In this issue of The McCullough Report, we have some grave news about a concerning set of developments that have taken the COVID-19 crisis response and its consequences to the world to a whole new level. With the backdrop that free speech and scientific discourse is...
Our Nation’s Greatest Threat is the Fascist Democrat
We already have ANTIFA and BLM declaring ‘autonomous zones,’ that they say are independent of the United States, in cities up and down our West Coast. Ironically, the Democratic Party refuses to declare such things ‘insurrections,’ in spite of the fact that both ANTIFA and BLM are openly working to eradicate the United States of America. The hard left has been rioting for years in Washington DC, and around the country, with the stated goal of eradicating the Constitution and creating a communist state, and yet the Democrats pretend that the Republican Party is the greatest threat our nation faces. This sad state of affairs would be funny were it not true. Our media takes ‘double speak’ to levels George Orwell could never have dreamed of.
The greatest threat our nation faces is the modern Democratic Party, which is being dominated by communists and fascists, all of whom are intent on destroying the greatest nation the world has ever seen, such that they can replace it with something else. The Democrats aren’t even trying to hide it – they openly proclaim our nation to be a terrible, racist place, and they openly tell us they are going to ‘fundamentally transform’ it into something else. What that something else is going to be – on that they cannot decide.
There is this belief in many right-leaning circles that we are heading toward a civil war between the left and the right. I don’t think that is the case. People in bondage have at times risen up to throw off their chains, but there is not a single example in human history where a formerly free people rose up against their own people as freedom died. Democracy has never had more than about a 200-year shelf-life anywhere it has been tried, and our Constitutional Republic is 232 years old. Perhaps ‘we the people’ can defend our liberty, but if history is our guide, individual states standing up to the federal government to re-assert the primacy of the state governments over the federal government is our way forward. That’s not a civil war at all – it’s just re-asserting our Constitution.
Should the left win, the question of whether we should use profit as an incentive system, within our centrally planned economy (fascism), or we should eliminate all vestiges of profit (communism) will emerge. Fascists and communists hate each other, and if the left wins, they will turn on each other – and that would be a civil war.
Thanks to falsehoods spun by the political left, most Americans believe fascism belongs to the political right. I’m going to dispel that notion once and for all, and will then show how all three of the primary totalitarian movements are working together to destroy the United States.
The left did not always pretend that fascism came from the political right, and the original fascists considered themselves to be Marxists. Giovanni Gentile, the Italian philosopher who invented fascism, was himself a devout Marxist. Gentile saw the gulag system emerge in the Soviet Union, and realized that by removing all vestiges of profit, Marxism also removed any positive incentive for people to produce, forcing the Soviets to use negative incentives (punishment) in order to get people onto the farms and into the factories, to produce the things the Soviet people needed to survive.
Giovanni Gentile reasoned that ‘ownership’ of the means of production could be broken into two pieces: profit and control. Of these, Gentile viewed control as the more important, as by controlling the means of production, the government could centrally plan and operate the economy. Profit (and pay) could then exist as a government-controlled incentive system in what would otherwise be Marxism.
Giovanni Gentile did not consider fascism to be ‘right-wing,’ and in fact, he called it ‘a middle road’ between communism and capitalism, that kept the most important aspect of communism (the economy being managed for the people) while still providing a positive reason for people to work (pay and profit).
It was not until Hitler invaded Poland that fascism became a bad word in the United States, and in fact, up until WWII, Franklin Delano Roosevelt had a very strong relationship with Benito Mussolini. Mussolini said of Roosevelt, “He is one of us,” and Roosevelt went so far as to send envoys to Italy, to study Mussolini’s implementation of fascism, such that this system of government could be brought to the United States. These envoys created what became known as the National Recovery Act, which Roosevelt began to implement before the Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional. Roosevelt tried to stack the Supreme Court to overturn that decision, but his court-packing scheme failed to get through Congress, and the National Recovery Act was not implemented.
The National Recovery Act did not entirely die. There is a modern version of it, sponsored by Elizabeth Warren, called the Accountable Capitalism Act. This act would create government agencies reporting to the President that would centrally plan and control American businesses while preserving the profit incentive. Under this act, the President would have the same powers Benito Mussolini had, and we would be a fascist nation.
Fascism is said to be on the right based on Adolf Hitler having emerged from Germany’s right-wing, but it is important to note that what is on the ‘left’ and ‘right’ changes as we move from country to country. Otto von Bismarck created the modern German state as a socialist state, and pre-Weimar Germany was the most socialist state in Europe at that time. Hitler’s first job after WWI ended was, in fact, as a political propagandist for the Democratic Socialist Government of Bavaria.
You read that right. Hitler was a democratic socialist before he became a fascist.
As the Weimar Republic’s economy collapsed, the number of political parties in Germany exploded into the thousands, and Hitler’s support for democracy eroded. Hitler then discovered the Nazi party (ironically, under orders from the Democratic Socialist Government of Bavaria to spy on them), and converted to fascism – which he considered a better form of socialism (NAZI being a German acronym for ‘National Socialism’).
National Socialism can be broken up into two parts: nationalism and socialism. Nationalism in Germany was a murky subject, as Germany had only been a nation since 1871. Prior to 1871, a unified ‘Germany’ was but a dream the Germanic people shared, and even with the creation of a German state, much of what the German people wanted to be a part of Germany (such as Austria – where Hitler was born) was left out. The German sense of nationhood was based on this long-held dream of a unified homeland for the German people, and as such, unlike in other nations, ‘nationalism’ in Germany was ethnic rather than geographic. As such, ‘National Socialism’ was really ethnic socialism, or perhaps more accurately, Germanic socialism, differing from Bernie Sanders’ platform only in that the NAZIs wanted to exclude anyone who was not ethnically German from all of the things the NAZIs promised the German people.
America has had a very different past than did Germany. When our country was founded, what was ‘right-wing,’ or ‘conservative’ was fealty to a class system based on nobility and serfdom, with the King of England at the top. The words ‘liberty’ and ‘liberal’ share a root for a reason – the concept of people having ‘liberty’ was considered very ‘liberal’ in both England, and in Colonial America.
Once our nation became established under the US Constitution (which was considered a very ‘liberal’ document when it was written), ‘liberalism’ became the framework of American society. We were the epitome of enlightenment values, with a federal government that existed primarily to ensure that the people’s liberty would not be encroached upon. However, as those values became ensconced into our society, they became considered ‘conservative,’ or ‘right wing’ values. England, in the meantime, still considered those values to be extremely left-wing, and arguably to this day, our right is their left.
The point is that what is ‘right’ or ‘left’ wing changes as we move to different places, with different cultural and legal norms, and though the NAZIs were very right-wing in the Weimar Republic, the same values were decidedly left-wing here. Even the racism emblematic in NAZI Germany was left-wing here, with the Klu Klux Klan marching into the Democratic National Committee every four years in full regalia, as Hitler came to power in Germany.
Slavery stood in the face of our founding values, and our founders recognized that. Unfortunately, the political will to end slavery did not exist in the South, so our founders had to make compromises in order to craft together any nation at all.
Thomas Jefferson’s Democratic-Republican Party eventually split over the question of slavery⏤into the parties we have today, with the Republicans opposing slavery, and the Democrats breaking off to defend it. The Republicans, being ‘right-wing,’ were very much in favor of liberty for ALL Americans, regardless of race. Thus, the denial of liberty became a ‘liberal,’ or left-wing, movement – and it still is to this day.
To this day, the parties are split primarily upon the question of whether or not the people should have liberty. Democrats teach, through Critical Race Theory, that a people left free⏤will structure themselves along racial identity groups that compete for power, and that liberty is the cause of oppression. To the Critical Race Theory proponents, it is necessary to take a ‘moral and intellectual elite’ out of our oppressive system, and to give these people totalitarian power over us, such that they can ensure that we live equitably.
The right-wing still wants liberty, and the notion that Hitler was in any way ‘right wing’ in the sense of America’s culture is absurd – it requires believing that Hitler was a libertarian or something⏤when Hitler was nothing of the sort. Hitler was a totalitarian, through and through.
In the words of John Adams, “America is not a Christian nation, but it is a nation of Christians.” This is another facet of our left-right paradigm. Our nation was built on enlightenment values, and the enlightenment came out of Judeo-Christian moral beliefs. This is why most Christians are on the political right.
Note that Generation Z is not very religious, but is very conservative in other ways, and that as such, the Christian Conservative is losing political power. As this shift continues, the political right will focus far more on liberty than on Christian cultural mores, whereas the left will maintain its support for a ‘moral and intellectual elite’ to act as a new nobility. This is the emerging political split – everything else will become window dressing.
Against this backdrop, we can look at different forms of totalitarianism, and in American political circles, there are three: communism, democratic socialism, and fascism.
I like to tell people that libertarianism is a range of thought, butting up against anarcho-capitalism on the one side, and against constitutional conservatives on the other. Libertarians believe in having a government, but they believe that government should be limited. Anarcho-capitalists do not believe there should be any government at all, so they are to the right of libertarians. A true constitutional-conservative will note that the 10th Amendment gives vast powers to the states, so it is possible to be a constitutional-conservative who still wants a very large government, as long as government largesse is done at the state, rather than the federal, level. Libertarians don’t want state governments to be very big, so while there is a lot of overlap between libertarians and constitutional-conservatives, the movements are not the same.
Socialism too is a spectrum of thought. Technically, the word means ‘state ownership of the means of production,’ and as such, socialism is the economic engine of communism (communism being socialism with a particular political framework thrown on top of it – a framework that in theory at least eventually goes away). In practice, however, self-proclaimed socialists in America often mean something very different than communism.
I find that it is generally difficult to pin the democratic socialist down, in terms of their economic views. They like to talk in moral platitudes, like being ‘against poverty and suffering,’ but when you ask them what they will do about poverty and suffering, they can’t answer the question in any detail. They will talk about ‘giving people money’ or ‘giving people what they need to survive,’ but when you start to dig into how, exactly, they will do that, the fact that they are dealing with moral platitudes, and not economic frameworks, starts to become clear.
Democracy and socialism are not compatible. In the real world, we have a limited amount of things, like milk. If we want to produce more cheese and ice cream, we will need to devote more milk to those things, leaving less for drinking, or for making butter. If we decide to have more dairy cows, such that we can have more of everything that uses milk, that means we will have less beef.
In the real world, economies deal with tradeoffs. Having more of one thing means having less of something else. Free markets handle these tradeoffs by using pricing mechanisms to balance supply with demand. Communists do not believe that the balance created within free markets is in any way fair (as per CRT, freedom is oppressive), and so they want the government to control both the means of production, as well as the consumption of what is produced.
In a true Democratic Socialist country, the people would vote for whomever promises to have more of everything produced, and no functional central plan can be created that way. As such, Democratic Socialism tends to be a direction rather than a position on a scale. Those who call themselves ‘Democratic Socialists’ are generally people who want more socialism than we have now, and only rarely will a democratic socialist be able to describe how their idyllic nation would function, beyond throwing moral platitudes about ‘free’ things.
Because democratic socialism is a direction more than a position, democratic socialist nations tend to become more socialist over time, taxing production to subsidize consumption. As taxes on production continue to climb, eventually production becomes unprofitable, and production slows.
Once a democratic socialist country collapses from a lack of production to the point that the people are starving in the streets, the government of that nation either has to start moving back toward free markets, or it has to round up the people, against their will, forcing them onto the farms and into the factories, to produce the things society needs to survive. Once the government rounds the people up, you have Soviet-style communism.
Very few democratic socialist countries have been able to reverse course back toward free markets⏤before their economies collapsed. The countries of Scandinavia are a rare exception. Rather than being proof that democratic socialism works, they are the opposite – they went headfirst into socialism, during the 1970s and 1980s, saw their economies starting to come apart, and then headed back toward free markets. What American democratic socialists call ‘socialism’ in the Scandinavian countries is what is left of their failed socialist experiments, and they are still moving away from those things. But, over time, they are becoming more – not less – free. Sweden, as one example, has free-market social security, free-market k-12 education, and is moving toward free-market medical care.
China is an interesting country. Mao was as devout a believer as Trotsky in the communist ideal, and he killed at least 100 million of his own people, trying to get communism to work. Just as the Soviets did, Mao found that people are not willing to work as hard for society at large as they are for their own individual and family interests. Mao had the same solution Lenin and Stalin did: to kill greedy people until only the pure of heart were left. As of yet, nobody has been able to kill enough of their own countrymen to make ‘real communism’ possible – and nor have any communist leaders been able to avoid the corruption that tends to come with absolute power.
After Mao died, China began to slowly move toward a hybrid of communism and fascism, with ‘independent’ companies popping up, that were fully owned subsidiaries of the Chinese government. Profit became a part of the Chinese economic system, but with strict central planning – and with government ownership of the vast majority of ‘private’ companies. About a year ago Xi Jinping announced that he would be moving China back toward a more communist model.
China is a hybrid of communism and fascism, and we are a hybrid of free markets and fascism. No country is purely one thing.
Communists and fascists hate each other, with fascists blaming communism for the hundreds of millions of people communism killed, and with communists, who view profit as evil, looking at fascists as capitalist sell-outs.
Communists, fascists, and democratic socialists get along in America for one reason, and one reason only: they all hate free markets, and free markets are what emerges when you have free people. Free people are apt to make decisions⏤those who view themselves as a ‘moral and intellectual elite’ do not like. The notion of a ‘moral and intellectual elite’ being in charge is no different than the argument that we need those of noble birth to control us – we are still having the same debate we had before our nation was founded, with a lot of particularly younger Americans wanting to return to serfdom, without really knowing what all that entails.
The belief that big businesses hate being regulated is a myth. The truth is that corporations want the government to protect them from market forces. Big businesses love to be regulated, as long as the regulations deter competition, and protect profit. People will often say that fascists are corporatists, but the truth is the opposite – corporatists are fascists, asking the government to protect their profitability, independently consumer demand. It is only natural that a self-described ‘moral and intellectual elite’ would want to abide.
The dirty little secret among the ‘moral and intellectual elite’ (aka the ‘intelligentsia’) is that they view themselves as superior to the common person, and want to see themselves at the top of the social pecking order, where they can ‘take care of’ the rest of us. In a free market, successful entrepreneurs rise to the top, and since the intelligentsia believe they should be at the top, the intelligentsia has a natural opposition to free markets.
Totalitarians talk about free markets as if the free market is something government creates, but it is not. Free markets, rather, are what emerge when government stays out of the way, such that people are free to interact as they wish. The jobs that pay the most are also the jobs that are most in-demand. Pay and profit balance supply with demand, and in this way, doctors make more than do bus drivers, and CEOs make more than do politicians and college professors (much to the chagrin of many politicians and college professors).
Should the Democratic Party get its way and eradicate what remains of our free market system, the ideological differences between fascists and communists will erupt, just as they did in the Weimar Republic, where ANTIFA and Hitler’s Brown Shirts fought each other in the streets, and though I don’t know who Elizabeth Warren’s Brown Shirts would be, believe me – they are out there.
Use the code ‘OUTLOUD’ and receive your 20% discount on your first order.