Since Nike released their new ad in support of Colin Kaepernick, the mainstream American Right has been losing their minds, showing images of them burning their Nike shoes or cutting the logos off of their gym clothes. The same can be said about the American Left’s revulsion towards In-N-Out and Chic-fil-A after they announced their support for conservative causes. The calls for boycotts, however, fall on deaf ears. This is simply because Americans have forgotten how to boycott, whereas they have come to rely on State intervention to achieve their social goals.
The Failure of the Boycott
When Chic-fil-A came out in support of traditional marriage, the American Left slammed them in the public sphere, but they never truly boycotted the franchise. Rather, they gave them free advertisement. They are now doing the same thing for In-N-Out due to their donation to the California GOP. American culture has become so materialist that people can’t even fathom doing without a product in order to enact the change that they desire.
This is largely due to the rise of the modern State. Whereas economic interventionism has become the immediate means by which society changes, the public does not realize their power in the market. This comes from two primary reasons. First, if a well-connected business goes under, the US federal government is likely to bail it out of its economic struggle. Second and most importantly, it is far easier for the government to change something than the private sector.
Government is a monopoly on violence. All state action is backed by either the barrel of a gun or the edge of a blade. Why would the people boycott if they could simply use government force to enact their social preferences? In the private sector, one must compete with the status quo in order to bring about change. With government, all it takes is for a bureaucrat to enact a new arbitrary legislation or law forcing businesses to stop whatever they are doing that is hurting the sensitivities of the thoughtless masses.
Refusing to Buy Goods is Not Enough
Conservatives tend to be able to actually refuse to buy/use products that they find despicable. Their belief in a relatively free market lets them at least realize that they have some power over corporations. But businesses don’t go under simply because they lose a small chunk of their consumer base (they will also gain customers due to controversial moves). While they may lose growth due to traditional boycotts, a boycott can only be effective if consumers are actively competing with businesses.
Instead of throwing an online fit and burning Nike products, it would behoove conservatives to sell their lightly used Nike products at unreasonably low prices in the secondary market as Dr. Robert Murphy, author of Contra Krugman, so brilliantly pointed out. Doing this would not only rid you of the products of a company that would dare to refuse to worship a cloth, but it would also push the price of their products down. This would hurt future sales.
While the Left and the Right are dramatizing minor issues, there is an economics lesson we can all learn from this. A boycott can and will work, but only if the public not only refuses to purchase a business’s goods/services but also compete with the business in order to hurt future sales. If the Left wants to push progressive “values” and the Right wants to push idol worship upon the people, then they may want to learn how an actual boycott works. Or they could focus on real issues such as the fact that the US is committing genocide in Yemen as you read this.
There is a caravan of about 7,000 people marching up from Guatemala and Honduras, through Mexico to the United States border. President Trump, in his campaign speeches, has said who these people are and what they are up to.
Trump says they are criminals, bad people, gang members of MS13, Middle Easterners (can you say Muslims?). He says George Soros and other rich Democrats are paying them to march up to the border. Trump is also saying that we should be very afraid of these bad people. He says that Democrats are shepherding them because the Democrats love criminals and gang members and murderers and bad people.
In Trump’s world, if the Democrats win the midterm elections, they will order all the border guards to welcome all of these dangerous immigrants into our country. Many of them will immediately head for “sanctuary cities” to wreak havoc on the unsuspecting populations. Others will unite with their fellow MS13 brotherhood to destroy law and order wherever they can. The Middle Easterners will do Muslim things and bring an end to Christianity in the United States.
The barbaric Democrats will be overjoyed. They will have won.
Trump wants this caravan to come to the border to strike fear into the hearts of Americans so they will vote for Republicans on November 6th.
No! Wait a minute! That’s not right. It’s insane! It’s ridiculous, ludicrous.
Why not say these would-be immigrants are not being paid by George Soros and other rich Democrats, but by filthy rich Republican businessmen and political donors?
Since you don’t see any pictures of them at night, why not say they are staying in Trump hotels, absolutely free? And while you’re at it, why not say they can get a free dinner, too? And also, how about that the hotels will make them lunches to eat as they walk north toward the United States border? How about Trump providing buses for those immigrants who get tired of walking?
Is that any crazier of a thought than what Trump is saying about the caravan? It makes about as much sense and has about as much evidence.
Who are these would-be immigrants in the caravan, really? Basically, they are ordinary people whose countries are persecuting them. They are afraid that gangs and the government will kill their children and rape their women. Without moving, all of their lives are in danger.
Why are they actually coming to the United States? To find freedom. To find jobs so they can support their families. Most importantly, to keep their family members safe and alive and not subject to persecution. They are coming to the United States like thousands, millions of immigrants have come, in the past: to find a better life, and also to help build a safe and strong nation.
What will happen to them when they get to the United States border? Previously, when a group of immigrants seeking asylum arrived at the border, government officials brought them across the bridge, a couple of hundred of them at a time. As soon as they got into the United States, if they had children with them, the state took them away and put them into concentration camps.
How long will they be in these prisons? I don’t know. But at some point, they will be taken out
and kicked across the border back into Mexico.
It is possible to prevent these atrocities from happening. Members of all political parties must develop fair and just immigration procedures to allow good and honest people to enter this country to live and work.
Get awesome merch. Help 71 Republic end the media oligarchy. Donate today to our Patreon, which you can find here. Thank you very much for your support!
Matt Waters is running for Senator of Virginia as a Libertarian. His opponents are Democrat incumbent Tim Kaine and Republican Corey Stewart. Waters comes from a long line of Virginians and is dedicated to defending civil liberties and being fiscally responsible. He recently talked with 71 Republic’s Michael Sutherland about his campaign and beliefs.
Sutherland: If you become Senator, what will be your first priorities?
Waters: We have to reduce the debt. That is priority number one. Our debt is the greatest existential threat to the future of our republic. To get there, I will introduce multiple bills to eliminate, privatize, freeze, and reduce government spending–based on the Constitution. So, for example, nowhere in the Constitution does the US gov’t have a role in education. Further, we need to end foreign aid, freeze defense spending, bring troops home from overseas (we’re not supposed to have a standing army, much less one standing in over 150 countries). So, ending forward facing bases and moving to a defense powered by Naval power. The second part is moving “entitlements” (that no one is entitled to) to the public sector. This will take 10-15 years, but will ultimately get the government out of the retirement business and the healthcare business. Ending the Dept of Education gets the govt out of the education business. Ending Student Loan programs (that are driving up the cost of a college education) gets the government out of the banking business. Bottom line: we’re broke. We cannot afford to police the world or operate a 1933 retirement program in 2018. Time to move up and move on.
Sutherland: Briefly describe your positions.
Waters: Money = Freedom. Average taxpayer works from Jan 1 thru April 18 to pay federal, state and local taxes. That is more than the average taxpayer pays in groceries, clothing, and housing combined. By “giving taxpayers” “free” college, “free” healthcare, and mandatory federal jobs–Democrats and Republicans must take more of our money. The more money they take–and they take it–the less you have and the less freedom you have to do things. If we “get” “free” education, all of our income through May/June will go to the government. Is that really what we want?
Sutherland: What made you become a libertarian?
Waters: The idea of liberty. Our forefathers came to Jamestown in 1607 to set up an independent colony. That blossomed into an independent republic with the surrender of British troops just down the road at Yorktown. America’s greatest export is liberty–an idea. Not music (British), not food (French?), not fast cars (Italy?). People know us for liberty–freedom of individuals to do as they please without interference from the government. Today, however, all that has changed, and we are worse off. America policy over the last 70 years has been a catastrophe. Since WW2, we have lost 50,000 troops in Vietnam, and 50,000+ troops in Korea — not “wars” declared by Congress — but unconstitutional “conflicts” declared by two failed Presidents. Today we’re still playing war games in Korea. We’re still at war with Korea. End the 68-year Korean conflict now. But while the Congress failed to declare war in Vietnam and Korea, they did boldly declare a war on poverty. Results? Billions of dollars later: Fail. They did declare a war on drugs. The result? Billions of dollars later: Fail. They did declare a war on terror. The result, $5.7 trillion later? Fail. Next, we will declare war on plastic drinking straws…oh wait..there are some who are declaring war on those! But you get my drift.
Sutherland: What areas of Virginia do you think you’ll be the most successful in?
Waters: Hopefully tax reform, smart military spending and budgets aimed at warfare, not politics, protecting other countries, and staying out of everyone else’s business. And “entitlement” reforms–ending social security as we know it, making it a real retirement system to today’s workers.
Sutherland: What are the best ways to expand/popularize the Libertarian Party?
Waters: Be reasonable. To lead with legalizing pot, prostitution and porn are just not where most Americans are. In the margins of a free society, a lot of crap like that will go down. But it does not mean we get out there and lead with that nonsense. No parent wants their child in any one of those industries. We need to get back to basics and do limited government, free markets, capitalism, and individual liberty. Reagan said that behind every “good” conservative stood a libertarian. Reagan was right.
Sutherland: Any final thoughts for the readers?
Waters: Check out my website, MattWaters.com and make a decision in November to do something different: refuse to do the same-old-same-old. Change won’t happen that way. Vote Libertarian.
To support 71 Republic, please donate to our Patreon, which you can find here.
“Support the Troops” is a mantra by which the neoconservatives pray to their God, the Military Industrial Complex. As the war machine turns its eye toward Iran (and inevitably Russia), you can already hear the same old nonsense from the propagandists for endless war. According to the propagandists, sending young men and women to be maimed, murdered, and traumatized by people who have never wronged them is supporting the troops. But anyone with any hint of common sense would know that this is the polar opposite of supporting the troops.
The True Nature of War
War is nothing more than legalized mass murder, and sending young people to kill and to be killed is not support. War has cost America almost $6 trillion since 9/11. Selling out the entirety of our future into debt slavery is not supporting the troops. It is enslaving them and their children. War is also traumatizing to the brain. It is believed that up to 20% of all veterans have PTSD in some form. We see this in our daily life. 22 veterans commit suicide every day. Opting to subject young Americans to atrocities that will torment their psyche for the rest of their lives is evil. In no way is this supporting the troops.
The impacts of war go beyond this as well. Nearly 40,000 veterans are homeless or were homeless in their lifetime. This is because the military does not prepare you for the real world. It prepares you to take orders and not think for yourself. The military strips you of your individuality. It makes you a slave of the State, literal property to the United States Federal Government.
Rather than advocating for war, or the death, injury, and destruction of our troops, you should Support the Troops… by bringing them home. 1.3 million American soldiers are deployed around the world. That is 1.3 million people who have left their homes and families because the government deceived them into believing that propping up the American Empire will keep us free and safe. But if the Patriot Act doesn’t give it away, war makes us less safe and less free.
So many American soldiers have died for nothing more than government propaganda. When one takes a closer look at reality, we realize that the government has funneled trillions into legal mass murder. The military is no longer used for defense. It is now used as a means to impose the will of America’s ruling elite upon the rest of the world. For America to be free, this must end. For us to truly honor our soldiers, we must bring them home and stop making more of them. If Americans truly support the troops, they would call for an end to the wars.
No matter how the government frames it, war is nothing more than legalized mass murder. Perhaps this is best expressed by the sentiments of Madeleine Albright, Bill Clinton’s second Secretary of State. On May 12, 1996, Albright claimed that the 500,000 children killed by US foreign policy in Iraq were “worth it.” The blood of half a million children is a high price to pay. But what did the people receive for that? Control. The US government is willing to kill millions in the pursuit of power throughout the world. Soldiers are no exception. If you are a soldier, the government sees you as nothing more than cannon fodder. You are more than this, but they don’t care.
The government hypnotizes soldiers by claiming that they will spread democracy around the world. This goal is neither honest nor noble nor possible. To spread mob rule to the rest of the world is to destabilize the world, but that isn’t the true intentions of the neocons in power. It is clear that the true goal is domination. When the US military “liberates” a nation, often sacrificing thousands of soldiers in the meantime, they do not allow self-rule. They implement puppet governments. The US expands its hegemony, dominating the world through the war machine. All dissenters meet their end, and it costs the American people hundreds of billions every year.
It is impossible to support war and not support big government. War amounts to the second largest expenditure of the federal government, with welfare in first place. Since 9/11, the war machine has cost more than $6 trillion to the US taxpayer. There is no opting out of this. Either you pay for the government’s organized mass violence, or they throw you in a cage. For one to have a war system as massive as the United States, the government needs to centralized, massive, and authoritarian. This is not freedom. If soldiers were truly fighting for freedom, they would defend America from its government.
Ultimately, war is the health of the State. Without war, the government would not be able to expand in the way it currently does. Defense would largely be private, and there would be no propagandist inducing fear into the hears of the public. The warfare State devastates the economy through inflation, opening the gates to the welfare state. The warfare state leads to the loss of millions of people throughout the world. In the last century alone, government has killed more than 200 million people in acts of war, democide, or genocide. If we are to truly honor the dedication to freedom that a soldier should hold, we would eliminate that occupation from this world. To honor the soldiers that lost their lives, we must stop creating new soldiers. No more should another person kill or be killed for the will of the government.
If you want to Support the Troops, oppose war, empire, and interventionism in all of its manifestations. This is your duty. If the State still chooses to go to war, it is the duty of any decent human being to encourage the people not to enlist and to resist the war effort in every way possible. And to the neoconservatives that claim this is hatred of the troops, answer this question. Which plan will kill more people: your plan, in which soldiers are sent into a battlefield to kill and be killed; or my plan, where war is a thing of the past and we support the troops by not sending them to die? It’s time. End the wars and bring them home now.
Fascism is a pejorative in society, but does society truly understand what it means to be a fascist? The socialists have deceived the public into believing that fascism is the most grotesque evolution of capitalism, but this simply is not the case. This article will cut through the societal definitions of the fascists, giving the true meaning of national socialism, paying attention to the philosophical, political, and economic roots of fascism. As the article lays out the totalitarian, anti-property, and subjectivist nature of fascism, it will transition into the development of a true antifascist strategy, which will include advocacy for decentralization, private property, free trade, lower taxes, the right of association and disassociation, the removal of the State from private life and the physical removal of those who would implement such an authoritarian system upon our communities.
What the Nazis have to say about Fascism
On February 24, 1920, the Nazis released their party platform. Among their 25 planks are policies such as old age pensions, the territorial expansion of the State (imperialism), universal employment (public works), the abolition of income without “labor,” the end of interest and rent, the nationalization of industry, wealth redistribution, a dedication to the common good, the provision of free higher education, and the prohibition of child labor.
Looking at the Nazi Party Platform, we can see that capitalism and small government has nothing to do with fascism. To partake in understatement, the free market, personal liberty, and self-ownership does not exist within a national socialist state. The Nazis believed that classical liberalism had failed the world, and that the State was the remedy to whatever illness the world could ever face. As the Nazi Platform shows, adherents to national socialism had no concern for the basic laws of economics (this article will soon show that the Nazis did not even believe in the laws of economics).
Perhaps most damaging is the Nazis’ dedication to the common good. As individuals become just a part of a whole, they become expendable. This dedication to violent, state-sponsored collectivism is exactly what allowed Hitler to demonize the Jews and other minorities so that he could commit the horrific acts of genocide within the Holocaust.
Fascism opposes Economics.
In a 1937 speech, Hitler stated the following:
I am not going to tell you That in place of these economic theories Of the others I am now going to put it a national Socialist economic theory. I would like to avoid the term theory altogether. Yes I would even like to say that what I am going to tell you today Is not intended to be a theory at all. Because if I recognize any dogma at all in the economic sector, then it is only the one dogma that there is no dogma in this sector, no theory at all.
In the statement, Hitler rejects the very concept of economics. He rejects supply and demand, the law of diminishing marginal returns, the socialist calculation problem, and every other insight economics has provided humanity.
This rejection of economics, however, is not original to Hitler. It largely originates from the German Historical School, spear-headed by Gustav von Schmoller. The German Historical School was of the persuasion that economic law was a sham. Rather than looking at economics as a set of universal propositions, advocates of the Historical School saw economics as a series of empirical incidents that will vary across time and place. To these individuals, there are no laws of economics that could hold back an omnipotent government.
In “The Historical Setting of the Austrian School of Economics,” Ludwig von Mises shows how Hitler was largely inspired by the German Historical School. It makes sense that he would be, after all. Economic law inherently limits a dictator. Hitler needed to find a way to get past the basic economic laws which confine humanity, and he found a theory that rejects these limitations in the Historical School. For more information on the German Historical School, please see Dr. David Gordon’s “The Philosphical Origins of Austrian Economics.”
In Human Action, Mises discussed this anti-capitalistic mentality that intoxicated Hitler, and still continue to intoxicate the masses today:
The issue has been obfuscated by the endeavors of governments and powerful pressure groups to disparage economics and to defame the economists. Despots and democratic majorities are drunk with power. They must reluctantly admit that they are subject to the laws of nature. But they reject the very notion of economic law. Are they not the supreme legislators? Don’t they have the power to crush every opponent? No war lord is prone to acknowledge any limits other than those imposed on him by a superior armed force. Servile scribblers are always ready to foster such complacency by expounding the appropriate doctrines. They call their garbled presumptions “historical economics.” In fact, economic history is a long record of government policies that failed because they were designed with a bold disregard for the laws of economics.
It is impossible to understand the history of economic thought if one does not pay attention to the fact that economics as such is a challenge to the conceit of those in power. An economist can never be a favorite of autocrats and demagogues. With them he is always the mischief-maker, and the more they are inwardly convinced that his objections are well founded, the more they hate him.
If one tries to refute the devastating, criticism leveled by economics against the suitability of all these interventionist schemes, one is forced to deny the very existence—not to mention the epistemological claims—of a science of economics, and of praxeology as well. This is what all the champions of authoritarianism, government omnipotence, and “welfare” policies have always done. They blame economics for being “abstract” and advocate a “visualizing” (anschaulich) mode of dealing with the problems involved. They emphasize that matters in this field are too complicated to be described in formulas and theorems. They assert that the various nations and races are so different from one another that their actions cannot be comprehended by a uniform theory; there are as many economic theories required as there are nations and races. Others add that even within the same nation or race, economic action is different in various epochs of history. These and similar objections, often incompatible with one another, are advanced in order to discredit economics as such….
To summarize Mises, it is the ego of a dictator and a democratic mass that endangers the public. Their blatant disregard for economic law sets a society on a path to destruction and ruin, and the history of government resoundingly proves this. Hitler’s deliberate ignorance of economics only adds to the anti-human nature of national socialism.
National Socialism Needs a Centrally Planned Economy
Hitler, when addressing the concept of economic freedom versus state planning, made the following statement:
If Germany intends to live, then it must run its whole economy in a manner that is clear and planned. We cannot manage without a plan. If we were to let things run on according to the principle that everyone may do as he likes, then in a very short time this freedom would end upIn a terrible famine. No, we have to conduct our business and run our economy according to plan. Therefore the National Socialist government cannot be dependent on any individual interests. It cannot be dependent on the city or the country, not on workers and not on employers. It cannot be dependent on industry, on the crafts, on trade or on finance. It can only accept one obligation…. The nation alone is our master, and we serve this nation to the best of our knowledge and belief.
What the following statement demonstrates is that Hitler did not see the market as the means to prosperity. Rather, he believed that the State can plan a society to create prosperity. If it was economic, Hitler believed the government could do it better than the maket could. Simply put, Hitler did not believe in economic freedom. He believed in the State.
The National Socialists Reject Honest Money
In 1939, Hitler gave his position on the gold standard:
Today we smile about a time when our political economists actually did believe that the value of a currency depended on the amount of gold and foreign currency reserves piled up in the safes of the state banks, and that it was guaranteed by these. We have learned instead of of the value of a currency lies in the production capacity of a nation, that increasing production is what holds up a currency, even revalues it under certain circumstances, whereas any declining production results must sooner or later lead to an automatic devaluation of the currency. And at a time when the financial and economic theologists in the other countries prophesied our collapse every 3 to 6 months, the National Socialist state stabilized the value of its currency by increasing production most extraordinarily. An actual relationship was created between increasing German production and the currency in circulation.
Hitler saw fiat currency as an incredible moral virtue. Such a currency would give the State massive influence over the population, which is the true defining characteristic of National Socialism. It is with all this in mind that we can see that Hitler and the Nazis clearly rejected capitalism. They did not see the free market, private property, or self-ownership as a path to prosperity. They only valued omnipotent government.
Fascism: The State Above All Else
While one may simply dismiss Hitler and the Nazis’ economic ignorance as the ramblings of a mad man, but it makes sense when you understand the philosophical aim of fascism: the State having complete and total control. Fascism placed the power of the State above all else, which explains their disregard for economic law, their admiration for central planning, and their dedication to fiat currency.
But the national socialists did not just place the State above economics. They placed the State above you.
Fascism is another Color of Socialism
In Omnipotent Government, Mises pointed out that fascism was a “third way” between capitalism and communism. While the national socialists were not communists, they were socialists. Mises expounds on German National socialism in the following:
The German pattern differs from the Russian one in that it (seemingly and nominally) manintains private ownership of the means of production and keeps the appearance of ordinary prices, wages, and markets. There are, however, no longer entrepreneurs but only shop managers (Betriebsfuhrer). These shop managers do the buying and selling, pay the workers, the contract debts, and pay interest and amortization. There is no labor market; wages and salaries are fixed by the government. The government tells the shop managers what and how to produce, at what prices and from whom to buy, at what prices and to whom to sell.
So, while the people owned private property according to German Law, the ownership of private property was in name and in name only.
Fascist Rejection of Private Property
Mises was not the only person to identify the lack of private property in Nazi Germany. In fact, the Nazis openly embraced this, and it crippled German Business. Hitler elaborated upon his views on private property here:
Our socialism reaches much deeper. It does not change the external order of things. It orders solely the relationship of man to the state. Then what does property and income count for? Why should we need to socialize the banks and the factories? We are socializing the people.
So, the businesses can have property by decree, but it doesn’t matter. The people are owned by the State in a National Socialist economy. In truth, Hitler’s socialism runs deeper than the socialism of the Soviet Union. It doesn’t matter if you own “private property” in a fascist state (or a state in general), for the State owns you.
Doing Business under Fascism
If the socialist lie that fascism is late stage capitalism was true, then the ease of doing business must certainly be irrefutable. This, however, is not the case. In The Vampire Economy, Gunter Reimann described what it was like to do business under the Nazis. To put it shortly, business owners did not own their businesses. Workers did not own their bargaining rights. No one but the State owned anything.
Things became so bad for the businessman in Nazi Germany, that they were described as “white Jews” in a letter Reimann retrieved from a German businessman. In that same letter, the businessman laments the lack of price flexibility, the increase in regulations, the increase in taxation, the confiscation of private property, and the complete revocation of the right to use your profit as you see fit.
Matters weren’t any better for the German worker either. Whereas the Nazis demanded a “fair wage,” the workers’ hours drastically increased. The workers who worked just six hours per day were forced to work anywhere from eleven to twelve hours per week. The Nazis would also force women and children into employment to make family income look even better.
Just like all socialists, fascists reject private property.
As alluded to before, the fascist’s reverence for the State led to the destruction of private property. Reimann points this out by telling the story of a German landowner known as Herr V, who was forced to even quarter German troops in his home. After having enough, Herr V decided to go to a bank to invest his funds in something the State cannot touch by purchasing a farm in West Africa. The banker informed him that the State will not allow you to leave with your property. One can “own” property in Nazi Germany, but we all know the State is the true owner under fascism.
With businesses, it was just as bad. The State had the authority to go through the books of businesses. Any errors would lead to a fine of millions of Marks. These regulations were just another means of expropriating private property from the people. In fact, the Nazi regime repealed the right to private property on February 28, 1933, with the abolition of article 153 of the Weimar Constitution.
The business owners were replaced with Betriebsführer, or business managers. Since you did not truly own your property, you were just a tenant of this “fiat” property. In other words, in order to keep “your” property, you must not only follow the law. You must be completely servile to the State. In fascism, the State owns you.
The Reality of Fascism in America
This article would seem irrelevant if we believed the only fascist regimes were those of Nazi Germany, Mussolini’s Italy, and Franco’s Spain. But that simply is not the case. We must accept the reality that the United States has become a fascist government.
The US has been a fascist country since FDR ushered in the administrative state through the New Deal. Under Roosevelt’s policies, businesses were directed to produce for “the common good” instead of individual profit. The welfare state grew exponentially to compel dependence upon the State from the people.
Economic law has been entirely rejected. The central banks and the bureaucracy have the authority to regulate as they see fit. Private property is a sham. The government taxes and regulated everything. On top of the welfare state is a massive warfare state. The private sector has been cartelized, production has been heavily subsidized. The people revere the police state as the source of peace. Our rights are denied in the name of security.
Another indicator is the US’s worship of its leaders. Paul Craig Roberts identified this by saying, “Like Brownshirts, the new conservatives take personally any criticism of their leader and his policies. To be a critic is to be an enemy.” the Left has adopted this as well. Any criticism of Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton is seen as treason. If the people are sensitive of criticisms of Trump and Obama, they are intolerable to criticisms of individuals such as Lincoln or FDR. But if this isn’t enough, consider John Flynn’s Eight Marks of Fascist Policy.
Government is totalitarian because it acknowledges no restraint on its power.
Government is a de facto dictatorship based on the Leadership Principle.
Government administers a “capitalist” system with an immense bureaucracy.
Producers are organized into cartels in the way of syndicalism.
Economic planning based on the principle of Autarky.
Government sustains economic life by spending and borrowing.
Militarism is a mainstay of government spending.
The military has imperialist aims.
Toward an Antifascist Alliance
As Lew Rockwell points out in Fascism vs. Capitalism, the federal government has turned the US into a fascist nation, and therefore we must fight fascism in America. Rockwell did give us a brief word on anti-fascist strategy. In essence, we must be capitalists to fight fascism.
“I can think of no greater priority today than a serious and effective antifascist alliance. In many ways, one is already forming. It is not a formal alliance. It is made up of those who protest the Fed, those who refuse to go along with mainstream fascist politics, those who seek decentralization, those who demand lower taxes and free trade, those who seek the right to associate with anyone they want and buy and sell on terms of their own choosing, those who insist they can educate their children on their own, the investors and savers who make economic growth possible, those who do not want to be felt up at airports, and those who have become expatriates.
It is also made of the millions of independent entrepreneurs who are discovering that the number one threat to their ability to serve others through the commercial marketplace is the institution that claims to be our biggest benefactor: the government.” Lew Rockwell, Fascism vs. Capitalism.
In other words, to fight against fascism, we must fight for freedom. One of the top flaws of fascism is its reactionary nature. It was built to stop communism but ultimately became just as bad, with an even deeper socialism in which the people become socialized. We cannot continue with negative activism. We must have a positive goal. Being in favor of freedom first inherently makes one against communism, fascism, and all other forms of statism. This is how to fight American fascism.