Part III American Fascism

In the previous two blog installments I exposed the destruction of our republic and constitution. I have demonstrated the inherent dangers and failures of democracy in America today. Now the question remains, what brand of totalitarianism are we?

 Our fearless leaders seem bent on emulating the Socialist Democracies of the European Union. The European nations are so vogue, so eclectic, their social economic failures are so nuance; we can’t wait to try them here in this country.

 Basically, a “Socialist Democracy” means we get to vote in our oppressors. This social experiment starts out with the masses voting for candidates promising entitlement programs. Cushy government jobs with attractive health care benefits and lavish pension plans for those ideologues that support the regime. Then coercive labor monopolies are allowed to flourish, government sponsored entities that are immune to the anti-trust laws.

 With every new government program, special interest groups are formed. Soon the political pull of all these special interest with their money and influence control the direction of government. With so many special interests gnawing and fighting each other for control of the government purse strings, those with the most power and clout prevail in securing government entitlements; these are the entities that determine national policy.

 So where does government get the wealth to pay for special interest entitlements? Well, from the private sector of course, controling the wealth of successful industries and businesses. They plunder the individual prosperity of the citizenry in the form of taxes. And when those windfalls can’t sustain their rapacious spending, they print fiat money dumping it on the market gobbling up more national wealth through inflation. Historically, this cyclic growth which perpetuates government control has always failed; eventually, they run out productive victims to sacrifice, and oppressive totalitarianism prevails.

 Witness the civil unrest in Greece when threatened with fiscal collapse. Truth is, the economic failures of “Socialist Democracy” spawns anarchy, and now other European nations, Germany, Ireland, and Spain, are teetering on the verge of insolvency.

 This all sounds haunting familiar; dreadfully close to our situation here in the states. However, our government has indemnified its fiat purchases’ with market shares of banks, insurance companies, and automotive companies. Our elected government officials know they can’t nationalize industry and business, that would kill off the private sector they are so found of robbing. Instead they prefer to leave it private, but reserve the power to control production. This is fascism.

 The government uses a constellation of tools to regulate the means of production, The Interstate Commerce Clause, The Antiquities Act, The Sherman Act (better known as anti-trust laws) just to name a few. Of lately the government has spent the tax payer’s money directly to bail out failing industry and financial institutions, which consequently, are big enough to fail. In this country, regulation and anti-trust equals fascism.

 When the government can’t usurp existing industries it desires, it creates some, and lately the government desires to be in the energy business. It entices venture capital out of the private sector with tax breaks, subsidies, favorable legislation and lucrative government contracts. The most recent of these unsustainable energy blunders are ethanol and bio-diesel. They can’t compete in the marketplace without heavy subsidies.

 Now the government is chasing green technologies that have been abysmal economic failures in (you guessed it) Europe. This plea to preserve the environment is nothing more than an altruistic hoax based on fictitious climate science. The real cash cow the government seeks to exploit here is the carbon credit market which is another form of fiat currency employed to regulate industry. Make no mistake here, our national identity is fascism. After all, the politicians do have the blessing of the central banks and special interest consortiums on Wall Street.

 It is important to remember that in the end oppressive totalitarianism is always one crisis away. The collapse of the dollar, an overt act of terrorism, an environmental catastrophe (either genuine or contrived) could all lead to civil unrest, martial law, a police state, and despotism.


4 Responses


    Capitalism was founded upon basic principles: production, supply and demand, and capital accumulation. It is a social theory whereby prices are determined by profit and loss, as well as market interest and fluctuations.

    Although I understand the need for a free market enterprise, such a theory should not imply that we are willing to disregard our environment, or sacrifice the needs and comforts of our humanity in an attempt to realize higher profits (a.k.a., BP, Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs, etc).

    Capitalism may be wonderful, but like anything else, it is still a flawed system. It’s a work in progress. It needs to be tweaked here and there in order to perfect its balance and to soothe the inordinate swings that occur day-to-day in our financial markets. If left unchecked, however, such a system will prove to be our economic downfall.

    How so?

    Well, for one thing, there is only so much profit a business can make from a product before it is left to cut costs in both quality and workmanship. In order to continually sustain a profit, businesses have to create those same products with lower quality ingredients and cheaper labor: which means that they must pull up stakes and move to other countries like China, Taiwan, or Mexico in order to survive. What does this eventually mean for people like you and me? It means that the very financial theory that promoted our country to super power status has turned on us. It means that the American workforce is now expected to work harder, longer, cheaper, and faster if we are to compete with the global economy now breathing down our necks.

    Where do we go from here?

    George Orwell had it right, to some extent, when he wrote his book1984. Many years from now, money will become worthless and the global populace will be employed and subject to hundreds (if not thousands) of individualized corporations that managed to survive attrition through merger aquisitions. It will be a feudalistic society: every corporation out for blood and vying for global dominance and absolute power. Our children and grandchildren will be there too: housed, clothed and fed by these various corporate entities; all the while being sent out on occasion, like brainless automatons, to errands of war, in an effort to absorb the weakest corporations into the fold. After all the dust settles, and everything is said and done, the remaining corporations will finally merge into a one-world government.

    Science fiction, you say?

    (…I’m left wondering.)

    • With all due respect, you have a convoluted interpretation of capitalism here. It is imperative, that before one enters the debate, one understands the quintessential roll of laissez-faire capitalism.

      “Well, for one thing, there is only so much profit a business can make from a product before it is left to cut costs in both quality and workmanship. In order to continually sustain a profit, businesses have to create those same products with lower quality ingredients and cheaper labor: which means that they must pull up stakes and move to other countries like China, Taiwan, or Mexico in order to survive.”

      In order for businesses to survive in the market place, they must improve the quallity of their products, while lowering prices. It’s called inovation and market research. Why? to maintain market share; people at the retail and wholesale level won’t buy substandard products, or pay for substandard services. left to the inherent forces of the free market, businesses that don’t inovate and improve quallity at market prices go out of bussiness, unless they are a government sponsered entity and have monopoly privilege endowed by the government.

      High business taxes, organized labor monopolies (unions) and oppressive government regulation (anti-trust laws) and hostile enviromental policies all drive industies off our shores. I’m afraid you suffer from the “Blame It On Capitalism” affliction. It is a contagious metal disorder that comes form swimming in the cesspool of the lame stream media and hanging out with the hip crowd. Thanks for your comments.

      • To add to what raveler said, “In order for businesses to survive in the market place, they must improve the quallity of their products, while lowering prices.”

        Economists use to describe “competition” in a free market as a “fierce” competition between competitors meaning that the best companies, the ones that produce the highest quality products at the most affordable prices, naturally would gain the lion’s share of the market, at least until someone else comes along with a better product or method. This “fierce” competition is what kept quality high and prices low. However, that all changed with Antitrust legislation. Instead of having a fierce competition between competitors antitrust ensured mediocre competition between more companies. It is quantity over quality. The egalitarian principle here is the government through antitrust leveled the playing field so that inferior companies could compete with superior companies. What antitrust laws really amounts too are uncompetitive practices that result is the destruction of private property rights; causes inefficiency, ensures mediocrity, and impedes innovation.

    • To understand the fundamental principles of capitalism is to understand the right to own property. The right to property is the right of use and disposal. Capitalism is a system that recognizes individual rights to include property rights. In this system a business owner cannot prevent a potential competitor from entering the market, he cannot coerce the consumer to buy his product, nor can he force anyone to work for his company. All transactions, whether they are between the buyer and seller or the employer and employee, are by voluntary agreement. In other words capitalism is a system where physical force is banned in human relationships.

      The reason for antitrust legislation is the fear of “coercive monopolies.” However the fear of coercive monopolies in the free market is unfounded as history shows that they didn’t exist. The antitrust movement was about interest group politics where industrial interests sought out favors from government to protect them from their competitors. For example, the cotton industry sought out a sympathetic Sen. John Sherman (the Sherman Antitrust Act) for protections on behalf of the southern cotton farmer’s coalition whose cloth was less popular with consumers than jute. Seeing antitrust as a means of relief from stiff competition other industries jumped on the band wagon seeking protectionist policies from the government. Antitrust is tantamount to being punished for being too popular or too successful. Instead of protecting competition it does the opposite by protecting inferior industries or firms from having to compete against superior competitors.

      The idea that you can have coercive monopolies in a free market is a myth. In theory it is possible for a company (or industry) to attempt to monopolize but the very fact that other companies are free to enter the market and compete prevents this from happening. In fact, any attempt to monopolize a market would provide profitable opportunities for other companies to enter the market; to innovate, improve the product, increase out put, and gain sales as consumers took advantage of that competition. So even if a company were able to monopolize a particular market it wouldn’t be coercive and it would only be temporary. The fact is there isn’t a single instance where a supposed attempt to monopolize has hurt consumers, restricted output, or restricted competitors from entering the market.

      Only the government can restrict entrance to the markets. Coercive monopolies are a product of “mixed economies” where the government grants protections to their preferred constituents from competition.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: