Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Posts Tagged ‘Communists’

The Continuing Fictitious Struggle › American Greatness

Posted by M. C. on June 2, 2021

Antifascists also blame the real or alleged Right for what its own protected groups do. Thus, when Muslim enthusiasts attacked Jews wearing Kippoth in Berlin during the recent clash between Israel and Hamas, German politician Manfred Weber (who belongs to the onetime conservative Christian Social Union) blamed the Alternative für Deutschland and the French Rassemblement National for these regrettable assaults. Weber denounced the very parties that have consistently warned against the reckless admission of Muslim migrants.

By Paul Gottfried

Breitbart last week published a commentary about homosexuals who were demonstrating against the Israelis and calling themselves “Queers for Palestine.” The commentator reminded the activists that while the Israelis are quite tolerant of gays, the Palestinians treat them rather brutally. This may all be true but is also irrelevant for why gays, Black Lives Matter, and other groups on the intersectional Left have taken the side of the Palestinians (really Hamas) against the Israelis. They are siding with what they imagine to be a permanent revolutionary Left, all the parts of which form a harmonious whole. 

According to this enduring myth, which finds expression in, among other sources, Mark Bray’s The Anti-Fascist Handbook, the current Left is a continuation of the Communist-led Popular Front of the 1930s, while the unchanging enemy is fascism. While the fascist enemy may vary, depending on what the self-described Left decides to crusade against, the Republican Party and the Israeli government are now stand-ins for Hitler, the former apartheid government in South Africa, and other villains of the Left. 

What happens politically or culturally must be understood through these ideologically shaped lenses: Antifascists believe they are still in a struggle that erupted between Right and Left almost 90 years ago, and whomever they designate as “fascists” become the heavies in this morality play. 

There are two problems with this game. First, the Right—or what is designated as such—keeps changing so that it ceases to resemble what it once was. Second, the antifascist, pro-LGBT, feminist Left is not the equivalent of the old interwar Left. The fascist enemy, one may be led to believe from reading Bray or Jason Stanley, the author of How Fascism Works, is white, male, Christian, and a sworn enemy of Third World immigration, gay marriage, and other current sacred cows. 

Among their other enormities, fascists are also occupying land that nonwhites or Muslims are now claiming. The Israelis, for example, are surrogates for the hated Christian West, who keep postcolonial Muslim revolutionaries from taking back Palestine, where presumably they would erect an antifascist state. If there is a connection between Hitler’s Third Reich and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, we may have to leave it to antifascist luminaries to explain it to us.

It is also hard to figure out how immigration restrictionists are fascists, since fascists were typically expansionists, not people who wanted to close their borders and hang out with their own kind. According to Jason Stanley, “Fascist opposition to gender studies flows from its patriarchal ideology.” It may be difficult to pin this on the interwar Right since the present feminist movement with its list of demands (for lesbians, the transgendered, etc.) did not exist in the 1930s, except as a very marginal presence. It is hard to imagine any political faction in the 1930s, whether on the Left or on the Right, coming out for “gender studies” that advocate sex-change operations and declare gender differences to be social constructs. 

Antifascists also blame the real or alleged Right for what its own protected groups do. Thus, when Muslim enthusiasts attacked Jews wearing Kippoth in Berlin during the recent clash between Israel and Hamas, German politician Manfred Weber (who belongs to the onetime conservative Christian Social Union) blamed the Alternative für Deutschland and the French Rassemblement National for these regrettable assaults. Weber denounced the very parties that have consistently warned against the reckless admission of Muslim migrants. By some peculiar logic, parties that issue such warnings are necessarily fascist or at least right-wing extremists and therefore responsible for anti-Semitic outbursts committed by groups favored by the Left. 

Even more significantly, the Left in the past, and especially Communists, were guilty of all the extreme rightist attitudes that antifascists now level against their opposition. Communist parties and leaders were explicitly homophobic, opposed Third World immigration as a danger to the indigenous working class, and in the case of leftist icon, Che Guevara, mocked the black race

The intersectional Left is mostly a contemporary phenomenon and its exaltation of Communism and other past Lefts is based largely on an effort to manufacture for itself a venerable genealogy. When the Spanish Left, which is now in power, claims as antecedents the Communists and Anarchists of the Spanish Civil War, it is giving itself a questionable past. Spanish Communists in the 1930s did not celebrate homosexuals or the transgendered; nor did they welcome to their country Muslim fundamentalists to express their antifascism. Barack Obama might have imagined that the Castro brothers, whom he fawned over like a puppy during his visit to Cuba, previewed his own radicalism. But unlike American leftists, Cuban Communists have not glorified homosexuals; they’ve imprisoned and tortured them. 

Antifascist polemicists and others on the Left like to believe they represent a side that has been struggling against the same Right for almost 100 years. But there is little evidence for this assumption.

About Paul Gottfried

Paul Edward Gottfried is the editor of Chronicles. An American paleoconservative philosopher, historian, and columnist, Gottfried is a former Horace Raffensperger Professor of Humanities at Elizabethtown College in Elizabethtown, Pennsylvania, as well as a Guggenheim recipient.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Doug Casey on How COVID Lockdowns Will Become Climate Lockdowns

Posted by M. C. on May 13, 2021

When it comes to climate change, these countries laugh at Westerners for their naivete, stupidity, and self-destructive tendencies. They don’t take it seriously. It’s another reason why the next century belongs to China.

The same is true of Russia, which, for all of its faults, is basically an anti-woke country. It’s been said—correctly—that there are more communists in American universities than there are in all of Russia.

by Doug Casey

International Man: It’s been over a year since the COVID lockdowns started, and they have established a terrible precedent.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) has issued what they call a “dire warning.” They say there will be a 5% increase in carbon emissions as global economies reopen after the COVID shutdowns this year and that it will be “anything but sustainable” for the environment. This implies that the shutdowns have been good for the environment and that returning to normal is bad.

There has also been a flood of articles in the mainstream media advocating for the use of lockdowns to address so-called climate change.

Do you think that the COVID lockdowns could become climate change lockdowns?

Doug Casey: Without exception, almost everything they say in the above article is either an overt and intentional lie or just factually incorrect. Things that are controversial at best are presented as incontrovertible facts.

Let me first reiterate a few facts about COVID.

It’s hard to be sure because everything about it has become highly politicized, but COVID itself seems no more serious than the Asian Flu, Hong Kong Flu, Bird Flu, or Swine Flu that have come and gone in recent decades and is not even remotely comparable to the Spanish Flu of 1918.

The numbers show that COVID is a risk for people over 70, the obese, and the sick—but a medical non-problem for everyone else. That’s why the average age of decedents is 80, even though it appears that everyone who dies with the virus in their system is reported as a statistic—even if they die of an auto accident or a heart attack. People with zero symptoms are, nonetheless, listed as “cases” if they fail the overly sensitive and very expensive PCR test.

We might ask: “What’s behind this insane flu hysteria—which is radically restructuring the world’s political and economic landscapes? And why now?” It seems very oddly coincidental with a few other phenomena.

One is that the world is on the cusp of a fantastically devastating depression due to the insane creation of currency units all over the world by central banks. Is the phony COVID hysteria—and, yes, I believe it’s 80% phony—being used as an excuse for the coming collapse, a way to recuse those responsible for the insane economic policies causing the depression? In other words, is the COVID hysteria an artificially constructed force majeure used to distract from the real cause of the Greater Depression?

Another phenomenon is that the COVID hysteria has proved an excellent way to scare the hell out of the public everywhere. Terrified people demand “strong” leaders and strict controls. It’s a godsend for the kind of people who go into government, anxious for any excuse to self-aggrandize and take more power. “Never let a serious crisis go to waste” has been an operating principle of powermongers since Day One. And war is the most serious kind of crisis. Don’t forget what Randolf Bourne said in 1914: “War is the health of the State.” But a real war with a real enemy is always risky and may not always be feasible. So powermongers create phony wars. In order to fight a war—any kind of war—you need a State to organize and legitimize it.

The first major phony war in living memory was Lyndon Johnson’s war on poverty—the poor lost. Then came Richard Nixon’s war on drugs. Then, Baby Bush declared war on terror. They’re all still ongoing, but it seems time for a two-front war. A war on global warming combined with a war on COVID will be ultra-effective for breeding fear in Boobus americanus. They say global warming can destroy the planet and COVID can kill everyone. A sure-fire combination. They’re certain to get widespread support from the usual suspects.

As a bonus, there’s a very high correlation between those who support the COVID hysteria and those supporting the climate change agenda. And both of them claim to have a new ally, “the science,” to sell the wars to scared chimpanzees. Not just in the US, but everywhere in the world. These two new wars will bring out the worst in everyone, everywhere.

Once you wash away their social veneer, the patina of civilization, you find that humans are tribal. Put them in groups and they revert to the lowest common denominator—they act like our anthropoid ancestors and relatives. Get people excited, hooting and panting like chimps, and they’re anxious to wage war on one thing after another. Imagine them as the anthropoids contesting the watering hole in “2001: A Space Odyssey.” Conflict gives them a sense of solidarity and gives their lives meaning.

That’s especially true of humans with collectivist views, which is to say, Leftists and busybodies. In today’s world, they include the “woke,” social justice warriors, progressives, BLM supporters, Antifa, and, of course, socialists, communists, Marxists, and all their fellow travelers. They’re all Puritans motivated to control other humans. The Left has always been that way, although it occasionally disguises itself as pro-freedom to seduce the naive.

For instance, during the ’60s, the Left was pro-drugs. But that’s not because they were for personal freedom or because they believed you have the right to do what you want with your own body. They were pro-drugs because widespread and irresponsible drug use can destroy civilization.

Even when the Left seems to have good intentions, it’s not the case. For instance, the Left was against the Vietnam War. It wasn’t because they were anti-war, but because the war was against their fellow communists. It was clever, in both cases showing up the Republicans as dim-witted, unethical, and hypocritical.

Today the Left, in its various incarnations, is all for the COVID lockdowns. Those will mutate into climate change lockdowns. Both will act to compromise human freedom—even more than previous phony wars. It’s ironic that the word “lockdown” used to be used mainly in prisons—it’s rather indicative of where the world in general and the US, in particular, are headed.

International Man: What are the chances climate lockdowns will work if and when governments try them?

Doug Casey: Climate change lockdowns will work. Why shouldn’t they? COVID lockdowns worked wonderfully.

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Democrats ARE Destroying NYC On Purpose, DeBlasio ADMITS He’s Buying Up Vacant Properties

Posted by M. C. on August 10, 2020

Will New Yorkers quit electing communists?


The people most likely to vote de Blasio and Cuomo out of office, middle class so-called conservatives, are the ones leaving NYC.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Europe’s Communists Are Trying to Blame COVID-19 on Markets and “Neoliberalism” | Mises Wire

Posted by M. C. on May 9, 2020

What they consider as capitalism’s flaws—globalization and laissez-faire—are indeed its strong points. And what they accuse capitalism of—a lack of solidarity and forsaking disadvantaged people—relies upon incorrect theoretical and historical analysis. Don’t trust them and their fallacious narratives.

As the COVID-19 pandemic is taking place worldwide, many leftist pundits and communist politicians are blaming its spread on the alleged inborn flaws of neoliberalism—which they identify with globalization, laissez-faire, the absence of solidarity and greater inequality. However, all their claims and theories are either factually wrong or deductively and praxeologically nonsensical.

Globalization Is Enhanced Social Cooperation

First of all, antiglobalization leftists and communists do not seem to clearly understand what globalization really is—i.e., an economic and institutional framework wherein both economic products (consumers’ goods and services) and factors of production (commodities, labor, and capital) can move and circulate worldwide with relative freedom.

As it can be easily understood, such freedom of circulation and movement is nothing different from enhanced social cooperation. In fact, the fewer the constraints on resources’ allocation (both consumers’ and producers’ goods), the greater the efficiency (with respect to producers’ goods allocation, cost minimization, and profit maximization) and the satisfaction (in terms of variety of consumption goods and cost saving) that producers and consumers can enjoy.

In fact, as we all know, social cooperation is the only means whereby human societies can progress and provide better living conditions for all their members. As Mises ([1949] 1998) stated in Human Action,

Every step by which an individual substitutes concerted action for isolated action results in an immediate and recognizable improvement in his conditions. The advantages derived from peaceful cooperation and division of labor are universal. (p. 146, emphasis added)

Provided that globalization means nothing more than international peaceful cooperation and division of labor, it is clear that it would (and actually does) deliver better economic and welfare conditions than isolationism and autarky could possibly do. This fact can be praxeologically deduced (as we have briefly done so far) or empirically proven—by innumerable historical examples of disasters, misery and famine brought upon innocent people by autarkic and isolationist policies.

Laissez-Faire Is Trial-and-Error Learning

Secondly, communist politicians and leftist pundits get totally wrong what laissez-faire really is, what it entails, and how beneficial (or, even better, fundamental and indispensable) it is for the correct functioning of capitalism—which is the only social cooperation framework (both historically and praxeologically) suitable to bettering human beings’ material conditions.

Unfettered laissez-faire is the only institutional scenario wherein economic agents (consumers and producers) can freely and promptly adjust their choices and behaviors to the changes occurring within the free market—which is the ultimate display and epitome of social cooperation. Whenever laissez-faire is impaired by government intervention, social cooperation performs worse and society loses something in terms of efficiency in resource allocation.

Moreover, laissez-faire is indispensable in a capitalistic framework spoiled by fractional reserve banking and government fiat money. In fact, as Austrian business cycle theory teaches, the faculty to create “money out of thin air” (fiduciary media) that commercial banks are legally granted brings about divergences between savings (resources whose consumption agents are willing to forego today) and investments (means of production shifted toward higher orders of production so as to yield increased consumption tomorrow). In Mises’s ([1949] 1998) own words,

The inference to be drawn from the monetary cycle theory by those who want to prevent the recurrence of booms and of the subsequent depressions is…that they [banks] should abstain from credit expansion. (p. 789n5​, emphasis added)

However, since reforming the fractional reserve banking and government fiat money system we live in does not seem to be feasible (at least not in the short run), letting agents free to correct the mistakes they make in resource allocation seems to be the only way to cope with the credit-induced boom-and-bust cycles we experience.

In this respect, laissez-faire and globalization are intertwined. What the COVID-19 economic shock is teaching us—besides the questionability of indiscriminate economic shutdowns—is that, perhaps, entrepreneurs underestimated the pandemic risk while engineering the global value chain we all benefit from.

But this does not mean that laissez-faire and globalization were the wrong option: they are tools, nothing more. And through these tools a capitalistic society can adjust its productive structure and perform better in the future, learning from previous mistakes. Were the Western world to have a socialist central planner instead of freely choosing entrepreneurs, this corrective process of improvement could not possibly occur.

Neoliberalism: Greater Inequality and Lower Solidarity?

Lastly, laissez-faire does not imply rejection of the social protection we enjoy in Western world. This can be briefly shown both theoretically and empirically.

The critics of capitalism and neoliberalism blame markets for a system that is—allegedly—inevitably converging an toward ever more unequal distribution of resources. However, even if this were true (intertemporal changes in inequality are complex and challenging to measure), the egalitarian alternative is evidently worse.

Consider two possible social welfare functions (i.e., two possible quantifications of people’s well-being in a given society): the egalitarian one and the “Rawlsian” one. The first one postulates that society is better off the more equal agents’ utilities (i.e., states of well-being) are, whereas the second one postulates that society’s welfare depends upon the condition of its less affluent members.

As Figure 1 shows, you can have a more unequal society wherein, nonetheless, every single member is better off than in the previously more equal scenario: this is what is involved with the movement from scenario 1 to scenario 2, and it is what globalization entails. Notice that, from an egalitarian viewpoint, society would be better off in 1, when it was “more equal,” than in 2, where both agents A and B enjoy greater (even though less equal) utilities.

Figure 1: Individual Well-Being and Social Welfare Functions

Individual and Social Welfare Functions

This simple sketch provides valuable insights about communism and utopian ideologies: hoping to achieve scenario 3, where everybody would be better off and society more equal, which might not be feasible under production and technological constraints, communists and utopians prefer to force upon us scenario 1, where we are all poorer and worse off—but, hey, we have defeated inequality! Moreover, accepting scenario 2 (i.e., following a “Rawlsian” approach) is exactly what modern capitalistic welfare states are designed for: nobody is left behind if truly disadvantaged—no libertarian free marketer argues against that. However, taking care of disadvantaged people does not mean embracing an egalitarian viewpoint.

Also, historically we observe that the level of solidarity in Western world has increased—not decreasing, as modern anticapitalists contend—as markets and globalization have asserted themselves. Even using the Left’s own measures of “solidarity”—such as social spending—public social spending has been increasing in OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) countries from the 1980s onwards and is higher today—even after the Great Recession—than it was back then.1

Figure 2: Social Public Spending, Percentage of GDP, 1980–2018

Social Public Spending GDP
Source: OECD,


Even if leftists and antiglobalists were correct (and I believe they are not) in blaming capitalism and its various facets for the current pandemic, they are utterly wrong in downplaying capitalism’s ability to heal and correct its path.

What they consider as capitalism’s flaws—globalization and laissez-faire—are indeed its strong points. And what they accuse capitalism of—a lack of solidarity and forsaking disadvantaged people—relies upon incorrect theoretical and historical analysis. Don’t trust them and their fallacious narratives.

  • 1. That social spending is a useful measure of solidarity is a dubious assertion, but this is nonetheless a metric that anticapitalists use.

Be seeing you




Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

A Matter of Respect – Taki’s Magazine

Posted by M. C. on January 8, 2020

In the meantime, I advise readers to buy a good book on flies, for example Dr. Erzinclioglu’s slender but beautifully illustrated book on blowflies. If you are not already aware of the beauty of our dipteran neighbors and cohabitants of the globe, you will quickly learn to appreciate it.

Nature, which we are taught to revere and which in Europe is relatively benign, can nevertheless sometimes be a bit of a nuisance. For example, when I returned to my house in the country after an absence of a few months, I found that the flies had taken up residence between one shutter and a window, and the ladybirds—thousands of them—behind another. There are few sensations more unpleasant than being swarmed by flies on opening a window, unless it be the cold, slimy, squishy sensation of slugs that have taken up their residence under logs for the wood-burning stoves, or of dead mice (one of them fairly recently deceased, to judge by its consistency) in the middle of the pile of tea towels. George Orwell once wrote of his time working in a secondhand bookshop that bluebottles choose the top of old books on which to breathe their last, but our mice choose tea towels and give off an odor that even joss sticks cannot disguise. Compared with this, gall wasps that construct their odorless cocoons of mud and bodily secretions in the folds of curtains are a minor inconvenience and are easily cleared.

Then the rains came. The river at the bottom of our garden burst its banks, but fortunately our house is at a sufficient elevation that even Greta Thunberg might have thought us safe for the time being from the rising waters. However, the drains along our winding and ascending drive were another thing. They had not been cleared and were full of leaves, pine cones and needles, twigs, etc., with the result that the water threatened to erode the drive. There was nothing for it but to take to the spade.

I don’t mind physical work—for about a quarter of an hour. Thereafter it bores me. I am very grateful that in my life I have had to do very little of it. Such physical exertion as I indulged in has been for the pleasure of it, and divorced utterly from any utilitarian end. I date this aversion to physical labor from my childhood, when my father, whose main interest other than business and love affairs was gardening, made me accompany him and perform tasks such as sweeping the leaves, removing stones, saving worms, etc. How I longed for a deluge, or for the sun to go down, so as to be relieved of this corvée—which, as I now realize, was hardly very onerous. But young minds have no standard of comparison, and believe their own sufferings to be the worst imaginable. It is only fair to mention that my father was an excellent gardener, who loved his plants, if not his neighbor, as himself, and had an almost mystical attachment to them. I think he may even have talked to them, as many good gardeners do.

“I am as susceptible to the beauties of Nature as the next man, in some cases more so.”

I am as susceptible to the beauties of Nature as the next man, in some cases more so. For example, unlike many, I find individual flies to be creatures of great beauty, the more beautiful the more closely you observe them. It is in the mass that they revolt me (I will draw no cheap and false analogy with humanity). But at the same time, while I stand amazed at the metamorphosis of the maggot into the fly, as almost at a miracle, I cannot but be repelled by the maggot. In other words, my response to Nature is aesthetic, more often positive than negative but not invariably so.

In my youth, I shared a house with some communists of the very old-fashioned variety. They believed in industrial production because it inevitably resulted in that finest flower of humanity, the factory worker, who would, ex officio, be a foot soldier of the Revolution. No Leonardo da Vinci or Mozart for them! They believed, rather, in the Soviet Union’s ever-rising production, or at any rate graphs of ever-rising production, of something called pig iron, which at some point would overtake that of the United States and Western Europe combined, to the enormous benefit, of course, of the indigenous people of the Siberian tundra. They couldn’t see a landscape without wanting to garnish it with a factory chimney belching smoke, the blacker the better, as a symbol of what they called Man’s triumph over Nature (early communist propaganda and iconography were full of chimneys belching black smoke). They thought of Nature as an enemy, as a malign obstacle to be wrestled with and overcome, or as an evil conscious force obstructing Mankind’s progress to a glorious and infinitely abundant future. The extinction of animal species was welcome to them, not only if they, the extinct species, were in some way noxious to Man or deleterious to his advance, such as flies and snakes, but as symbolizing his increasing mastery over the surface of the Earth. Knowledge is power, and power is what they cared about.

At the other end of the spectrum are the mystics who imbue Nature with benevolent intentions toward us. They are the type of people who are inclined to forget that wild animals are wild. There was a man not long ago who so loved grizzly bears that he went to live with them, thinking that they would one day grow to love him as he loved them. Alas, he was mistaken: They eventually killed and ate him. If one were harsh, one might see in this a disrespect for the bears, this failure to recognize that bears, or other creatures, are not to be rehabilitated, or improved, into men, or even semi-men.

At heart, both the excessive respect and disrespect for Nature are the products of sentimentality, a sentimentality that leads to a failure to make proper distinctions. Both the excessively respectful and the disrespectful suppose that Nature has intentions toward us, good or evil as the case may be. Excessive respect supposes that Nature is so benevolent that nothing in it can harm Man, provided only that he is worshipful toward it; disrespect supposes that Man knows best and can perfect not only himself but the universe.

In the meantime, I advise readers to buy a good book on flies, for example Dr. Erzinclioglu’s slender but beautifully illustrated book on blowflies. If you are not already aware of the beauty of our dipteran neighbors and cohabitants of the globe, you will quickly learn to appreciate it.

Be seeing you

How to catch a fly ball




Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

The Fascist History of Antifa – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on August 28, 2019

As can be plainly seen, Antifa is not anti-fascist; they are the true successors of fascism, considering their propensity for mob violence and the “fanatical socialism” that Hitler proclaimed in 1941

It was H.L. Menken who predicted in 1938 that “Fascism… is very apt to come in under the name of anti-Fascism.”


Recently in Portland, Oregon, Antifa again went on the warpath against common civility. In a string of violent political attacks, these extremists have become the flashpoint in an effort to divide the nation. Worse, supporters of Antifa continue to play the anti-fascist card, painting opponents as fascists and racists. Such deceptive language simply hides the true history of Antifa and the role it played in World War II Italy.

The various Italian so-called anti-fascist groups that organized to fight Mussolini from 1943 to 1945 found themselves joining forces with many of Mussolini’s Blackshirt units. Historian Charles F. Delzell, one of the leading experts on modern Italian political history, explained this historical fact in his books.  He wrote that since “a good many Fascists (beginning with Mussolini himself) came from the ranks of left-wing Marxism and syndicalism,”… it was easy for a “certain number of ex-Blackshirts to swing to left-wing political extremism.” Delzell and other historians clearly make the case that Mussolini’s Blackshirts and Antifa factions in Italy forged an alliance because their ideologies were so similar. After all, Mussolini had been diehard Marxist for decades, even when he was the avowed leader of the Fascist Revolutionary Party.

In discussing why militant socialists would flock together, Delzell offered this explanation: “Fascists and Communists often found themselves appealing to the same kinds of alienated people.” Other historians, like Zeev Sternhell, agreed: explaining that fascism was a “direct result of very specific revision of Marxism.” UC Berkeley political scientist A. James Gregor regards “Fascism as a variant of Marxism.”

As can be plainly seen, Antifa is not anti-fascist; they are the true successors of fascism, considering their propensity for mob violence and the “fanatical socialism” that Hitler proclaimed in 1941. Moreover, the comrades of Antifa could be described “anarcho-statist militants,” who bully, terrorize, and attack anyone who will not join their crusade. That is because Mussolini was not only an “authoritarian communist’ who believed in a big state, but advocated street violence as an “anarcho-syndicalist.” Modern-day Antifa echo similar demagogic and contrived sentiments. They repeatedly engage in the sort of militarized street theatrics that were fashionable among Fascist and Communist mobs prior to World War II. In fact, Hitler’s Brownshirts emulated the Italian Blackshirts, attacking and violently disrupting other political groups, such as conservative German National People’s Party (DNVP) in the early 1930s, knocking down, kicking down and throwing “stink bombs and tear gas” during violent scuffles. Astonishingly, theAntifa shock-troop rioters continue to behave like Fascists in order to oppose fascism, which illustrates their complete ignorance of Italian Fascism and German National Socialism.

Moreover, these modern-day Antifa stormtroopers have even abused minorities to obtain power and control. In June of this year, a mostly white army of so-called “anti-racist” Antifa militants attacked Andy Ngo, a gay Asian-American journalist from Portland, sending him to the hospital for cuts and possible brain damage. Amazingly, the mainstream media took little notice of this attack on the free press and on a gay man, who was completely marginalized by people who dismiss civil society and individual rights.

In another alarming case, at U.C. Berkley in 2017, jackbooted black-clad Antifa goons beat up and kicked peaceful protesters, wielding clubs and pepper spray as they carried homemade shields that read “No Hate.” Incredibly, these neo-Fascists are unaware of the irony of their message and of who they are actually imitating. They are also oblivious to the fact that the original fascists had blind faith in a totalitarian worldview that sanctifies physical violence as ethically justifiable.

It was H.L. Menken who predicted in 1938 that “Fascism… is very apt to come in under the name of anti-Fascism.” Antifa needs to be identified as what it really represents: a movement that America fought and defeated in World War II, but which seems to be gaining ground again.

Much of the material is excerpted from L.K. Samuels’ new book, Killing History: The False Left-Right Political Spectrum.



Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

The Demise of the West? – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on August 22, 2019

Mr. Rockwell’s article makes some good points which is why I re-posted. The remainder of the article is a request to help fund his new book.

I encourage you to lick the link to investigate.


The Left is the most dangerous ideological phenomenon in the history of mankind. It glorifies poverty, the total state, and mass death. The Left wants to destroy Western civilization, based on Christianity, the traditional family, and the free market.

It’s no coincidence that Communists killed more than 100 million people, not including their wars.

By the way, young people are not taught about the evils of the Left, only its myths. They do not believe there were gigantic atrocities in the Lenin-Stalin Soviet Union, nor Mao’s China. Socialism is good! Everyone is better off under socialism. Everyone is Equal.

Equality is the magic word. Since it does not and cannot exist, it is is a license for total state power. After all, some people are smart, some stupid. Some good looking, some ugly. Some creative, some dull. Some hard working, some lazy. Some athletic, some couch potatoes.

According to the Left, private property and the free market are evil, not the sources of prosperity and civilization itself. The family is the ultimate evil, since is the ultimate source of inequality. That’s why Karl Marx called for its abolition.

The key fact about the human race is our radical inequality, said Mises. Without it, there could be no division of labor, no social cooperation, no market. There could be no liberty, because liberty depends on the ability of people to exercise without hindrance their unequal talents.

It’s more than ironic that Leftists call us fascists and Nazis, since fascism had its origins in communism and socialism, and Nazism was National Socialism. Both Mussolini and Hitler denounced the free market and all it stands for. But then, Leftists never tell the truth.

Where did this poison originate? Not so much in the ancient world, though it had its advocates there too. One Greek myth talked about the ruler Procrustes, who would force visitors to sleep in his iron bedstead. If you were too tall, he’d have your feet chopped off. If too short, he’d have you stretched on the rack. It’s still a good summary of egalitarianism.

The birth of modern Leftism was the French Revolution, with its wars, conscription, egalitarianism, mass deaths, and total state. Defeated, it rose again in Communist Marxism, the Russian Revolution, and all its despicable offspring.

Yet Marx’s idea of a proletarian revolution proved ridiculous and impossible. The attempt to put this idea into practice in Soviet Russia led to terror and mass murder that staggered the world. Far more effective was Cultural Marxism, originated by mostly German Communists in the 1930s, who moved like a plague to the United States in the 1940s. Putting aside direct efforts to revolutionize the means of production, they focused on destroying bourgeois culture—the family and Christianity especially—as the path to power…

Be seeing you

Germany 1880 1945: Art Posters of the Third Reich


Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »