Wait a Minute–Who’s Fascist?

The core belief of the Establishment is the central state should run everything.

If you’re an Establishment insider, the mainstream media will give you plenty of column inches and airtime to label Donald Trump a “dangerous” fascist: for example, Democratic insider Robert Reich’s fear-mongering frenzy Donald Trump is a 21st century American fascist, in which Reich conveniently overlooks constitutional limits on any president, “fascist” or not.

In effect, Reich is announcing the Constitution is dead and powerless to limit the President. Well, if that’s the problem, then why not attack the real problem, which is the Imperial Presidency? Why not? Reich served an Imperial President as a loyal lackey, that’s why–and he remains an energetic supporter of the central state and its bread-and-circuses institutionalized serfdom.

If you’re an Establishment insider, you’ll get ample opportunities in the corporate media to label Bernie Sanders a “dangerous” socialist. You don’t even have to be a member of the “vast right-wing conspiracy” (a staple of the Clintons’ attack strategy)–any insider can get airtime to label Sanders as “dangerous”–either because he’s socialist, or because he’s not radical enough. Any attack will do, and you’ll get plenty of opportunity to flesh out any attack, no matter how biased or nonsensical.

It is of course classic Orwellian Doublespeak to label any threat to one’s power “fascist,” and to laud one’s corrupt and venal allies as “freedom fighters,” but the Establishment’s panicked reliance on accusations of fascism is new and yes, dangerous. So let’s step back and ask–precisely who’s the fascist here?

It turns out that the definition of fascism widely attributed to Mussolini– “Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power”–has no provenance: researchers cannot find this quote in any original source material.

Here is an excellent exploration of the topic: Benito Mussolini on Fascism and Corporatism

Via the research cited in Mussolini on the Corporate State, we have a verified Mussolini statement on the fascist conception of the state’s role in the economy and society:

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).

In other words, the all-powerful central state worshipped by Reich and all the other Establishment insiders, Democrat and Republican alike, is the true culmination of fascism. So if we strip away the Orwellian Doublespeak, we find that it’s actually Reich and his fellow believers in the goodness and rightness of the all-powerful central state and central bank who are the real fascists.

The core belief of the Establishment is the central state should run everything:the state should run the mortgage industry (hey, it does–95% of all mortgages are government-backed or guaranteed); it should run the financial system via setting interest rates, buying bonds and other assets and bailing out/protecting private banks (hey, it does–thank you, Federal Reserve); it should control higher education (the central state not only funds the higher education cartel, it also owns most of the $1.4 trillion in student loan debt); it should control the economy via protecting and enforcing favored monopolies and cartels, and of course the state needs to track any domestic “threats” via surveillance and suppress any resistance to its power by force, media attacks, lawsuits, IRS investigations, social-media smear campaigns, etc.–which is precisely what the U.S. central state’s toadies, lackeys, apparatchiks, thugs, bought-off media hacks, et al. do.

That, ladies and gentlemen, is fascism, and that’s the Establishment’s America.No wonder central-state lackeys like Reich have unleashed frantic attacks against Trump and Sanders–they fear their fascist paradise of central-state-cartel-capitalism might somehow be threatened.

And like all fascists and fascist states, they over-react to any threats to their power. This over-reaction eventually backfires, for it reveals the true nature of their loyalties and their project: that there is an endless need for more state regulations, controls, programs, guarantees and promises that all will be better as long as you cede control of everything that matters to the state. You are of course still “free” to choose your breakfast cereal and which outpost of the Ministry of Propaganda you wish to view/read/listen to.

The carrot dangled by the fascist state is always the same: there is a free lunch for everyone who cedes control over their lives to the state. For corporations, the free lunch is a quasi-monopoly; for debt-serfs, new programs that erase their debts (i.e. transfer them to others), and for everyone, more entitlements, up to the Nirvana of the fascist state, Guaranteed Minimum Income for all.

The tragic irony is, as we all know, there is no free lunch. The central state generates the illusion there is a free lunch to institutionalize the dominance of the wealthy and powerful and institutionalize serfdom for everyone else.

Global Crisis: the Convergence of Marx, Orwell and Kafka (July 25, 2012)

Tagged with: , , , , , , , ,
3 comments on “Wait a Minute–Who’s Fascist?
  1. Talcott says:

    Aye,so ….current communication technology disenfranchises the archaic

    hierarchy of lies and liars.


  2. swell says:


    My theory of the so-called “unilateral” or “Imperial Presidency”:

    Second Lady of the United States of America Mary Elizabeth “Tipper” Gore was on a mad crusade for censorship, starting with an attack on music by starting with record labeling. This looked modeled after the MPAA’s “so-called” voluntary movie rating system which ultimately became veritably codified state censorship. I vehemently opposed Al Gore’s bid for the presidency for that reason and the US Supreme Court handed Bush the victory.

    When Bush undertook to wage the Great Moral Panic on a scale that government currently wages the WOT, I made an overture to the US Supreme Court to put him to death. It was for feeling them out, nothing formal. I backed off after sensing it was something they would ultimately refuse to do.

    Bush treated that like a victory of some unpublished case and hince he was untouchable. I seriously wondered if Bush would actually willingly step aside when his second term was over. Obama appears to have essentially pardoned him for the that reason while assuming inheriting Bush’s stilted legal theory of gaining “Imperial Powers”, for himself.

  3. John Puma says:

    Smith comes to the correct conclusion with historically faulty analysis.

    The essence of fascism:
    1) strong nationalism: as in “Exceptionalism”
    2) a sense of national rebirth/renovation: as in “make America great again.”

    Britt has elucidated 14 characteristics – patterns of national behavior and abuse of power. There were present in all heretofore accepted authentic fascist societies ( Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Franco’s Spain, Salazar’s Portugal, Papadopoulos’s Greece, Pinochet’s Chile, and Suharto’s Indonesia):

    1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism. From the prominent displays of flags and bunting to the ubiquitous lapel pins, the fervor to show patriotic nationalism, both on the part of the regime itself and of citizens caught up in its frenzy, was always obvious. Catchy slogans, pride in the military, and demands for unity were common themes in expressing this nationalism. It was usually coupled with a suspicion of things foreign that often bordered on xenophobia.

    2. Disdain for the importance of human rights. The regimes themselves viewed human rights as of little value and a hindrance to realizing the objectives of the ruling elite. Through clever use of propaganda, the population was brought to accept these human rights abuses by marginalizing, even demonizing, those being targeted. When abuse was egregious, the tactic was to use secrecy, denial, and disinformation.

    3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause. The most significant common thread among these regimes was the use of scapegoating as a means to divert the people’s attention from other problems, to shift blame for failures, and to channel frustration in controlled directions. The methods of choice—relentless propaganda and disinformation—were usually effective. Often the regimes would incite “spontaneous” acts against the target scapegoats, usually communists, socialists, liberals, Jews, ethnic and racial minorities, traditional national enemies, members of other religions, secularists, homosexuals, and “terrorists.” Active opponents of these regimes were inevitably labeled as terrorists and dealt with accordingly.

    4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism. Ruling elites always identified closely with the military and the industrial infrastructure that supported it. A disproportionate share of national resources was allocated to the military, even when domestic needs were acute. The military was seen as an expression of nationalism, and was used whenever possible to assert national goals, intimidate other nations, and increase the power and prestige of the ruling elite.

    5. Rampant sexism. Beyond the simple fact that the political elite and the national culture were male-dominated, these regimes inevitably viewed women as second-class citizens. They were adamantly anti-abortion and also homophobic. These attitudes were usually codified in Draconian laws that enjoyed strong support by the orthodox religion of the country, thus lending the regime cover for its abuses.

    6. A controlled mass media. Under some of the regimes, the mass media were under strict direct control and could be relied upon never to stray from the party line. Other regimes exercised more subtle power to ensure media orthodoxy. Methods included the control of licensing and access to resources, economic pressure, appeals to patriotism, and implied threats. The leaders of the mass media were often politically compatible with the power elite. The result was usually success in keeping the general public unaware of the regimes’ excesses.

    7. Obsession with national security. Inevitably, a national security apparatus was under direct control of the ruling elite. It was usually an instrument of oppression, operating in secret and beyond any constraints. Its actions were justified under the rubric of protecting “national security,” and questioning its activities was portrayed as unpatriotic or even treasonous.

    8. Religion and ruling elite tied together. Unlike communist regimes, the fascist and protofascist regimes were never proclaimed as godless by their opponents. In fact, most of the regimes attached themselves to the predominant religion of the country and chose to portray themselves as militant defenders of that religion. The fact that the ruling elite’s behavior was incompatible with the precepts of the religion was generally swept under the rug. Propaganda kept up the illusion that the ruling elites were defenders of the faith and opponents of the “godless.” A perception was manufactured that opposing the power elite was tantamount to an attack on religion.

    9. Power of corporations protected. Although the personal life of ordinary citizens was under strict control, the ability of large corporations to operate in relative freedom was not compromised. The ruling elite saw the corporate structure as a way to not only ensure military production (in developed states), but also as an additional means of social control. Members of the economic elite were often pampered by the political elite to ensure a continued mutuality of interests, especially in the repression of “have-not” citizens.

    10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated. Since organized labor was seen as the one power center that could challenge the political hegemony of the ruling elite and its corporate allies, it was inevitably crushed or made powerless. The poor formed an underclass, viewed with suspicion or outright contempt. Under some regimes, being poor was considered akin to a vice.

    11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts. Intellectuals and the inherent freedom of ideas and expression associated with them were anathema to these regimes. Intellectual and academic freedom were considered subversive to national security and the patriotic ideal. Universities were tightly controlled; politically unreliable faculty harassed or eliminated. Unorthodox ideas or expressions of dissent were strongly attacked, silenced, or crushed. To these regimes, art and literature should serve the national interest or they had no right to exist.

    12. Obsession with crime and punishment. Most of these regimes maintained Draconian systems of criminal justice with huge prison populations. The police were often glorified and had almost unchecked power, leading to rampant abuse. “Normal” and political crime were often merged into trumped-up criminal charges and sometimes used against political opponents of the regime. Fear, and hatred, of criminals or “traitors” was often promoted among the population as an excuse for more police power.

    13. Rampant cronyism and corruption. Those in business circles and close to the power elite often used their position to enrich themselves. This corruption worked both ways; the power elite would receive financial gifts and property from the economic elite, who in turn would gain the benefit of government favoritism. Members of the power elite were in a position to obtain vast wealth from other sources as well: for example, by stealing national resources. With the national security apparatus under control and the media muzzled, this corruption was largely unconstrained and not well understood by the general population.

    14. Fraudulent elections. Elections in the form of plebiscites or public opinion polls were usually bogus. When actual elections with candidates were held, they would usually be perverted by the power elite to get the desired result. Common methods included maintaining control of the election machinery, intimidating and disenfranchising opposition voters, destroying or disallowing legal votes, and, as a last resort, turning to a judiciary beholden to the power elite.