![\"\"](\"http:\/\/journalpulp.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/01\/Screen-Shot-2021-01-27-at-2.43.14-PM.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\nLast year, Michigan Democrat Congresswoman Rashida Tlaiba — a proud antisemite and totally uninformed and dogmatic critic of Israel, was correctly lambasted on social media after tweeting a statement on Holocaust Remembrance Day (Yom Hashoah) in which she failed to mention Jews.<\/i><\/p>\n What I now more than ever wish for everybody to know about the Holocaust is that it was the direct and demonstrable result of ideas. In fact, it is among the most horrific testaments to this one overwhelming fact:<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Ideas have consequences.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The Holocaust was the direct and demonstrable result of collectivist-socialist ideology.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The Holocaust is a horrifying real-life example of the consequences of anti-individual ideology — i.e. when the individual is subordinated by law and subjugated to a so-named collective.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n It is what happens when voluntary human action and cooperation among individuals is forbidden by law.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The Holocaust is the result of the same ideology that Critical Race Theory today propounds: it is collectivism and nothing else which causes such unspeakable atrocities.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n I want all readers to understand and never forget: Fascism was a thoroughly<\/i> leftist-collectivist ideology. This is easy to prove. And until its ideological roots are fully and explicitly identified, grasped, and rejected, the threat of it happening again exists always.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The word fascism<\/i> is a derivative of the Latin word fasces,<\/i> which means a bundle of sticks (usually birch or elm, and often with an ax in the middle, from an ancient Roman symbol), and that metaphor \u2014 the bundling together of individuals pieces \u2014 is significant.<\/p>\n Benito Mussolini, who as you know popularized the term \u201cfascism\u201d for his political party, was, as you may not know, a devoted socialist that began as a marxist, was expelled from the socialist party proper, and, like his friend Adolph Hitler, remained a devoted socialist to the day he died.<\/p>\n This is one of several reasons for the love-fest between Mussolini and Franklin Delano Roosevelt, with whom Mussolini was also good friends, and if you\u2019d like to read more about this subject \u2014 specifically, how FDR modeled much of the New Deal off of Mussolini\u2019s fascist-economic ideas \u2014 I cannot recommend highly enough the book Three New Deals<\/i><\/a>,<\/i> by Wolfgang Schivelbusch. Wolfgang Schivelbusch is an independent scholar from Berlin, Germany, not affiliated with any school or academy and is totally non-partisan. He\u2019s also an extraordinarily scrupulous writer \u2014 scrupulous in his gathering and presenting of historical facts and data. I repeat:<\/p>\n If you truly want to understand fascism and its historical roots \u2014 and you should, especially in this day and age of deadly \u201canti-fascist\u201d protestors who advocate the same politico-economic tenets of fascism proper \u2014 and, more specifically, the protracted propaganda machine that has successfully convinced the world that fascism was somehow \u201cRepublican-Conservative,\u201d you should read this book<\/a>. You will not think about fascism the same ever again, and that is a good thing: because you will actually understand it more.<\/p>\n Mussolini\u2019s so-called Corporatism<\/i><\/a> was his version of Syndicalism<\/a>, which is the type of economic structure many if not most democratic-socialists today advocate. Please don\u2019t confuse 1920\u2019s corporatism with the anti-corporation mentality so in vogue now. Corporatism is a word which ultimately derives from corpus (<\/i>for \u201chuman body\u201d) and dates clear back to Ancient Greece and Rome. For Mussolini, and others, it was, I say again, a form of Syndicalism, and that is one reason the Wikipedia entry for Corporatism<\/a> lists itself as \u201cpart of a series on Syndicalism\u201d:<\/p>\n “Italian Fascism involved a corporatist political system in which the economy was collectively managed by employers, workers and state officials by formal mechanisms at the national level. Its supporters claimed that corporatism could better recognize or \u201cincorporate\u201d every divergent interest into the state organically\u2026 When brought within the orbit of the State, Fascism recognizes the real needs which gave rise to socialism and trade unionism, giving them due weight in the guild or corporative system in which divergent interests are coordinated and harmonized in the unity of the State\u2026. [The state] is not simply a mechanism which limits the sphere of the supposed liberties of the individual\u2026 This prospect of Italian fascist corporatism claimed to be the direct heir of Georges Sorel\u2019s revolutionary syndicalism” (source<\/a>).<\/p>\n The difference between marxism versus the Nazi socialists and the Italian Fascist socialists was, as Hayek and von Mises were about the only two to first point out, purely a difference of form: the marxist preached the proletariat (i.e. workers) as primary, whereas the Nazis and the Italian Fascists preached \u201cthe nation.\u201d But the common denominator among them all was the same common denominator, as it is also the common denominator to this day which unites every and all strains of socialism.<\/p>\n Do you know what it is?<\/p>\n It is the subjugation of the individual to a so-named collective.<\/p>\n It is collectivism.<\/p>\n It is control over the means of production, which is economics, in the name of a collective \u2014 any collective.<\/p>\n I implore you to commit that to memory.<\/p>\n \u201cBasically, National Socialism and Marxism are the same,\u201d said Adolph Hitler.<\/p>\n \u201cI have learned a great deal from Marxism, as I do not hesitate to admit,\u201d said Adolph Hitler.<\/p>\n \u201cProfit is the source of all evils,\u201d said Joseph Goebbles, whose hatred of laissez faire was stupendous.<\/p>\n \u201cFascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate [i.e. worker] power,\u201d said Benito Mussolini.<\/p>\n It was by means of the Food Estate guild, the Estate of Trade and Industry guild, and the Labor Front guild that the Nazis were able to take control of every group of producer and consumer in Germany.<\/p>\n German and Italian socialism assumed complete control of the means of production, while maintaining the facade of a market economy. The crucial point here, however, which one must never overlook, is the fact that prices and wages were all \u201cfixed by the central authority.\u201d Thus, they were only ostensibly prices and wages \u2014 meaning: in actual fact, prices and wages were determined by order of the socialist government, not the free-market and free exchange. In this way, both systems masqueraded as systems of free-enterprise, but in reality they was socialist up to their gills.<\/p>\n The difference between National Socialism (Nazism), Italian Fascism, and communistic socialism is, I say again, purely a question of form: the Nazis, unlike the Marxists, did not advocate public or governmental ownership of the means of production. Nazism, rather, openly demanded that government oversee and regulate the nation\u2019s economy. The issue of \u2018legal\u2019 ownership, explained Adolph Hitler, is secondary; what counts is the issue of control.<\/p>\n \u201cUnder Nazism, citizens retain the responsibilities of owning property, without freedom to act and without any of the advantages of ownership. Under Marxist socialism, government officials acquire all the advantages of ownership, without any of the responsibilities, since they do not hold title to the property, but merely the right to use it \u2014 at least until the next purge\u201d (Dr. George Reisman, economist).<\/p>\n George Reisman continues:<\/p>\n \u201cThis system of de facto socialism, carried out under the outward guise and appearance of free enterprise, in which the legal forms of private ownership are maintained, has been aptly characterized by Ludwig von Mises as socialism on the German pattern. The Germans under Ludendorf and Hindenburg in World War I, and later under Hitler, were the foremost practitioners of this type of socialism. (The more familiar variant of socialism, in which government openly nationalizes the means of production and establishes socialism de jure<\/i> as well as de facto,<\/i> von Mises calls socialism on the Russian or Bolshevik pattern.) It cannot be emphasized too strongly that [Fascist Italy and] Nazi Germany was a socialist country and that the Nazis were right to call themselves National Socialists. This is something everyone should know; yet it appears to have been overlooked or ignored by practically all writers but von Mises and Hayek.\u201d<\/p>\n In Nazi Germany, the government controlled all prices and wages and determined what each firm was to produce, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it was to turn over its products. There was no fundamental difference between the Nazis and other socialists.<\/p>\n The quasi economist Paul Krugman, corrupted irreparably by tendentious partisan nonsense (and who, incidentally, used to understand 101 economics, such as the facts about minimum wage and even wrote articulately about it in one of his early books<\/a>), recently complained that it\u2019s \u201cdifficult to have a conversation\u201d with any side other than his own, when the other side only ever charges you (him) as socialist. Cry me a fucking river, Paul. Because the fundamental fact remains, and it must be dealt with:<\/p>\n There are at root only two types of government \u2014 only two: the government that recognized the primacy of the individual over the collective, and the government that doesn\u2019t.<\/p>\n The rest is strictly a question of details. This is why the fight is always<\/i> a fight for principle, and that principle is this: should the individual be subordinated to the so-named collective \u2014 any collective \u2014 or should each individual human, regardless of race, gender, sex, sexual orientation, color, class, or creed, possess the full<\/i> and inalienable right to her own life and property?<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/a><\/p>\n