we examine how it works in practice, we will find that — while Capitalism can be corrupted — it is Socialism that actually starts out corrupt.  It’s very foundation is built upon false assumptions that go against the basic principles of Natural Law.  As such, it is not possible to make Socialism a ‘good’ system unless it is — literally — run by angels, and angels who have not fallen, at that.  This is because all men are prone to moral failings.  Therefore, the men and women the Socialists put into power to ‘fix’ the supposed failings of Capitalism are going to be just as greedy and heartless and will want to be just as rich as the Capitalist they are meant to replace.  Which then means that the Socialist will solve nothing: they will just replace the Capitalist with themselves — which is what they actually want but will not admit.  So, for the last time:

Where are these angels the Socialists need to run their government?

In my first post on Socialism, “What Is Socialism,” I noted that there are those who will claim that ‘democratic’ Socialism is different from the Socialism I was describing.  These people would argue that, under ‘democratic’ Socialism, the People vote on their leaders and, therefore, ‘democratic’ Socialism does not represent the certain tyranny to which I claimed all Socialism eventually leads.  Well, as much as these people would like to think otherwise, they are wrong!  Yes, I mean that the people who claim ‘democratic’ Socialism is immune from tyranny are factually wrong, and, rather than apologize for stating the obvious, or arguing over whether or not a fact is a fact, I will just prove why my statement is correct.

First, there is nothing inherently virtuous or moral in the opinion of the masses.  In fact, when it comes to matters of making the morally correct choice, popular opinion is nearly always wrong.  One need go no farther than to look at our own history.  If one thinks that the majority is always morally correct, then one cannot object to our history with racism, discrimination based on sex, child labor abuses or a whole host of things that we now consider to be wrong.  In fact, if the majority opinion is the determine factor of what is and is not moral, then there can be no such thing as morality at all. This is because the majority opinion can and does change with time — sometimes in days, or even hours.   This is why the Founders referred to majority rule as ‘The Tyranny of the Masses.’  And that means, even if the masses elect their leaders, you still have tyranny under Socialism, you’ve just let the masses pick their tyrant.

This leads us to the next reason that ‘democratic’ Socialism is just as tyrannical as any other flavor of Socialism.  In order to exist, Socialism must stand alone.  It cannot and will not tolerate opposition of any kind and in any form.  This is why Socialist government inevitably turn into one-Party governments.  Once this happens, you can vote for whomever you wish, but you will still be voting for someone the Party chose to be the next dictator.  Just ask anyone who has lived under a Socialist tyranny.  The Party may give you a hundred names.  It doesn’t matter.  Whichever one is elected will do whatever the Party tells them to do, which will be the exact same thing each of the other ninety-nine candidates would have done.  Either way, under ‘democratic’ Socialism, you are getting a dictator.

Finally, this brings us to Woodrow Wilson.  If you have not already done so, you should read some of his better known essays on The Presidency and proper Administration of government.*  If you’ll bother to put in the time, you’ll find that Wilson lamented the fact that Americans would not accept Communism by its proper name but, under a different name, they would swallow every part of it.  Wilson called this new name, ‘Progressivism.’  Wilson also dreamed of the day when the nation would be ‘scientifically administrated’ by elite groups of people who would be trained at elite colleges.  These ‘bureaucrats’ would be appointed to their positions for life, and would be beyond the control of the People.  But there would still be an election of the nations leader.  This person, according to Wilson, would be a charismatic individual who was capable of ‘discerning the will of the people.’  Wilson actually called him a ‘dictator,’ and he would be elected to enact this ‘discerned will of the People’ however he saw fit by directing the bureaucrats to do whatever this dictator had determined the People wanted them to do.  I am not exaggerating: this is exactly what Wilson envisioned and, if you will look closely, you will see that it has come to life — only, today, we call it ‘The Deep State.’  Either way, Wilson envisioned American Socialism, and was honest enough to call it by its name: dictatorship.  But here is the real kicker:

Wilson’s vision was ‘democratic’ Socialism!

And this is why there is no difference between Socialism and ‘democratic’ Socialism: because the very people who thought up and described both versions of this ideology said they are the same thing.  No amount of objecting will ever change this.  It is a fact, and it will always be a fact, and those who argue otherwise are just wrong!  Period!

ADDITIONAL READING:

POINTS TO PONDER: The ‘Conspiracy’ We Know as the ‘Progressive’ Movement

* NOTE: normally, I would link you to Wilson’s essays.  However, the web site I used to use for this is no longer reliable.  They have removed the more informative of Wilson’s essays and made the rest of their site all but useless by overly complicating the way you have to navigate the site.  So, until I can either find a new site — or better still — archive the reference material here on TRTC, I am going to post links to some of my older post which contain citations of relative sections of Wilson’s work to show support for my argument.

When it comes to matters of organizing and governing society, government and the economy, what — exactly — is meant by the term, ‘Socialism?’ 

An alarming number of people in America are starting to embrace the notion of ‘Socialism.’  Still more alarming is the fact that, when questioned about it, a majority of these people have no idea what ‘Socialism’ actually is or how it works.  Many people believe they understand what ‘Socialism’ is, but they actually believe in a fairy tail version of Socialism.  They don’t know the Truth about Socialism, mostly because the majority of Americans have never actually studied Socialism.  They only know what they have been told about it by their teachers, professors, politicians and entertainers, and the vast majority of those people have lied to them.   The average American has little or no idea of how the concept of Socialism came to be*, or why it came to be, or how many times it has been tried, or how many times it has failed.  What’s more, when these failures are pointed out to supporters of Socialism, those supporters usually respond by claiming Socialism has never been properly implemented.  That is another lie.  Socialism has failed very time it was tried specifically because it was properly implemented.  Socialism works in Denmark and the Scandinavian countries.  Wrong!  Oh!  But there is a  new form of Socialism — ‘Democratic Socialism — and it will work because it’s different.  Another lie!  The Truth is, Socialism is a lie.  It is not the moral imperative; quite the opposite.  Socialism makes people selfish and lazy.  This is why it is absolutely imperative that we understand what Socialism is and how it works.

The man most commonly associated with the concept of ‘Socialism’ is Karl Marx.  He defined the goal of Socialism this way:

Marx expressed the aim of socialism with great clarity at the end of the third volume of Capital: “In fact, the realm of freedom does not commence until the point is passed where labor under the compulsion of necessity and of external utility is required. In the very nature of things it lies beyond the sphere of material production in the strict meaning of the term. Just as the savage must wrestle with nature, in order to satisfy his wants, in order to maintain his life and reproduce it, so civilized man has to do it, and he must do it in all forms of society and under all possible modes of production. With his development the realm of natural necessity expands, because his wants increase; but at the same time the forces of production increase, by which these wants are satisfied. The freedom in this field cannot consist of anything else but of the fact that socialized man, the associated producers, regulate their interchange with nature rationally, bring it under their common control, instead of being ruled by it as by some blind power; they accomplish their task with the least expenditure of energy and under conditions most adequate to their human nature and most worthy of it. But it always remains a realm of necessity. Beyond it begins that development of human power, which is its own end, the true realm of freedom, which, however, can flourish only upon that realm of necessity as its basis.”

My dear reader, this goal is an absurdity!  It is impossible.  It absolutely cannot be achieved — ever.  What Marx described here is literally his version of heaven on earth.  Marx envisioned the goal of Socialism as a man-made return to a time before the Biblical Fall, to the Garden of Eden — only he is saying that, this time, Man will be in charge of creating not only the garden, but all of creation such that he — Man — can live entirely without want, effort or responsibility.  As I said, that is an absurdity.  It simply will not, cannot happen — ever!  And anyone who claims otherwise is literally claiming to be the Creator of all things.  Therefore, we cannot look to Marx to define Socialism.

Webster’s on-line dictionary defines Socialism this way:

Definition of socialism

1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

2a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property

b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

Basically, Socialism is a system where the enemies of ‘The Corporation’ and ‘Capitalism’ are replaced by the government.  Instead of the individual, or even the Capitalist owning private property, the State owns it.  The problem here is that the State considers you to be property.  Therefore, under Socialism, the State owns you!  Now, if you disagree with this statement, I want you to stop and re-read the definitions above.  Where does it mention the individual as being important in any way?  Where does it say the individual has any rights?  It doesn’t mention these things because these things do not exist under Socialism.  The only things that exist are the government and the collective.  If it helps, you can think of it this way:

Under Socialism, the government is the head (where the will resides) and the collective is its body (that which executes the will).

Let me ask you: who among us truly believes that their body is not actually their body? Unless you are one of those people who thinks and talks about themselves in the third person, you think of your body as belonging to you.  And, if asked, even those people who speak of themselves in the third person would say something like, “B3A’s body belongs to B3A,’ which confirms that our bodies belong to us.  But, under Socialism, the State owns the body, and you are just a cell within that body.  Under Socialism, this is exactly how the State thinks of you: the same way you think of any given cell in your body.  You do not care a wit about any given cell in your body, and, under Socialism, the State does not care a wit about you — period!  This is Socialism!  This is how it exists in the real world; this is how it has always manifest itself; and this is how it will always manifest itself whenever and wherever it is tried — ALWAYS!

Now, I understand that supporters of Socialism will object to my argument, but they can’t — not if they wish to be considered rational, anyway.  All I have done is to take the definition of Socialism and use it to describe how it works in reality.  It would be the same as if I had taken the definition of baseball and used it to explain the role of every player on the field.  The coach is in charge, the team is the extension of his will, and every player on the team is just a part of that extension.  The analogy works even better if I use it to describe an army: the general is the head, the army is the body, and the individual soldiers are the cells.  What does the head care about the cells when it comes to achieving the mission that the head has decided to conduct?  Well, that is how it is with Socialism, as well.  Therefore, anyone who objects to my description of Socialism — which is based on the factual application of the definition of Socialism — is objecting to reality.

Now, I ask you, my dear reader: where is the morality in any of this?  How can a system that literally thinks of itself as its own god and which has no concern for the cells within its body possibly be considered to be moral?  If we base our concept of morality on how we treat individuals, then Socialism is the farthest possible thing from morality.  Yet, even if we base our concept of morality on the welfare of society, then Socialism still is far from being moral.  That is because Socialism does not care about the body, it cares about the government — where the will resides.  Any lip-service the head gives to caring about the cells is just that: a lie!  The head needs the body to survive, therefore, it will insure the survival of the body, but it will not care about the cells, and there can be no concept of morality in such a situation outside of the head’s perspective.  This means, under Socialism, morality is whatever the State says it is.

This gets us back to Marx.  Remember when I said that Marx would have to be a god to do the things he wanted to do with society?  And now, we have shown that, under Socialism, the State defines morality?  Well, only God can define what is moral.  So, either we accept the State as our god, in which case, we have no rights and the State does own us and can do whatever it wants to or with us; or we reject Socialism as the unjust and immoral system that it is. Socialism is based on forced slavery.  It destroys the individual, and — eventually — society.  This is because Socialism defies Natural Law and, while we may manage to escape it for a short while, Natural Law always asserts itself.  When that happens, Socialism collapses — always — every time!  There has never been an exception.  So I ask you: why support a system that is not only unjust and immoral, but also doomed to failure?

ALSO RECOMMENDED:

What Americans Must Know About Socialism

Socialism Videos on Prager U

• I do not recommend the use of Wikipedia for real research.  This is because it is largely the work product of people with a decidedly Left-leaning agenda.  While the platform is supposedly open, I have found that any contribution to an article that goes against the Leftist agenda is removed.  However, in this case, because Wikipedia is controlled by Leftists. they have presented the history of Leftist ideology in the best possible light.  This only serves to make my case against Socialism all the stronger, which is why I have suspended my rule against using Wiki as a credible source.