Tag Archives: Fascism

03/1/15

Net Neutrality: “Young fool … Only now, at the end, do you understand.”

By: Terresa Monroe-Hamilton


Emperor Palpatine. Photograph: Allstar

We keep hearing, from the saviors in Washington, DC, how government regulation is the answer and how “evil monopolies” (created, incidentally, by other government regulations) are responsible for all our trials and tribulations and the “fundamental unfairness” of the Internet as she is currently wrote.

Obligatory movie quote:

“No. No government. I know those people. Absolutely not.” – Col. Ira Kane

Yeah, it’s a movie. It’s also absolutely right.

The founder of Broadcast.com, Mark Cuban, has recently been vociferous in his opposition to so-called “Net Neutrality” with his most recent public appearance on the subject in an interview where he breaks it down. His effort to “plain-language” the argument notwithstanding, and frankly, it’s a subject that should not be oversimplified, he laid out the unintended consequences dominoes and how this “everything is equal” push plays out in terms of common services.

Now, you might want to shrug Mark Cuban off as “some rich guy who owns a sports team” and clearly that’s being done a lot, but don’t forget how he got rich: he pioneered live broadcasting over the Internet. He’s not some political hack, evil cable company exec, or mushy thinking me-too “fairness uber alles” flag waver. He is, for once, someone who knows what the hell he’s talking about.

Net Neutrality, like so many political labels, is a “fair sounding” name that hides the actual motives and consequences of the real world implementations we will experience after the seemingly inevitable adoption of this latest government overreach.

It won’t be fair. It won’t be optimum. And the right answer will never even be mentioned, never mind entertained: deregulate the cable and broadband space to eliminate the protected monopolies.

The broadband space needs more competition, not less; needs less regulation, not more. Companies like Google laying fiber? Cox, AT&T, Verizon and Comcast suddenly no longer have a free pass.

Otherwise? The cynical and dystopian view?

One of the unavoidable dominoes will be broad censorship. Once the deprioritization of broadcast packets leads to the epic traffic jam that will reduce the Web’s US speeds to worse than those found in Europe, the government of the day will, once again, have to “save us” from this “unforseen” outcome and their clever plan will include limiting who can “legitimately” have bandwidth preferences, since clearly “legitimate” news outlets need to bypass the buffering jams that will afflict TV signalling and once dot-gov starts adjudicating who’s a “real” news or other “essential” service, licensing will naturally follow, and then “standards” of what is “acceptable” traffic.

At which point, whichever political party is in power at that time will have the distinct advantage of licensing whomever they deem to be more politically correct in their eyes. “Neutrality” on the ‘Net? Yeah, not so much.

We’re in the hands of fools and corrupt bureaucrats. Last Thursday, the Federal Communications Commission held a faux meeting on open Internet rules and access to broadband Internet. Commissioner Ajit Pai made a statement before the FCC vote to take unprecedented control over the internet with a secret plan. Yes, secret. Secret as in no exposure to the public or Congress prior to its enactment. What follows is the transcript of his comments – in echoes of Obamacare, this had to pass before we could know what was in it. Except, they are still keeping it under wraps. It must be very, very bad indeed.

From Breitbart:

“The Wall Street Journal reports that it was developed through ‘an unusual secretive effort inside the White House.’ Indeed, White House officials, according to the Journal, functioned as a parallel version of the FCC. Their work led to the president’s announcement in November of his plan for internet regulation, a plan which the report says blindsided the FCC and swept aside months of work by Chairman Wheeler toward a compromise. Now, of course, a few insiders were clued in about what was transpiring. Here’s what a leader for the government-funded group Fight for the Future had to say, ‘We’ve been hearing for weeks from our allies in D.C that the only thing that could stop FCC chairman Tom Wheeler from moving ahead with his sham proposal to gut net neutrality was if we could get the president to step in. So we did everything in our power to make that happen. We took the gloves off and played hard, and now we get to celebrate a sweet victory. Congratulations. what the press has called the parallel FCC at the White House opened its door to a plethora of special interest activists. Daily Kos, Demand Progress, Fight for the Future, Free Press, and Public Knowledge, just to name a few. Indeed, even before activists were blocking the chairman’s driveway late last year, some of them had met with executive branch officials.

“But what about the rest of the American people? They certainly couldn’t get White House meetings. They were shut out of the process altogether. They were being played for fools. And the situation didn’t improve once the White House announced President Obama’s plan, and ‘asked’ the FCC to implement it. The document in front of us today differs dramatically from the proposal that the FCC put out for comment last May, and it differs so dramatically that even zealous net neutrality advocates frantically rushed in, in recent days, to make last-minute filings, registering their concerns that the FCC might be going too far. Yet, the American people, to this day, have not been allowed to see President Obama’s plan. It has remained hidden.

“Especially given the unique importance of the internet, Commissioner O’Rielly and I ask for the plan to be released to the public. Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John Thune and House of Representatives Chairman did the same. According to a survey last week by a respected democratic polling firm, 79% of the American people favored making the document public. Still, the FCC has insisted on keeping it behind closed doors. We have to pass President Obama’s 317-page plan so the American people can find out what’s in it. This isn’t how the FCC should operate. We should be an independent agency making decisions in a transparent manner based on the law and the facts in the record.

“We shouldn’t be a rubber stamp for political decisions made by the White House. And we should have released this plan to the public, solicited their feedback, incorporated that input into the plan, and then proceeded to a vote. There was no need for us to resolve this matter today. There is no immediate crisis in the internet marketplace that demands immediate action. now. The backers of the president’s plan know this. But they also know that the details of this plan cannot stand up to the light of day. They know that the more the American people learn about it, the less they will like it. That is why this plan was developed behind closed doors at the White House. And that is why the plan has remained hidden from public view.

“These aren’t my only concerns. Even a cursory look at the plan reveals glaring legal plans that are sure to mire the agency in the muck of litigation for a long, long time. but rather than address them today, I will reserve them for my written statement. At the beginning of this proceeding, I quoted Google’s former CEO, who once said, the internet is the first thing that humanity has built, that humanity doesn’t understand. This proceeding makes it abundantly clear that the FCC still doesn’t get it. but the American people clearly do. The proposed government regulation of the internet has awakened a sleeping giant. I’m optimistic we’ll look back on today’s vote as a temporary deviation from the bipartisan consensus that’s served us so well. I don’t know whether this plan will be vacated by a court, reversed by Congress, or overturned by a future commission, But I do believe its days are numbered. For all of those reasons, I dissent.”

Pai warned that the public and Silicon Valley were in for an unpleasant surprise. While that was being said, Demand Progress and Free Press, headed by Robert McChesney, flew a 2,000 square foot banner over the towering corporate headquarters of the cable giant Comcast, in Philadelphia, that showed Grumpy Cat and the legend: “Comcast: Don’t Mess With the Internet. #SorryNotSorry.” Referring to Pai’s comments, Evan Greer, Campaigns Director at Fight for the Future, had this to say: “What they didn’t know is that when they struck down the last rules we would come back more powerful than they could possibly imagine.” And that is exactly what happened – the Left surged, with Obama’s help and guidance and $196 million from George Soros, to come in and nationalize the Internet and communications. Obama has nationalized the banks, student loans, housing, healthcare and now the Internet. Americans walk around fancying that they live in a Republic that is no more. Marxism rules the red, white and blue now.

Not only will this stifle innovation and raise taxes massively, as well as costs… it opens us to UN intervention, which is exactly what Obama has in mind. You will see that basically your TV and Internet will become one as a utility. Higher costs, with slower speeds and horrid customer service await us. Not to mention, the Fairness Doctrine. Many of our blogs, such as this one, may cease to exist under these fascist rules.

Heed the words of Republican FCC commissioner Mike O’Rielly, when he states: “When you see this document, it’s worse than you imagine.” Of that, I have no doubt. I knew this was coming, but when it happened last week, a very cold shiver went down my spine. For the first time, genuine fear wormed its way into my being. I immediately squashed it and went back to work. I’m not that easily defeated.

The FCC on Thursday voted through strict new rules to regulate broadband and protect net neutrality – the principle that all information and services should have equal access to the internet. That is pure Socialism and worse. Few have seen the actual regulations – a number of Leftist organizations have, the White House who crafted this monstrosity in secret has, and Google who rewrote a portion of it has. We won’t get to see this baby until next week at the earliest.

From The Guardian:

Pai said the new rules would mean “permission-less innovation is a thing of the past”. The new rules will ban broadband providers from creating fast lanes for some or slowing the traffic of others for commercial reasons. They will also give the FCC the power to police conduct by broadband providers on a case-by-case basis.

Internet service providers will not be allowed to “unreasonably interfere with or unreasonably disadvantage” consumers’ access to content and services.

O’Rielly said this would mean that any company looking to start a new service would have to seek permission ahead of time. He said anybody looking for new business opportunities in the document would be best off becoming a “telecoms lawyer”.

While the wording seems to confine this permission-first model to “services” such as NetFlix, Hulu, and things of that sort, what it will likely mean tomorrow, as scope creep is engaged, is that you would no longer just be able to start a new business or even a blog online, unless you get permission from the government. Is that the “change” everyone wanted? Well, here it is. This echoes the nationalization of the press in Venezuela and other dictatorial provinces.

From National Review:

Net neutrality’s goal is to empower the federal government to ration and apportion Internet bandwidth as it sees fit, and to thereby control the Internet’s content,” says Phil Kerpen, an anti-net-neutrality activist from the group American Commitment.

The courts have previously ruled the FCC’s efforts to impose “net neutrality” out of bounds, so the battle isn’t over. But for now, the FCC has granted itself enormous power to micromanage the largely unrestrained Internet.

It’s not just the conservative Right that now fears these moves… Will Marshall, head of the Progressive Policy Institute, issued a statement that net neutrality “endorses a backward-looking policy that would apply the brakes to the most dynamic sector of America’s economy.” This will destroy the last domain of true freedom in America. Right on target for a Communist agenda.

Robert McChesney, the Marxist head of Free Press, made his stance on his goals crystal clear: At the moment, the battle over network neutrality is not to completely eliminate the telephone and cable companies,” he told the website Socialist Project in 2009. “But the ultimate goal is to get rid of the media capitalists in the phone and cable companies and to divest them from control.” Earlier in 2000, he told the Marxist magazine Monthly Review: “Our job is to make media reform part of our broader struggle for democracy, social justice, and, dare we say it, socialism.” McChesney has come a long way… the Marxists know that if they get control of the military and communications, they can change the political structure of the US into a bonafide dictatorship. We’re here folks, they’ve done it.

We’re not done yet though… I suspect there will be a massive fight in Congress over this. If they can’t overturn it legislatively, they will try and starve it through funding. And the lawsuits and legal problems for the Marxists who have orchestrated this go on forever. The Republicans so far have been a massive, deadly disappointment. They better find their spines and stand against this. Between all the scandals, Amnesty, 2nd Amendment issues and this, the country is on the very edge of a civil uprising.

When the quislings in Silicon Valley finally wake up after this, they aren’t going to like what they have wrought. There will be unintended consequences galore and they’ll proclaim: “We couldn’t have seen this coming!” Oh, but you could have if you had any foresight at all. Quoting Emperor Palpatine, Republican Ajit Pai, a member of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), said: “Young fool … Only now, at the end, do you understand.”

02/19/15

Onward, to Defeat!

By: William Palumbo

Will America’s war against ISIS be the first we enter with the intention of losing?

On Tuesday, Breitbart.com carried an extremely salacious piece of news that, judging by the relatively small number of comments, went right over the heads of most readers. Reported Breitbart:

“The Obama administration is revamping its efforts to combat Islamic State (ISIS or ISIL) propaganda. ISIS and its supporters produce “as many as 90,000 tweets and other social media responses every day,” reports The New York Times.

An empowered Center for Strategic Counterterrorism Communications, currently a small component of the U.S. State Department, will spearhead the new campaign to fight the ISIS propaganda machine.

Rashad Hussain, a Muslim American with close ties to the White House, will replace Alberto Fernandez, the center’s director, according to The Times.”

The article goes on to cite several curious parts of Mr. Hussain’s biography that place him in close proximity to the Muslim Brotherhood. For the uninitiated, the Brotherhood is an international totalitarian organization which seeks to establish a global Islamic state (i.e., Caliphate) … just like ISIS, whom Hussain is supposed to be battling (in cyberspace, that is).

We’ll soon add some more color to Mr. Hussain’s connections to the Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliate groups in the United States, but first a few comments regarding the absurdity of social media “warfare” with savage headchoppers.

How Not to “Fight” a Fake War

It has been a surprise to many in America how well-produced, sophisticated, and professional ISIS’s media campaigns have been. Certainly, the influx of western jihadis have given them sufficient talent and technological know-how to put together their slick slaughter videos and catchy Twitter memes. Lest you forget about their savagery for even a day, the news media and Twitter will shove it right back into your face.

Which, considering our government’s capabilities, raises more than a few questions about the actual strategy to defeat ISIS. The U.S. government and social media platforms are masters at censorship. Post something highly offensive on Facebook or on Twitter and these companies will, more likely than not, remove it. There is photo recognition software that surely can be programmed to detect severed heads and black Shahada flags, and immediately flag them (no pun intended) for review. And there are a thousand ways that government internet monitoring can track activity online and cripple the user. Just ask Edward Snowden. Just ask Sharyl Attkisson.

Finally, remember that Facebook Turkey recently conceded to censor Turkish citizens who criticized Islam (and, more than likely, their fascist leaders, Recep Erdogan).

In conclusion, if Obama and the geniuses who are allegedly fighting ISIS were serious about winning the cyberwar, they’d just implement the tools we all know they have at their (literal) fingertips and shut them down. But they don’t.

Of course, if the same people were serious about winning the actual war (read: killing ISIS, not retweeting them to death), they’d also be doing just that. Instead, they’ve been ordering air strikes that have been described as “pin-pricks” since August, and while they dither ISIS has gained control of massive amounts of additional territory in Syria.

Deliberately Surrendering to the Headchoppers and Child Killers

All of this begs the question, what is the Obama administration doing with ISIS? It should be remembered that this same administration armed and trained Syrian rebels in Qatar. Only then did the world get “ISIS.”

This brings us back to Obama’s new propaganda chief against ISIS, Rashad Hussain. As noted by Breitbart, in December 2013 the Egyptian political magazine Rose El-Yousef profiled Hussain as one of six Muslim Brotherhood infiltrators in the Obama administration. At the time, the Investigative Project on Terrorism wrote of Hussain that he “maintained close ties with people and groups that [Rose El-Yousef] says comprise the Muslim Brotherhood network in America.”

That’s an understatement.

Here’s a healthy dose of facts pertaining to Hussain’s role in the Obama administration and his association with Muslim Brotherhood organizations in the United States:

  • Hussain was appointed Special Envoy to the Organization of Islamic Countries by Obama in   February 2010.
  • In 2013, Hussain met with Abdullah Bin Bayyah at the White House. Bayyah is a Vice President of the International Union of Muslim Scholars (IUMS). IUMS is headed by Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who is banned from entering the United States.
  • In 2013, Hussain was a Forum Speaker at the U.S.-Islamic World Forum, held in Doha, Qatar. This event is co-hosted by the Brookings Saban Center, and the Qatari Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
  • In 2012, Hussain attended the U.S.-Islamic World Conference in Doha, Qatar. With him were future Presidential Chief-of-Staff Denis McDonough, Imam Mohamed Magid (President of the Islamic Society of North America, ISNA), and Sheikh Abdallah bin Bayyah.
  • In May 2009, Mr. Hussain was one of the speakers at a Leadership Summit of the Council for Advancement of Muslim Professionals (CAMP). Many of the sponsoring organizations of that event are tied to the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood including Islamic Relief, Amana Mutual Funds, the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), the Council for American Islamic Relations (CAIR), and the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding. (From GlobalMBWatch.com)
  • In 2008, Hussain co-authored a paper for the Brookings Institution, Reformulating the Battle of Ideas: Understanding the Role of Islam in Counterterrorism Policy.   This paper explicitly calls for the American government not to reject political Islam, but to utilize Islamic scholars and Islamic “policymaking” to reject “terrorism.” It also recommends that “policymakers should reject the use of language that provides a religious legitimization of terrorism such as ‘Islamic terrorism’ and ‘Islamic extremist.’” (Brookings has taken millions of dollars from the Muslim Brotherhood government of Qatar.)
  • In 2004, Hussain spoke at a Muslim Students Association’s (MSA) conference in Chicago. There he defended Sami al-Arian, a Palestinian activist who had been indicted by the Department of Justice for racketeering, calling it a “politically motivated persecution.”

 

Dissembling and Procrastination from Obama and his Puppets

In October, former CIA Chief and Secretary of Defense (both positions held under Obama) Leon Panetta expressed what should have been treated as an incredible opinion. The war against ISIS, Panetta stated, would be a “30-year war.”

Let’s state the obvious: if you’re planning a 30-year war, are you planning victory, or a prolonged, dragged out, and humiliating defeat? The Nazis were defeated in much less than 30 years’ time, and ISIS right now is no German Wehrmacht. Not even close… not yet, anyway.

That stupefying statement by an Obama-appointed public figure, as unbelievable as it was, was actually trumped this week by State Department Spokeswoman Marie Harf. Harf, speaking after the world had recently witnessed the burning alive of a Jordanian pilot and the mass beheadings of Coptic Christians in Libya, claimed that the United States could “not kill ourselves out of his war. We need in the medium and longer term to go after the root causes that lead people to join these groups, whether it is lack of opportunity for jobs.” ISIS certainly seems to believe they can kill themselves out of this war, whether the murdered are men, women, or children.

But not according to the U.S. Department of State. Instead, to defeat ISIS, Libyans need jobs (or something, right Ms. Harf?). This is just too ironic, considering that the Obama administration is dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood, and there are a record number of Americans long-term out of work.

How I learned to Stop Worrying and Love Jihad

Americans aren’t all that familiar with Islam, jihad, honor killings, or the Muslim Brotherhood. According to the most recent U.S. Census, less than one million people in the United States speak Arabic at home.

So, maybe it makes sense to listen to the government of Egypt, where the Muslim Brotherhood was founded in 1928, when it states publicly that ISIS is an arm of the Muslim Brotherhood. The shock value here is minimized when one remembers that Al Qaeda, Hamas, Boko Haram, and the Taliban are all Muslim Brotherhood spinoffs.

Then again, other spinoffs of the Brotherhood include CAIR, ISNA, MPAC, and the MSA. Rashad Hussain, the chief architect of a bogus cyberwar strategy against ISIS, is a well-known associate of these groups going back more than a decade. It’s a matter of public record.

Not even in 30 years will this “strategy” defeat ISIS. It’s not designed to. It’s designed to defeat us.

As an infamous 1991 memo of the Muslim Brotherhood stated, “The Ikhwan (i.e., Muslim Brotherhood) must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”

Obama consistently defends Islam, yet has no problem lecturing Americans about the Crusades (which ended long before Columbus sailed to the Americas). If we the people don’t get serious about stopping this modern day jihad soon, the sabotage from within will soon be complete.

02/19/15

Beck: U.S. Dangerously Close to World War III Because We’re So Arrogant

Chilling World War 3 Warning From Glenn Beck: Worst Nightmares And Worst Warnings From Years Ago Are Today’s News – ‘Dear God, Forgive Us’

02/18/15

Reds in Hollywood Making a Comeback

By: Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media

Bryan Cranston is famous for his role as meth cook “Walter White” on the AMC drama series, “Breaking Bad.” He may become infamous for something else later this year. He is playing the role of Stalinist Communist and Hitler apologist Dalton Trumbo in the new film, “Trumbo.”

The film is said to be in its “post-production” phase, and Cranston may not have known what he was getting into. It’s hard to believe he would have played this role had he known the facts about Trumbo’s service to the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. Once the facts get out, his role could derail what looked like a promising career.

Allan H. Ryskind, author of the new book, Hollywood Traitors, anticipates that the film “Trumbo” will be “celebrating Dalton Trumbo, a major Hollywood Ten figure and longtime Communist enthusiast…” He notes that the advance publicity for the film says that Trumbo bravely took a “stand against the Communist-witch-hunt at the height of the Cold War” and was “punished for his principled stand for free speech and the Constitution.”

Indeed, the conventional wisdom is that Trumbo and all other members of the “Hollywood Ten were innocent victims of a ‘blacklist.’” The facts show something very different. Trumbo was in fact a Soviet/Nazi agent of influence in Hollywood. All of the “Ten” were communists but Trumbo was one of the worst.

Ryskind, the son of famous Hollywood screenwriter Morrie Ryskind, reports that “Trumbo, in truth, was a full-fledged Stalinist who had the distinction of siding with three of the most barbarous dictators in the 20th century: Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler and North Korea’s Kim-Il Sung.”

Ryskind, a long-time editor of the newspaper Human Events, worked on this book for many years and combed through Trumbo’s papers at the Wisconsin Historical Society in Madison. He goes on to write, “Like so many of his comrades, he [Trumbo] became a Hitler apologist after Stalin joined Hitler in that 1939 pact. In order to poison the well against Hitler’s enemies, he demonized the Fuehrer’s foes. England was no democracy, he argued in his 1941 novel, The Remarkable Andrew, because it had a ‘king.’ FDR was guilty of ‘treason’ and ‘black treason’ for his pro-England policy. No drop of American blood should be risked or spilled for the selfish and deceitful British.”

On the matter of Trumbo’s support for the communist North Korean regime, Ryskind notes, “When North Korea waged war against South Korea in 1950, where did Dalton stand? In an unpublished movie script dedicated to several Hollywood Ten figures, he has the heroine declare that North Korea’s invasion was perfectly justifiable, for this is “Korea’s fight for independence, just as we had to fight for our own independence in 1776.”

Ryskind provides more details in a special report that accompanies the release of his book. He says, “Communist Dalton Trumbo, a prominent screenwriter, a Hollywood Ten figure and a Hollywood icon, led the fight in America to ease Hitler’s burden of conquest. He did this by demonizing Hitler’s enemies, assailing Great Britain as deceptive and dishonorable and suggesting it was unworthy of assistance because it was a monarchy not a democracy. England, he also noted, had declared war against Hitler, not the other way around, and he accused FDR, previously a Communist Party favorite, of being guilty of ‘treason’ and ‘black treason’ for giving England military assistance. Trumbo vigorously presented his views in speeches and in writing, and laid out his case most explicitly in his 1941 novel, The Remarkable Andrew.”

The rest of the story is also provided by Ryskind: “The Hollywood Communist contingent, including Trumbo, quickly turned against Hitler after the Fuehrer betrayed Stalin in June of 1941, launching a massive invasion of the Soviet Union. Then, and only then, did the radical screenwriters switch sides again, now demanding America give massive assistance to the Soviet Union to combat fascism and help it survive the Nazi onslaught. Only after Hitler invaded the USSR did the Communist screenwriters become ‘patriotic,’ since they believed US assistance was crucial to the Soviet Union’s survival.”

After examining the historical record, including Trumbo’s papers, Ryskind concludes, “…I’ve never found a paragraph, or even a phrase, where he ever publicly or privately condemns Stalin’s Soviet Union in a meaningful way, certainly not when the Caligula in the Kremlin was dispatching his own citizens by the millions, egging Hitler on as he invaded the Western democracies, cheering Goering’s air force as it rained death and destruction on London and eagerly devouring Eastern Europe in the post-World War II era. Not a peep of protest or regret from a man whom Hollywood longs to lionize.”

It may be the case that Cranston was not aware of the facts about Trumbo’s service to the Soviet Union and Hitler’s Germany. That is why I recently sent him a letter setting forth the facts contained in this column. If he was deceived about Trumbo’s true character, he has the right to raise hell.

Whatever the ultimate fate of the film and Cranston’s role in it, Ryskind’s book about the days when communists were trying to dominate Hollywood has suddenly taken on more importance.

01/17/15

Hitler’s Green Killing Machine

By: Cliff Kincaid
America’s Survival

America’s Survival TV

Mark Musser is the author of Nazi Oaks, a book on the Nazi roots of the radical environmental movement. Musser notes, “The beastly nature of the holocaust is best understood through the barbaric naturism of the Nazis, rooted in a racially charged ecology that would not be undone until all the smoke from the great battlefields and gas chambers of World War II was cleared.” This topic is increasingly relevant because Pope Francis has embraced the radical environment movement and is planning to release an “encyclical on ecology” in March. He has talked of “Mother Earth,” saying, “Care for sister earth, mother earth, because if not, she will respond with destruction.”

01/15/15

The Root of The Problem: Russia – Part 3

By: Glenn Beck

The Red Storm

Below is Part 3 of the report compiled by Glenn’s research team for “The Red Storm”. Read Part 1 HERE and Part 2 HERE.

Vladimir Putin and his advisors have a dream. That dream is not of a great Russian Nation that once again commands respect as it used to. Their sites are set much higher. They dream of a great civilization that dominates all of Eurasia. Historically for Russians this struggle is anything but new. They’ve pursued it their entire existence. From Prince Vladimir I, to Ivan the Great and later Stalin it’s always been about Russian domination of Eurasia. Throughout history there has always been an antagonist for Russians to struggle against. The Tatars and Mongols, the Nazis from Germany and now Putin has the United States. This struggle along with their devout loyalty to the Orthodox Church has given the Russian people one of the most fiercest forms of nationalism in the world. Tapping that nationalism, historically, has had global impact.

Putin has watched the threat to Russian civilization since 2000. The ousting of Slobodan Milosevic, the Rose Revolution in Georgia, and the Orange Revolution in Ukraine would all be viewed not as native grassroots attempts at democracy but rather a direct attack from the Unites States and the EU. From then on Moscow has been on a slow methodical plan that began with the invasion of Georgia in 2008. Those in the Eurasia Party wanted Putin to invade the entire country but he stopped short. Last year, as a result of the overthrow of the Yanukovych regime in Kiev, Moscow annexed Crimea and invaded Eastern Ukraine. Again, Putin stopped short despite cries to go all the way to the capital.

The big question is…what happens next? What’s Russia doing? What should we look out for?

The Putin regime sees two main obstacles blocking their path.

The United States and European Union alliance structure.

The dollar dominated world economy.

Moscow knows they can’t defeat the U.S. and EU militarily. Instead they’ve taken Aleksander Dugin’s philosophy in Russia and exported it to Western Europe. The message is clear. Remember what makes you unique and different. For Russians it’s the Orthodox Church and their culture. For Western Europeans, it’s the self identity of each individual nation state. To tap into this Russia has been contacting and supporting far-right groups all over Western Europe. At a time when the EU has been suffering from economic hardship, unemployment and immigration issues the far-right has made significant gains.

What’s the goal? The systematic break up of the European Union at the hands of Western Europe’s far-right. Russia, like the rest of the world, remembers what happened the last time the far-right dominated Europe…but that’s exactly what they want. Remember Dugin and the Eurasia Party’s eventual goal. Before order there must be a coming chaos. As the Kremlin continues it’s operation in Eastern Ukraine the political chaos has already begun in Western Europe.

Scotland attempted to split from the UK. The Golden Dawn party gained ground in Greece. 15,000 Nazi’s marched in Germany last month. The list goes on and on and Russia has ties to nearly every major right-wing group involved:

Bulgaria – Ataka Party (there are claims that they report directly to the Russian embassy)
Hungary – Jobbik (Dugin hosted their leader Vona at Moscow State University)
Austria – FPO
Italy – Forza Nuova (Met multiple times with the Russian Duma and Putin himself)
Greece – Golden Dawn (Dugin wrote their leader Michaloliakos while he was in prison)
Germany – Pegida
Netherlands – Freedom Party
France – National Front (In November a Russian bank donated 9 million euros to Marine Le Pen and the National Front)

Not only is the Kremlin supporting these groups at the highest levels they’re also targeting Europe’s youth. Straight from Hitler’s playbook, Dugin has created a branch of his Eurasia Party that’s sole purpose is to infiltrate Europe’s young minds. They’re called – The Eurasian Youth. Sound familiar? Like their founder Aleksander Dugin, the symbol of their movement is also the 8 pointed star of chaos.

France’s National Front has a legitimate shot at gaining power in the next election. Putin has taken a special interest in Marine Le Pen and Le Pen echoes that interest back toward Moscow. Russia doesn’t even try to hide it. A bank with close ties to the Kremlin recently donated 9 million Euros to the National Front.

If Le Pen takes power in France that could be the catalyst Russia has been waiting for. A rebirth of European nationalism and the continent reset back to the 1930’s.

Russia’s second major hurdle is the dominance the dollar has on the world economy. Putin believes that the World Bank and the IMF are agents of western imperialism. He believes they use state banks (like the Bank of Russia) to lure nations into their debt based economic model. To combat this Moscow has been gathering other like minded nations who are sick of the dollar’s dominance. They’re trying to build their own version of the IMF.

They’re also trying to emphasize an economy backed by tangible resources. That’s why both China and Russia are buying up gold in bulk. That’s an understatement. Russia and China are filling their vaults with gold by the truck load. They see an eventual collapse of the western debt based economies. When that occurs the world economy will return back to the gold standard. With the combined gold reserves of Russia and China on top of their immense natural resources their economies would be unstoppable. Even more formidable if they combined that with oil and gas from the middle east. A Middle Eastern ally is crucial to that goal and partly explains their relationship with Iran.

The problem Putin’s Russia now faces is their current economic crisis. Western sanctions and the drop in oil prices have devastated the Russian economy. Lines to ATM’s and bank tellers wrap around street corners as Russians attempt to exchange rubles for dollars and euros. The Kremlin has labeled it economic warfare from the United States. The rhetoric stops just shy of calling it an act of war.

The situation in 1941 Japan can tell us a lot when analyzing Russia today. Japan attacked Pearl Harbor on December 7th 1941. But why did they do it? On the surface the act seems irrational. Most people don’t look at the root of that problem either but doing so can help us see the world from Putin’s eyes.

Like today’s Russia Japan had become increasingly aggressive. In July 1941 Japan invaded and occupied French Indochina (present day Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos). This put Japan within striking distance of other resource rich nations like Malaysia, Singapore etc. This threatened Great Britain’s cash flow giving the Nazis an advantage.

Like the west retaliated from Russia’s annexation of Ukraine, President Roosevelt retaliated and imposed economic sanctions on Japan. One of which was an embargo of U.S. oil which the Japanese economy was critically dependent on. Rather than deterring the Japanese they got even more aggressive. They saw the sanctions as an act of war. They decided that war with the United States was now inevitable. To make up for the loss of U.S. oil and other sanctions the Japanese planned to invade the Dutch East Indies, Malaysia, Singapore and the Philippines. The attack on Pearl Harbor was basically a giant flanking maneuver to make sure the U.S. Pacific Fleet couldn’t intervene.

With the Russian economy under attack and the future of Ukraine and Crimea in jeopardy how will Putin react? Do the Russians see war with the U.S. now inevitable as the Japanese did in 1941?

The way Putin responds in the next few months may decide whether he holds on to his presidency. He now finds himself in a land where he’s unleashed monsters that he may not be able to control. The fires of Russian nationalism burn hot. Russians see themselves as under attack. Not only their culture but their religion. Putin typically is content with taking his time but there is a growing majority that, like Dugin, want action now.

On the night of February 24th 1956 the public session of the 20 Congress of the USSR came to a close. Most of the delegates went home, but Nikita Khrushchev called the most senior members back to a closed private session. This session would later be dubbed Khrushchev’s “Secret Speech”.

Stalin was dead and his closest supporters (Molotov, Malenkov, Kaganovich) were set to take over. Khrushchev’s goal was to show the government that Stalin and his followers were victim of “the cult of personality”. That Stalin had made the Russian cause and struggle about his own ego and not about the Russian people. The speech was so shocking and contrary to how things had been going in the Soviet Union at the time that multiple people within the auditorium had heart attacks and passed out. The speech would be a huge success for Khrushchev and lead to the de-stalinization of the USSR. Khrushchev would seize power from Stalin’s successors.

Who is going to be the modern day Khrushchev? Who is going to come forth and point out Putin’s failures if he doesn’t give the Russian people what they want?

If Putin is forced out under present circumstances the Russian people will look for direct and immediate action. They’ll look for a leader outside the current politburo. A war hero with a track record for fighting for the reclamation of Russian civilization. The next Russian leader will see Orthodoxy not as a tool for nationalism but as a treasure he must champion. He’ll be profoundly religious and dedicated to the Russian Orthodox Church.

He may be a man like Igor Girkin Strelkov.

Girkin typically just goes by his nickname Strelkov which means “shooter” in Russian. He’s basically the Russian version of a cross between Rambo, John Wayne, and the Pope. He served in both the FSB and GRU leading insurgencies in Chechnya, Bosnia, Moldova, and Georgia.

Russians see Girkin as a sort of holy warrior defending Russian civilization from what Girkin calls “the Godless west”. Girkin’s generals and followers echo their Orthodox mission:

“As we are Orthodox Christians, this connection, this line of Orthodox Christianity goes through everything, including the awards, connection of past, future and present.” Girkin’s General “Prapor” – (on the resemblance of the Novorossia medal to the cross of St George)

“A Clash of civilizations is taking place, no more no less” “one of these civilizations stands on clearly anti-christian basis” “preventing it’s triumph itself would be an enormous contribution to the Orthodox Christian cause” – Vladimir Khomyakov

According to Girkin it was he and not Putin that “pulled the trigger of war in Ukraine”. After the Maidan protests in Kiev Girkin crossed into Crimea and led the take over. After Crimea was fully annexed he crossed into Eastern Ukraine and led the uprisings in both Donetsk and Luhansk. When the ceasefire was negotiated Girkin relocated back to Russia and has been the leading organizer for Russian fighters and equipment flowing into what he calls “Novorossiya” (New Russia).

Ditching his military uniform and donning a suit Igor Girkin has been all over Russian media lately. While Putin addresses the nation and tells them not to worry about the dire situation of the Russian economy Dugin can be seen preaching the liberation of New Russia. Not stopping at Ukraine but uniting all Russian lands…by force if need be.

“The whole Russian people should merge into one Russian state…Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia must unite” – Girkin

Ivan the Terrible was the first Czar of Russia and ruled in the mid 1500’s. He believed he was chosen by God to lead the Russian people and defend Orthodoxy. During his reign the Russian Empire would see its greatest territorial expansion ever. Is Igor Girkin the modern day version of Ivan the Terrible? Is Russia at the precipice of another period of great territorial expansion with a champion of their faith at the helm? Time will tell.​

01/14/15

The Root of The Problem: Russia – Part 2

By: Glenn Beck

Below is Part 2 of the report compiled by Glenn’s research team for “The Red Storm”. Read Part 1 HERE. Part 3 will be posted Wednesday.

On December 25th 1991 the President of the USSR Mikhail Gorbachev resigned his office in a nationally televised broadcast.

“I hereby discontinue my activities at the post of President of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.”

The Soviet Union had officially dissolved. The Soviet flag was taken down from the Kremlin and replaced with the new flag of the Russian Federation.

The Soviet Union at the height of her power had influence from the Sea of Okhotsk, across Eurasia, all the way to East Berlin. The Soviets had re-established the Russian Empire. The old Carolingian/Eastern Orthodox line was still the de facto border, but the Warsaw Pact provided the Russians with a reach into Western Europe that they had never had before. After the collapse the 3 main Slavic nations of Russia, Belarus and Ukraine were separated and millions of ethnic Russians were suddenly waking up behind foreign borders. Not only had their economy collapsed but Ukraine, their spiritual and cultural heart, was now separated by a line on the map. To Russians this was akin to an amputation.

In 2005 during his annual State of the Union address Russian President Vladimir Putin would call the collapse of the Soviet Union, “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century.”

“First and foremost it is worth acknowledging that the demise of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century. As for the Russian people, it became a genuine tragedy. Tens of millions of our fellow citizens and countrymen found themselves beyond the fringes of Russian territory.”

When Putin came to power in 2000 he inherited a crippled economy and a nation that lacked direction. His plan was to remedy both. He started to work on the Russian economy. From 2000-2008 the Russian GDP grew by over 70%. Individual Russian wages tripled. The one aspect Russia seemed to be stagnant in was influence. While Putin was busy rebuilding the economy NATO advanced further Eastward. The United States and Western Europe practically ignored Russia on the world stage.

Putin needed a geopolitical and foreign policy that would return Russia to her glory. Just such a policy was under development. This policy was put into effect in 2008 and Putin has been following it like a playbook ever since.

I believe the architect of Russia’s geopolitical strategy is Aleksandr Dugin. If this is true the future of Western and Eastern Europe is headed toward catastrophic possibilities.

Aleksandr Dugin is known to be an advisor to some of the most influential men in Russia. The list reads like a political who’s who in the Kremlin:

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov
2nd Chairman of the State Duma Gennadiy Seleznyov
Minister of Culture Aleksandr Sokolov
United Russia Party Chief Ideologist Ivan Demidov
President Vladimir Putin

Not only advising the Kremlin, Dugin in 2008 became the head of the Department of Sociology of International Relations at Moscow State University. He’s been pushing his ideology to Moscows intellectual elite and young minds ever since.

Dugin’s Philosophical doctrine

Dugin uses a combination of geopolitics, political theory and philosophy to incite Russian nationalism. To put it bluntly, it’s nothing short of Russian fascism. Duginites see Eurasia as part of a greater Russian Empire. Land dominated by a superior culture and civilization.

“Everything will fall into place if we recognize Russia as a civilization. Not just a country. In other words, Russia cannot be compared with other countries, such as Switzerland, France, Germany, Belgium, England, Italy and Spain. Russia should be compared with Europe as a whole or with the Islamic world, or with the Chinese civilization.”

Marxists believed that the proletariat would awaken and become class conscious. This would bring forth the inevitable struggle between the Bourgeois and the Proletariat. Similarly, Dugin wants not only Russians but all of Europe to become aware of their race to bring forth racial struggle. This has the effect of uniting the Russians and fracturing the European Union. To do this Russia has reached out to Right-wing groups all over Europe. This is the blueprint to dismantling Western Europe.

How is Dugin awakening Russians to racial consciousness? By bringing back the significance of the Orthodox Church. Nothing stokes Russian Nationalism more. As we’ve talked about before, the Eastern Orthodox Church has been burned into the DNA of every Russian. Taking a cue from both Ivan the Great and even Stalin, the Orthodox Church is Russian Nationalism on tap.

Today if you take a guided tour of the Kremlin it’ll surprise you. You’ll skim over the government buildings in about 10 minutes. After that it’s about 2 to 3 hours touring Orthodox church after Orthodox church after Orthodox church from within the Kremlin walls. Keep in mind the people that are taking that tour. It’s primarily Russians with few foreigners. The Russian Orthodox revival is in full swing.

Dugin’s Christianity, however, is very dark. He’s preparing Russians to be willing to make the ultimate sacrifice…for the nation and for Orthodoxy.

“The meaning of Russia is that through the Russian people will be realized the last thought of God, the thought of the End of the World. . . . Death is the way to immortality. Love will begin when the world ends. We must long for it, like true Christians. . . . We are uprooting the accursed Tree of Knowledge. With it will perish the Universe.”

Charming isn’t it? This man is actually an advisor to the government!

Dugin believes that Western society is attempting to dominate the entire world under one single global government. Dugin preaches that not only has the U.S. and the West manipulated the world politically and militarily but on a deeper philosophical level. Dugin says that the West has lied to the world making them think that chaos is an evil thing. He says that chaos is in fact divine. Where as the West makes you think they’re defeating chaos by bringing forth order, Dugin says Russians need to bring chaos to bring forth divine enlightenment. In fact, Dugin’s political symbol is the 8 pointed star.

The 8 pointed star is an ancient pagan magic symbol for…chaos.

This type of philosophy should sound very familiar to you if you know about twelver Islam. They believe the coming chaos will purify the world in blood bringing forth enlightenment and the 12th Imam. It’s no surprise that Putin’s Russia supports the Shia Twelver regime of Iran and their proxies Syria’s Assad and Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Dugin’s geopolitics/foreign policy

Just one year after Putin became President of the Russian Federation Aleksander Dugin founded the Eurasia Party. It’s primary purpose is to advocate Russian aggression and expansion. It became a legitimate political party in 2002. In Dugin’s own words this is the Eurasia Party ethos:

“In principle, Eurasia and our space, the heartland Russia, remain the staging area of a new anti-bourgeois, anti-American revolution. … The new Eurasian empire will be constructed on the fundamental principle of the common enemy: the rejection of Atlanticism, strategic control of the USA, and the refusal to allow liberal values to dominate us. This common civilizational impulse will be the basis of a political and strategic union.”

Dugin’s reference to Atlanticism is how he describes western sea power colonial empires like the UK, France, and the U.S. He also maintains a strong aversion to liberalism. America was founded on the concept that basic inalienable rights like life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are granted by God. Dugin preaches something entirely different. He claims that the state defines the man and grants him his rights. The state can act on it’s own and has complete authority.

“What man is, is not derived from himself as an individual, but from politics. It is politics that defines the man. It is the political system that gives us our shape. Moreover, the political system has an intellectual and conceptual power, as well as transformative potential without limitations”

The German historian Heinrich von Treitschke once said similar things in the late 1800’s.

“the state is power. It is free from restraints of private morality.”

Von Treitschke would pioneer decades of German racism. The end result would be Nazi Germany.

While Putin was busy fixing the Russian economy Dugin was watching the various “color revolutions” spring up all over the former Soviet bloc. They began first in Georgia and resulted in the overthrow of the Georgian President. Dugin began preaching that the West was deliberately attacking Russian society by inciting unrest. He said that the western “5th column” had infiltrated Russian lands via banks (Russian Central Bank and the IMF), NGO’s and even the government.

In 2007 the Russian’s received the springboard they needed to launch their Dugin inspired foreign policy. The U.S. and the West had gone against Russia’s demands and recognized the legitimacy of Kosovo. This obviously infuriated the Russians who were allied to Serbia. More importantly however this set a global precedent that Moscow could now exploit. Many breakaway regions within the greater “Russian civilization” could now be used as leverage over the countries they resided in. Abkhazia and South Ossetia in Georgia, Transnistria in Moldova, etc.

Before the Russian/Georgian war began Dugin would visit South Ossetia in Georgia and say this:

“Our troops will occupy the Georgian capital Tbilisi, the entire country, and perhaps even Ukraine and the Crimean Peninsula, which is historically part of Russia, anyway. Russia should not stop at liberating South Ossetia but should move further. “We have to do something similar in Ukraine.”

Sound familiar? Putin has been on autopilot ever since.

In 2008 Putin invaded Georgia to “defend ethnic Russians” in the autonomous regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Dugin was furious that Putin didn’t seize the opportunity to go all the way to the Georgian capital of Tbilisi. He called for Putin to “restore the empire” but Putin was content with biding his time. However, that all changed when the maidan protests erupted in Kiev this past year. The West had clearly stepped over a red line.

There’s something about Ukraine and Crimea that western geopolitical thinkers and analysts just don’t understand.

Putin had this to say regarding Ukraine/Crimea during his recent state of the union address:

“For Russia, Crimea, ancient Korsun, Chersonesos, Sevastopol have a great civilization and sacred significance – as well as the Temple Mount in Jerusalem for those who profess Islam and Judaism. That is how we are going to treat this. Now and forever. ”

Peter the Great said it and Putin/Dugin are saying it now. They see Russia as the “Third Rome”. Ukraine and Crimea are their holy sites. The significance of such traced back to the Apostle Andrew. Vladimir I was baptised there making Kievan Rus’ a Christian state. They’re going to defend and struggle for it as if it were the Vatican or the Temple Mount.

Ukraine now finds itself in the same dark waters that Georgia does. With autonomous regions within her own borders filled with ethnic Russians supported by the Russian Federation. Used as levers that Moscow can pull at will.

The problem that Putin now faces however, is that he has awakened bears within his own country that he may not be able to chain back. The nationalist fires that Dugin’s policies have stoked burn at the core of every Russian. Fires that were ignited when the Apostle Andrew declared the coming of a great Christian city in Kiev. Moscow now faces a nation that expects nothing short of holy war over Ukraine and Crimea. What if Putin isn’t willing to take it that far? Who will take his place? Will Russia champion a new Orthodox Confederation to challenge the West? Will Western Europe’s right-wing groups be their allies in dismantling the European Union?

01/1/15

Obama, Hitler, And Exploding The Biggest Lie In History

By: Bill Flax
Forbes (published with permission)

Image via Wikipedia

Image via Wikipedia

“The line between fascism and Fabian socialism is very thin. Fabian socialism is the dream. Fascism is Fabian socialism plus the inevitable dictator.” John T. Flynn

Numerous commentators have raised alarming comparisons between America’s recent economic foibles and Argentina’s fall “from breadbasket to basket case.” The U.S. pursues a similar path with her economy increasingly ensnared under the growing nexus of government control. Resources are redistributed for vote-buying welfare schemes, patronage style earmarks, and graft by unelected bureaucrats, quid pro quo with unions, issue groups and legions of lobbyists.

In Argentina, everyone acknowledges that fascism, state capitalism, corporatism – whatever – reflects very leftwing ideology. Eva Peron remains a liberal icon. President Obama’s Fabian policies (Keynesian economics) promise similar ends. His proposed infrastructure bank is just the latest gyration of corporatism. Why then are fascists consistently portrayed as conservatives?

In the Thirties, intellectuals smitten by progressivism considered limited, constitutional governance anachronistic. The Great Depression had apparently proven capitalism defunct. The remaining choice had narrowed between communism and fascism. Hitler was about an inch to the right of Stalin. Western intellectuals infatuated with Marxism thus associated fascism with the Right.

Later, Marxists from the Frankfurt School popularized this prevailing sentiment. Theodor Adorno in The Authoritarian Personality devised the “F” scale to demean conservatives as latent fascists. The label “fascist” has subsequently meant anyone liberals seek to ostracize or discredit.

Fascism is an amorphous ideology mobilizing an entire nation (Mussolini, Franco and Peron) or race (Hitler) for a common purpose. Leaders of industry, science, education, the arts and politics combine to shepherd society in an all encompassing quest. Hitler’s premise was a pure Aryan Germany capable of dominating Europe.

While he feinted right, Hitler and Stalin were natural bedfellows. Hitler mimicked Lenin’s path to totalitarian tyranny, parlaying crises into power. Nazis despised Marxists not over ideology, but because they had betrayed Germany in World War I and Nazis found it unconscionable that German communists yielded fealty to Slavs in Moscow.

The National Socialist German Workers Party staged elaborate marches with uniformed workers calling one another “comrade” while toting tools the way soldiers shoulder rifles. The bright red Nazi flag symbolized socialism in a “classless, casteless” Germany (white represents Aryanism). Fascist central planning was not egalitarian, but it divvied up economic rewards very similarly to communism: party membership and partnering with the state.

Where communists generally focused on class, Nazis fixated on race. Communists view life through the prism of a perpetual workers’ revolution. National Socialists used race as a metaphor to justify their nation’s engagement in an existential struggle.

As many have observed, substituting “Jews” for “capitalists” exposes strikingly similar thinking. But communists frequently hated Jews too and Hitler also abhorred capitalists, or “plutocrats” in Nazi speak. From afar, Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany each reeked of plutocratic oligarchy. Both were false utilitarian Utopias that in practice merely empowered dictators.

The National Socialist German Workers Party is only Right if you are hopelessly Left. Or, ascribe to Marxist eschatology perceiving that history marches relentlessly towards the final implementation of socialist Utopia. Marx predicted state capitalism as the last desperate redoubt against the inevitable rise of the proletariat. The Soviets thus saw Nazis as segues to communism.

Interestingly, almost everywhere Marxism triumphed: Russia, China, Cuba, Vietnam, etc., all skipped the capitalist phase Marx thought pivotal. Instead, they slid straight from pre-industrial feudal conditions into communism; which essentially entailed reversion back to feudalism supplanting the traditional aristocracy with party cronyism – before dissolving into corrupted variants of state capitalism economically similar to fascism.

As usual, Marx got it backwards.

It’s also ironic that even as orthodox Marxism collapsed due to economic paralysis, cultural Marxism predicated on race, sex and identity politics thrives in “Capitalist” America. The multiculturalists substituted race where the Soviets and Maoists saw only class. America’s civic crusade has become political correctness, aka cultural Marxism, preoccupied with race. Socialism wheels around again.

While political correctness as manifest in the West is very anti-Nazi and those opposing multiculturalism primarily populate the Right, it’s false to confuse fascism with conservatism. Coupling negatives is not necessarily positive. Because the Nazis would likely detest something that conservatives also dislike indicates little harmony. Ohio State hates Michigan. Notre Dame does too, but Irish fans rarely root for the Buckeyes.

America’s most fascistic elements are ultra leftwing organizations like La Raza or the Congressional Black Caucus. These racial nationalists seek gain not through merit, but through the attainment of government privileges. What’s the difference between segregation and affirmative action? They are identical phenomena harnessing state auspices to impose racialist dogma.

The Nation of Islam and other Afrocentric movements, like the Nazis, even celebrate their own perverse racist mythology. Are Louis Farrakhan and Jeremiah Wright conservatives? Is Obama?

Racism does not exclusively plague the Right. Many American bigots manned the Left: ex-Klansman Hugo Black had an extremely left wing Supreme Court record, George Wallace was a New Deal style liberal – he just wanted welfare and social programs controlled by states. Communists always persecute minorities whenever in power.

The Nazis’ anti-Semitism derived indirectly from Karl Marx, who despite Jewish ancestry was deeply anti-Semitic. Bankers and other capitalists were disproportionately Jewish. Elsewhere, Jews played prominent roles. Before falling under Hitler’s sway, Mussolini’s inner circle was overly Jewish. Peron was the first leader to let Jews hold public office in Argentina. Franco, a Marana, welcomed Jews back into Spain for the first time since 1492 and famously thwarted Hitler by harboring Jewish refugees.

Very little of Hitler’s domestic activity was even remotely right wing. Europe views Left and Right differently, but here, free markets, limited constitutional government, family, church and tradition are the bedrocks of conservatism. The Nazis had a planned economy; eradicated federalism in favor of centralized government; considered church and family as competitors; and disavowed tradition wishing to restore Germany’s pre-Christian roots.

Despite Democrats’ pretensions every election, patriotism is clearly a conservative trait so Nazi foreign policy could be vaguely right wing, but how did Hitler’s aggression differ from Stalin’s? The peace movement evidenced liberals being duped as “useful idiots” more than pacifistic purity. Note the Left’s insistence on neutrality during the Hitler/Stalin pact and their urgent switch to militarism once Germany attacked.

After assuming power, Nazis strongly advocated “law and order.” Previously, they were antagonistic thugs, which mirrored the communists’ ascension. The Nazis outlawed unions perceiving them as competitors for labor’s loyalties, i.e. for precisely the same reason workers’ paradises like Communist China and Soviet Russia disallowed unions. To Nazis, the state sustained workers’ needs.

Even issues revealing similarity to American conservatism could also describe Stalin, Mao and many communists. This is not to suggest liberals and fascists are indistinguishable, but a fair assessment clearly shows if any similarities appear with American politics they reside more on the Left than Right.

On many issues the Nazis align quite agreeably with liberals. The Nazis enforced strict gun control, which made their agenda possible and highlights the necessity of an armed populace.

The Nazis separated church and state to marginalize religion’s influence. Hitler despised biblical morality and bourgeois (middle class) values. Crosses were ripped from the public square in favor of swastikas. Prayer in school was abolished and worship confined to churches. Church youth groups were forcibly absorbed into the Hitler Youth.

Hitler extolled public education, even banning private schools and instituting “a fundamental reconstruction of our whole national education program” controlled by Berlin. Similar to liberals’ cradle to career ideal, the Nazis established state administered early childhood development programs; “The comprehension of the concept of the State must be striven for by the school as early as the beginning of understanding.”

Foreshadowing Michelle Obama, “The State is to care for elevating national health.” Nanny State intrusions reflect that persons are not sovereign, but belong to the state. Hitler even sought to outlaw meat after the war; blaming Germany’s health problems on the capitalist (i.e. Jewish) food industry. The Nazis idealized public service and smothered private charity with public programs.

Hitler’s election platform included “an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.” Nazi propaganda proclaimed, “No one shall go hungry! No one shall be cold!” Germany had universal healthcare and demanded that “the state be charged first with providing the opportunity for a livelihood.” Obama would relish such a “jobs” program.

Nazi Germany was the fullest culmination of Margaret Sanger’s eugenic vision. She was the founder of Planned Parenthood, which changed its name from the American Birth Control Society after the holocaust surfaced. Although Nazi eugenics clearly differed from liberals’ abortion arguments today, that wasn’t necessarily true for their progressive forbears.

Germany was first to enact environmentalist economic policies promoting sustainable development and regulating pollution. The Nazis bought into Rousseau’s romanticized primitive man fantasies. Living “authentically” in environs unspoiled by capitalist industry was almost as cherished as pure Aryan lineage.

National Socialist economics were socialist, obviously, imposing top-down economic planning and social engineering. It was predicated on volkisch populism combining a Malthusian struggle for existence with a fetish for the “organic.” Like most socialists, wealth was thought static and “the common good supersede[d] the private good” in a Darwinist search for “applied biology” to boost greater Germany.

The Nazis distrusted markets and abused property rights, even advocating “confiscation of war profits” and “nationalization of associated industries.” Their platform demanded, “Communalization of the great warehouses” (department stores) and presaging modern set aside quotas on account of race or politics, “utmost consideration of all small firms in contracts with the State.”

Nazi Germany progressively dominated her economy. Although many businesses were nominally private, the state determined what was produced in what quantities and at what prices. First, they unleashed massive inflation to finance their prolific spending on public works, welfare and military rearmament. They then enforced price and wage controls to mask currency debasement’s harmful impact. This spawned shortages as it must, so Berlin imposed rationing. When that failed, Albert Speer assumed complete power over production schedules, distribution channels and allowable profits.

Working for personal ends instead of the collective was as criminal in Nazi Germany as Soviet Russia. Norman Thomas, quadrennial Socialist Party presidential candidate, saw the correlation clearly, “both the communist and fascist revolutions definitely abolished laissez-faire capitalism in favor of one or another kind and degree of state capitalism. . . In no way was Hitler the tool of big business. He was its lenient master. So was Mussolini except that he was weaker.”

Mussolini recognized, “Fascism entirely agrees with Mr. Maynard Keynes, despite the latter’s prominent position as a Liberal. In fact, Mr. Keynes’ excellent little book, The End of Laissez-Faire (l926) might, so far as it goes, serve as a useful introduction to fascist economics.” Keynes saw the similarities too, admitting his theories, “can be much easier adapted to the conditions of a totalitarian state than . . . a large degree of laissez-faire.” Hitler built the autobahn, FDR the TVA. Propaganda notwithstanding, neither rejuvenated their economies.

FDR admired Mussolini because “the trains ran on time” and Stalin’s five year plans, but was jealous of Hitler whose economic tinkering appeared more successful than the New Deal. America wasn’t ready for FDR’s blatantly fascist Blue Eagle business model and the Supreme Court overturned several other socialist designs. The greatest dissimilarity between FDR and fascists was he enjoyed less success transforming society because the Constitution obstructed him.

Even using Republicans as proxies, there was little remotely conservative about fascism. Hitler and Mussolini were probably to the right of our left-leaning media and education establishments, but labeling Tea Partiers as fascists doesn’t indict the Right. It indicts those declaring so as radically Left.