“The American elite decided that democracy wasn’t working for them... The one-word motto they came to live by was globalism—that is, the freedom to structure commercial relationships and social enterprises without reference to the well-being of the particular society in which they happened to make their livings and raise their children....the elite...saw enlightened Chinese autocracy as a friend and even as a model.” Lee Smith
Political commentary, whether instigated by the drones in the mainstream or by the dissident media, can be prone to some gratuitous terminological inexactitudes. Some are clearly by design and some the result of either a lack of understanding, simple laziness or a realization that to do otherwise would be to sail into the prevailing winds; a prospect all too many find unappetizing. Matters become particularly vexed when, despite the difficulties, pugnacious skeptics nonetheless attempt to arrest a particular manufactured narrative. And there are few idées fixes more sacred than the notion that Fascism belongs to the Far Right – it is, specifically, the Nazis that are the personification of evil, rather than avuncular Uncle Joe, Comrade Mao or Pol Pot, dictators from the Far Left. This is universal knowledge, yes? Everybody knows that, surely?
Well, they probably do, but that's only because they've been relentlessly gaslit for decades. And also because we have been further conditioned to adopt a technical approach to nomenclature, rather than a more robust methodology that's rooted in the outcomes of the various policies that are espoused. It's often forgotten (although not, I suspect, by anyone who has managed to retain enough intellectual independence to prompt them to seek out alternative media), but the Nazi Party's official title was the National Socialist German Worker's Party. The 'Socialist' designation ought to be a clue as to where on the political spectrum they thought they sat. Naturally, this inconvenient morsel does nothing to dissuade the 'fact-checkers' of Wikipedia and the like, who clearly see themselves as uniquely qualified to see through the obvious and explain the Nazi's erroneous self-definition.
For reference, it's calculated that the Nazis brand of socialism killed six million Jews. Additionally, they executed 250,000 gypsies and 220,000 homosexuals and, through other depredations such as starvation and slave labor, as many as ten million Slavic people. Another nineteen million people became the wartime collateral damage of Hitler's war. Stalin was scarcely less prolific and he was also motivated by racial animus in addition to the genocidal tendencies that were directed at his own citizens; his government starved and executed Ukraine's independent farmers (the Kulaks) to the tune of seven million dead. Estimates of ethnic Russian deaths via starvation, execution or the gulags range between seven million and twenty million. Mao's Great Leap Forward cost the lives of between 23 million and 46 million and Pol Pot killed round 2 million Cambodians, 20% of the population.(1)
In the final analysis, is there any real moral difference between liquidating an ethnic group, or a different group of people deemed disposable because of their political beliefs or their class identity or, indeed, their sexuality? I would suggest not, but Hitler's genocide is (justly) maintained in our collective consciousness as an appalling reminder of man's inhumanity to man, whereas the purges, intentional starvation and wholesale mass murders of other regimes are more of a historical footnote – in some eyes whitewashed as communist experiments conducted in an unfortunately ham-fisted manner.
The similarly grisly outcomes of all these regimes are illustrative of a central truth which is rarely, if ever, articulated. Communism and fascism are both totalitarian ideologies. We are told that they occupy extreme positions at opposite ends of the political spectrum and yet both feature authoritarian rule by the state (usually in the form of a dictator), resulting in the subjugation of a huge cohort within the population and the elevation of the few. Even the officially sanctioned definitions do not support an argument that they are diametrically opposed. Fascism is
“...a system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, a capitalist economy subject to stringent governmental controls, violent suppression of the opposition, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism...Oppressive, dictatorial control...a political theory advocating an authoritarian hierarchical government; -- opposed to democracy and liberalism.”(2)
Whereas, communism sounds rather different, in a theoretical context at least;
“...a system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people...an economic system, or theory, which rests upon the total or partial abolition of the right of private property, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.”(3)
So, according to the academics, fascism is often leavened with xenophobia and racism – but, not exclusively. However, the rest of the belief system is remarkably similar to the communist ideology in the latter's practical effect; although not, of course, coterminous with communism's theory which, nonsensically, denies the existence of human nature, preferring a fantastical belief in man's altruism. Fascists allegedly run a “a capitalist economy subject to stringent governmental controls”(which sounds a tiny bit oxymoronic), whereas in the communist utopia all property is owned by the people – code for the state, in every case. Communism has, infamously, never worked, but this hasn't prevented Leftists from bleating that, while nobody has yet done communism 'properly', it'd work if they did.
But it won't, ever, because the reason communism has never been done 'properly' is the same reason it never will be – the notion that the state will whither away and that all property will belong to the people is criminally naïve. As the saying goes, “power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”(4) It always has and it always will and, even if it didn't, there is no such entity as a homogenized human race that will forever be content with equality of outcome; it is inconceivable that every individual will forgo opportunities to improve their lot, which will necessarily be at the expense of others. It would also be to the huge detriment of progress and innovation.
Fascism, as delineated, is considerably more compliant with our knowledge of human nature than is the case with communism. As such, the only useful way to assess these allegedly antithetical ideologies is through their practical effects which, as I hope to demonstrate, are effectively indistinguishable. That being the case, the central battle of our era (and, I suspect, every other era) isn't between political philosophies at the outer edges of Left and Right; it's more accurately characterized as a conflict between totalitarians and libertarians (I use that latter term generically, rather than as a descriptor of whatever libertarianism is supposed to mean this week). Or, more fundamentally, it's a struggle between personality types, as it is the individual's personality that defines their politics, not the other way around; this is another truism that is seldom acknowledged.
However, if we persist with the traditional paradigm of Left and Right, then authoritarianism is a characteristic of the Leftist. This is not a sentiment that should be revelatory, as we see it manifest itself continually in our daily experiences. 'Liberal' Leftists of the more extreme persuasion are, almost exclusively, the activists that are either attempting to enforce some aspect of their woke ideology or actively advocating for measures that will torpedo our standard of living and dismember our individual freedoms, with a complete disregard for our wishes.
As I write, a near flawless example of the former (seasoned with a deeply unpleasant but entirely predictable strain of virulent contempt) is playing out before our eyes. The latest mass shooting, although hardly the first by a 'transgender' mass murderer, is not a good fit for the anti-Second Amendment narrative, nor is it a good look for one of the progressives' most sacred cause célèbres, but fortunately the victims (three teachers and three nine year olds) were in attendance at a Christian school, so it wasn't as bad as it could have been. Christians are disposable to the Left.
Plus, it appears that five of them were white, as well; both factors combine to give the sociopaths a hook to hang their response on. First, hyperventilate about conservative media dead-naming her – I kid you not.(5) Then claim that the shooter is a victim, too (6) – which designation can be ascribed either to an ideological obsession that consumed her (possibly a conservative theory) or to the hate-filled Republicans who believe that there are only two genders and who somehow goaded her into shooting people – silence those that report that trans activists have a history of advocating violence (by disabling their Twitter accounts) (7),
Figure 1
particularly against Christians,
Figure 2
double down instead (the following was posted by the Leftist Arizona Governor's Press Secretary, no less),
Figure 3
and fail to see that, just perhaps, postponing the following protest may just be appropriate in the circumstances. Not that they did.
Figure 4
Then, shamelessly sign on to a new narrative, which asserts that it's all the Republicans fault and dishonestly attempt to reframe the tragedy;
“How many more children have to be murdered before Republicans in Congress will step up and act to pass the assault weapons ban?”(8) That was Biden's Press Secretary and, finally, two days after the shooting, prop up the dementia patient to say that
“...when we advance equality and racial justice and invest in young people, protect the LGBTQ+ individuals, our societies are not only fair but they’re stronger and more successful...”(9)
That would be protecting the LGBTQ+ individual who just shot six innocent people then, would it? And, unlike every other school shooting where the victims are mourned, no such sympathy is expressed for these unfortunates; they exist to be politically weaponized. The mindset revealed by ideologues who mobilize to implement damage control via censorship, misdirection and outright lies followed by the re-imposition of the approved right-think is emblematic of the authoritarian Leftist, albeit in microcosm.
This example of their creed is simply drawn from a modern (rather than an old-school) rubric, but it does nonetheless find an echo in fascist ideology; “violent suppression of the opposition and...oppressive, dictatorial control...” are very much to the fore, and yet trans activists and their apologists identify as progressive liberals. There is a simple answer to this supposed conundrum– Leftists and fascists are neighbours on the Far Left of the political spectrum, both by way of temperament and, in consequence, ideology.
The Far Right, defined as the polar opposite to collectivism, state control and a manipulated economy, is not fascism – its nearest approximation is libertarianism;
“Libertarians seek to maximise autonomy and political freedom and minimise the state;s encroachment on and violations of individual liberties; emphasising the rule of law, pluralism...civil and political rights, bodily autonomy, free association, free trade, freedom of expression, freedom of choice, freedom of movement, individualism and voluntary association.”(10)
Or, in layman's terms, know-it-all, (self-designated) morally superior petty tyrants who are guided by moral relativism and a firm belief that the means justifies the ends, versus 'I'll leave you alone and you leave me alone', do unto others as you would have them do to you, and a belief system that is centered on the existence of moral absolutes and natural rights. The Leftists naturally want to reframe the Far Right as xenophobic racists, as well as being 'radically conservative' (whatever that means), and the media are perfectly content with their role as water carriers but, as is usual, no evidence is produced to substantiate the claim.
Academics focus overly on the economic strands of the fascist and communist ideologies and neglect the arguably more impactful cultural effects. The violent suppression that is referenced in relation to fascism is somewhat disconnected from the rest of the definition – are the victims of this crack-down simply economic dissidents, or are they chafing against a broader apparatus of repression? We know the answer to that question - even if the intellectuals aren't willing to share – because the fascistic tendencies of our Leftist brethren extend into every cultural nook and cranny, too.
There is another problem with the definition, too, because the insertion of the nationalist/xenophobe trope feels gratuitous, as if pride in one's country is only possible on the Right and, additionally, this sentiment can be conflated with the word 'xenophobic'. Even if we were to accept that the Nazis and the Communists are ideologically opposed, we cannot ignore the fact that both exported their ideology, as did other communist regimes in the post war period. And I would suggest that, when the tanks rolled over the border, the finer points of political ideology were not of the greatest importance to those about to be conquered.
Communists seized farmer's land in the name of the people's collective and the Nazis seized land in pursuit of 'lebensraum' – the result was the same in either case; totalitarianism. The state did whatever it wanted to the individual and, if the individual knew what was good for him, he'd thank them. A political dissident in Sachsenhausen or a political prisoner in the gulag. The mass murder of Jews or Kulaks. I'm not convinced that there is any practical difference. None of which is to diminish the Holocaust, nor the parallel genocide of the other categories of people that the National Socialists deemed undeserving of continued existence. Any parallels drawn are simply illustrative of the similarities between two ostensibly competing ideologies.
Intellectual dishonesty is also an integral part of the narrative. The exportation of communism is a central tenet of Marxism, as originally conceived, but the academy would have us believe that fascism's latent (or explicit) belief in racial superiority inevitably leads to the desire to impose itself on other nations by force of arms. This appears to be an attempt to reverse engineer an ideology based on the actions of those nations deemed to be exemplars of fascism; another example of classic gaslighter technique – working backwards from the pre-ordained conclusion. The Germans and the Italians were fascists and both were involved in adventurism abroad, therefore some form of racist xenophobia must be an element of fascism. This is clearly incoherent thinking, made more so by the fact that Italian 'fascism' was not overtly racist – and neither was the Spanish version, which contented itself with domestic activity.
And so, once again, we circle back to a more cogent explanation; both communism and fascism are authoritarian in nature. Whatever the intellectuals think about the theoretical constructs of each ideology may be interesting in an academic way, but is of limited utility when seeking to analyse the practical effects. This is particularly the case with communism, because the theory and the reality are so dissimilar. Consequently, any writer who dwells on the hypotheticals is hiding from reality – in its treatment of property, communism is simply fascism in disguise, because the primacy of man-made hierarchical structures dictates that what is seized is always retained. Examples of a voluntary transfer of power and treasure by the state to the people are rarer than rocking horse manure.
However, as before, the identity of the particular ideology that undergirds this mindset is of secondary importance. The precise details may vary and the fine grain detail of each iteration may provide fodder for the academy and for apologists who would rather disappear up their own backsides than equip us to make informed choices about how to deal with what's coming next. It seems that truth has been at a premium for a long time now, and it's been replaced by the fruits of the compulsions of personalities whose abiding characteristics are either resentment or a sociopathic superiority complex; qualities which, incidentally, might usefully describe the drivers behind both communism and fascism.
The obsession with racial identity said to be a preoccupation of the 'Far Right' has, historically, been a foundational belief of Leftists instead. Eugenics, slavery, the KKK and Jim Crow are all relics of the Democratic Party, not the Republicans. Hence, while miscreants who occasionally publicly tote swastikas are typically characterised as Far Right extremists (as are the Azov Battalion and other entities in Ukraine who are, incidentally, embraced as allies), there is little empirical evidence to justify such a designation. The same goes for anybody waving a Confederate flag - the slave owning states were all Democrat run.
Furthermore, if the Far Left is a concentrated version of socialism, then the Far Right should be a similarly exaggerated entity; a more extreme version of the traditional Right. There is nothing in the traditional conservative belief system that would give rise to virulent racism. The Left is projecting, once more. They will claim that progressivism is steeped in notions of racial 'equity' and that, if they err at all, it's in having over-corrected their course. However, Critical Race Theory and anti-racism are constructs that are themselves racist, this time towards whites, and only foster further division. Additionally, one would have to be imbecilic (or willfully obtuse) to ignore the damage that nearly sixty years worth of Leftists policies have 'accidentally' done to the black community in the US.
All of which pedantry brings me all the way back to the introductory quotation, which spoke of globalism. And what have communism and fascism got to do with our current elites' obsession with it? A lot, as it happens, but only if we continue to think outside the box. The actual definition varies slightly. The Cambridge dictionary – somehow managing to subtly infer that the opposite philosophy, nationalism, is a pejorative term;
“...someone who believes that economic and foreign policy should be planned in an international way, rather than according to what is best for one particular country.”(11)
Merriam Webster and Collins expand on the political ramifications - “a national policy of treating the whole world as a proper sphere for political influence”(12) for the former and “a policy, outlook etc. that is worldwide in scope”(13) for the latter – while the Free Dictionary adds other dimensions to globalism, namely “the development of social, cultural, technological or economic networks that transcend national boundaries.”(14)
All of the above focus on the theoretical and all are relatively neutral and anodyne. None can be expected to dwell on outcomes, but it is outcomes that matter, not theory. One might laud the desire to enhance co-operation between nation states, but to whose benefit? The people? Or a few individuals? How do these networks operate and do the different strands (social, cultural, economic etc.) have uniformly beneficial outcomes? Lastly, how did this sea-change come about and who gave consent for fundamental change of this magnitude?
To answer the last first; whoever decided, it wasn't the people. The necessary economic frameworks were simply constructed without so much as a by-your-leave. The impression given is that globalization is somehow a national imperative; one might then assume it to be of benefit to the nation as a whole. Sometimes, it's presented as simply an inevitable consequence of a 'shrinking' world and the march of 'progress'. The narrative is that there are people who are Somewheres and others who are Anywheres; no prizes for guessing which ones are the globalists, nor for guessing which of the two categories is far more likely to attract the progressive type, keen to leave the conservatism of the past behind. Somewheres, by contrast, still cleave to a national identity and believe that charity begins at home.
The fundamental problem with the globalist outlook lies in its lack of commitment to the citizenry of any given state or what the people would consider to be the national interest and, instead, its overwhelming focus on the interests of the elites. In the United States, this dynamic has its roots in the first decade of the twentieth century and has, from the very beginning, had nothing to do with the best interests of the people. If benefits have accrued to the Somewheres, it has simply been as a by-product of the much greater benefits that the Anywheres have amassed.
Today's globalists are the modern day incarnation of the authoritarian psyche, but with a twist. Domestically, their mindset seems to be indistinguishable from the progressive – the wokeness, the intolerance, the silencing of dissent, the weaponisation of the apparatus of government and the press against anybody with sufficient stones to dissent is difficult to miss. But none of that is globalist, per se; it's common or garden autocracy.
Globally, it's wholly focused on profit, influence and the neutering of any semblance of democratic representation. Globalists do whatever they want, regardless of what we think. They sign treaties, conclude accords, construct trade regulations and fill their pockets with no reference to actual voters. Governments collude in these practices; they've always been in bed with Big Business, as these are the entities that fill their campaign coffers and offer them seats on the board post-retirement. They get to hollow out the economy, ruin the working and middle classes by outsourcing and damage the country by virtue of their sole focus on the shareholder, rather than the worker or the consumer.
Whatever paternalistic attitude that prevailed in the dim and distant has largely disappeared, due to the headlong pursuit of profit in the global market. This must make the globalists capitalists, yes? Well, once again the tendency to pigeon-hole either individuals or endeavors on purely economic grounds is inexact and profoundly misleading. In economic terms alone, and as defined in opposition to either collective or state ownership, then globalism seems to belong to the Right. But, in terms of the authoritarianism/libertarianism dynamic, not so much. It is clearly possible for authoritarian societies to be globalist/capitalist in outlook; we, in the collective West, are ruled by elites who espouse progressivism and the woke agenda. Any hypothetical disconnect between the capitalism of the Right and the Leftist narrative is not proving fatal to the globalist caste.
Indeed, the revolving door between politics and business is making it increasingly difficult to identify who it is that is truly pulling the strings, but the result is that it is clearly possible to be both a robber baron and a Leftist advocate who is all in on CRT, trans issues, climate change and whatever else happens to be the obsession de jour. That's because it's got more to do with personalities than it has to do with labels.
Ultimately, what's the difference between the communist elites and their dachas in the countryside and the globalist elites of today? It's really only a question of degree, both for them and for the lumpen masses. To be sure, for the most part living conditions have been better in the West, but not always vastly better for everyone and, since 1975 and in a time of unparalleled prosperity, most of us have been getting poorer. The journey towards a state of borderline destitution has been gradual, but the destination is getting ever closer.
And, again, I invite you to think not in terms of capitalism v communism or Left versus Right, but in terms of the authoritarianism and globalism that spans the artificial divide. I'd hardly be the first to make the observation;
“You and I are told we must choose between a left or right, but I suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down. Up to man’s age-old dream—the maximum of individual freedom consistent with order or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism.” Ronald Reagan
In truth, this construct oughtn't require a huge leap of faith. While the Democrats are in power in America, it is the Conservative Party that is imposing the near identical ideology in the UK.
Globalization, seen as the practical expression of globalism (rather as Covid is the manifestation of SARS-CoV-2), has provided benefits of convenience and variety, but these have been hugely offset by the disastrous effects it has had on the economic and social wealth of the Western world. So much so that Gen Z are said to be the first generation to be objectively worse off than their parents.
The elites don't care. Their pursuit of globalization is accomplishing the same ends as authoritarians past and present by sequestering all the treasure and screwing everybody else over. The similarity in personality types is the key to understanding the curious cross-pollination of ideologies and outcomes; capitalism and the free market (which, in truth, is simply manipulated to maintain elite control) are simply new ways for the few to acquire dominion over the many.
Up next is a look at how that has been achieved in practice and how the Western globalists are attempting to future proof their hegemony. The latter effort is not proving to be an unqualified success, as the Global South is giving a very good impression of a battered spouse who has decided that they want out. The net result is that the Unipolar world is on life support; the United States is in a vulnerable stage of its managed decline and others can sense weakness and are exploiting it. It seems that not every country wishes to continue bending the knee.
Citations
(2) https://www.wordnik.com/words/fascism
(3) https://www.wordnik.com/words/communism
(4) https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/absolute-power-corrupts-absolutely.html
(5) https://www.zerohedge.com/political/leftists-complain-about-transgender-shooter-being-misgendered
(6) https://dailycaller.com/2023/03/28/quay-transgender-nashville-shooter-victim/
(8)
(9)
(10) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism
(11) https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/globalist
(12) https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/globalism
(13) https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/globalism
(14) https://www.thefreedictionary.com/globalist
Figure 2 Ditto
Figure 3 Ditto
Globalisation might just be the response to declining net surplus energy. Tim Morgan's idea (my condensed version of his information) https://surplusenergyeconomics.wordpress.com/ is the elites are trying to squeeze the last of the profits from the system. America started its terminal decline in 1992 when the energy cost of energy went over 5% and as a highly complex economy needed lots of net surplus energy, Western Europe at about 8% circa 2000. Capital moved to less complex countries/economy's with more surplus energy not neeed to maintain existing infrastructure. However those countries are now reaching their point of decline as the energy cost of energy is approaching 12% and their added complexity has to be maintained. As systems decline the rulers seem to become more authoritarian of maintain control. Its happened when we hit peak coal at the beginning of the 20th century and its happening again with peak oil. Have a look at his website and Gail Tverberg https://ourfiniteworld.com/?amp when you look at it from an energy perspective an awful lot of the "crazy things" start to make more sense.....interesting times! Great article, I honestly believe the 'woke' are just victims of intense propaganda/psy-op and will unfortunately cause a lot of pain and damage to society as they lurch from manufacturered crisis to crisis directed by the 'laser pointer' and won't be able to think critically about any issue's in their lives or society.