Threat of Fascism

In the current political climate, 'there are no fascists who are prepared to step up and declare, 'I am a fascist; I believe fascism is a wonderful social and economic system.'''

It's common knowledge that the epithet "fascist" is used to denigrate any political viewpoint that one does not agree with. Not a single person in the room will rise up and declare, "I am a fascist; I believe fascism is an excellent system of social and economic organization.

In fact, I believe that most politicians, academics, and political activists would have to admit that if they were being honest with themselves.

With its emphasis on the police state as the mainstay for maintaining social order, its denial of basic freedoms and rights for its citizens, fascism is a kind of governance that elevates the executive as the ultimate arbiter of social affairs.

This sums up the current state of play in American politics. And it's not only in the United States. It's true in Europe, too. It is so much part of the mainstream that it is rarely recognized any longer.

In fact, fascism lacks an overall theoretical framework. Marx was the greatest theorist of all time. As a social, economic, and political structure, it is no less real and unique. A distinct style of social and economic management, fascism thrives. In fact, it poses a greater threat to civilisation than even a fully fledged socialist system.

In part, this is due to the fact that its characteristics have been ingrained into our daily lives for so long that they are no longer noticeable.

If fascism is invisible to us, it truly is the silent murderer. Forcibly attaches itself to the free market like a parasite that eats away at a host's resources. Fascism has been dubbed the vampire economy for a reason because of this. Slowly but surely, it chokes the life out of the nation's economy, causing it to die.

Let me use a current example to illustrate what I mean.

Inflation

The first data sets from the 2010 US Census were published in the newspapers last week. Increasing rates of poverty were the main focus of the day's headlines. For the first time in 20 years, there has been a 15% growth.

Many people hear this and ignore it, which is understandable. By any historical standard, the poor in this country are not poor. For the most part, they can buy whatever they want without having to worry about breaking the bank. What's more, there is no such thing as a set class called the poor. Everyone goes through phases of change, as their ages and circumstances change. When you hear politicians in the United States moaning about the poor, you know exactly what to do: hand your money to the government.

It's hidden in the study, but it's a reality that has far-reaching implications. It's a measure of the average household's real income.
According to the fascist economic model, "the American dream as we knew it has been extinguished."

It's heartbreaking what the data has shown. There has been a 7.1 percent drop in median household income since 1999. The median household income has been very stable since 1989. And it has barely increased since 1973, when the gold standard was abolished. America's once-mighty wealth-creating dynamo is in decline.

A better standard of living for one's descendants is no longer a realistic expectation. The American ideal has been extinguished by the fascist economic paradigm. It's worse than the statistics show, of course. To get at a household's total revenue, you must take into account all of the members' individual sources of income. Toward the end of World War II, the single-earner household became the norm. As a result, American savings were wiped away, and the economy's capital base was decimated in the wake of the financial crisis.

At this moment, households were struggling to make ends meet. The tipping moment came in the year 1985. Having two incomes instead of only one became more prevalent than not in households in this year. In order to keep their families afloat, many mothers took jobs outside the home.

All women are now included in the tax rolls as important contributors to the state coffers, and the intelligentsia hailed this trend as though it symbolized liberty. Because of the growth of fiat money, the currency devalued, savings were taken from individuals and they were made to work as taxes, which is the true cause.

The data does not tell the whole story. To find out, you'll have to look at the statistics.

Since there was no longer any choice in the matter, this demographic change practically gave the American home an additional 20 years of seemingly prosperous existence. Even if you wanted to maintain your standard of life, you'd need more than one source of income.

However, this dramatic turn was only a way out. It purchased 20 years of modest growth in income until the trend leveled once more. A decade ago we began to collapse again. When Nixon trashed the currency, put on price and wage controls, formed the EPA, and the entire machinery of the parasitic welfare-warfare state was established and made ubiquitous, the median family income was just marginally over where it was at the time.

This is fascism, and we are paying the price. There is no hope for the future.

In Washington, the discussion of reform is like a horrible joke, regardless of whose party is in charge. A few tweaks and reductions are mentioned, as are commissions that will be established, as well as restrictions that will be implemented in 10 years. It's all just a bunch of nonsense. The problem will not be solved by any of this. That's a long shot.

The issue goes deeper than that. The quality of the money is what matters. There are 10,000 regulatory agencies in existence because of this. The underlying premise is that working for a living is a privilege that must be paid for by the individual. In the capitalist economic system, it is assumed that government must oversee all aspects of the economy. Overall, the problem is the state as a whole; as long as the state as a whole remains, the pain and deterioration will continue.

Fascism's Origins

Indeed, it was during World War II that many became concerned about fascism. It was claimed that we were combating this awful system overseas. America has fought fascist administrations, but fascism's idea of governance has not been eradicated in our country. A new conflict sprang out almost immediately after that one ended. As a result of this conflict, capitalism and communism were placed against each other. As long as it was tied to democracy, which is the system that legalizes and legitimizes a continual pillaging of the public, socialism was viewed as a gentler form of communism.

Most people have forgotten that socialism comes in a variety of shades, not all of which are blatantly leftist. A fascist ideology can be seen in this palette as one of these hues.

There is no doubt as to where it came from. It is entwined in the history of Italian politics following World War I. After winning a democratic election in 1922, Benito Mussolini became the leader of fascism in Italy. During his political career, Mussolini belonged to the Italian Socialist Party (PSI).

The most powerful and influential members of the fascist movement were all socialists. A major danger to the socialists since it was the most enticing political instrument for realizing their socialist ideals in practice. There was a tremendous exodus of socialism to join the fascists.

Because of this, Mussolini was widely praised for for than a decade after he came to power. The New York Times ran many articles praising him. To many academics, he was the prototypical leader we needed in a time of central planning. Throughout the late 1920s and the early 1930s, American journalists frequently ran articles praising this narcissist.
You can always rely on nationalist fervor to support increased military spending when you run out of other options.

Remember that the American Left had a major transition at the same time. The anticorporatist attitude of the American Left in the 1920s and '30s was commendable. The Left was typically opposed to war, the state-run criminal system, alcohol prohibition, and any infringement of civil freedoms by the government. It was not a supporter of capitalism, but it was also not a supporter of the New Deal's corporate state.

The American Left had to make a decision between 1933 and 1934. They had to decide if they wanted to embrace the New Deal's corporatism and tyranny, or if they wanted to stick to their liberal principles. For the sake of their socialist dream, would they tolerate fascism? During this time, a massive battle erupted, with a clear victor. An offer from the New Deal was too good to pass up for the Left. From the fascist acceptance of the planned economy to the exaltation of the warfare state at the end of the New Deal era was a tiny step.

A same sequence of events played out in Italy more than a decade earlier. The Left in Italy came to the same conclusion, realizing that an authoritarian, planning state was the best way to achieve their anticapitalist goals. Indeed, Keynes' pseudoscientific argument for opposing old-world laissez-faire to a new understanding of the planned society played a key role. Keep in mind that Keynes was not an old-school socialist. For Marx, National Socialism was a far more welcoming environment than the market economy, as he said in his preface to the Nazi version of his General Theory.

FLYNN IS TRUE TO HIS WORDS

As We Go Marching by John T. Flynn was the most comprehensive analysis on fascism produced during this period. In the 1920s, Flynn was a liberal writer and academic who penned several best-selling books. In the roaring twenties, he would have been considered progressive. His life was transformed by the New Deal. All of his colleagues had gone along with FDR's fascist policies, but Flynn clung to the old ways. That meant he opposed FDR's foreign as well as domestic policies. FDR's push to go to war, in Flynn's view, was nothing more than an extension of the New Deal, which it unquestionably was.

Due to his affiliation with what Murray Rothbard subsequently labeled the Old Right—Flynn came to reject both the welfare state and the military state—his name fell down the Orwellian memory hole after the war, during the heyday of CIA conservatism.

When As We Go Marching was released in 1944, the globe was still grappling with the effects of World War II-era economic restrictions. Getting by the censors was a miracle. As a comprehensive examination of fascist doctrine and practice, it reveals exactly where fascism ends: in militarism and war as a result of stimulus spending. You can always rely on nationalist fervor to support increased military spending when you run out of other options.

According to Flynn's analysis of the emergence of fascism,

When it comes to fascism, one of the most confusing things is the nearly amazing coordination between persons of the far Right and extreme Left. This is where the solution rests. This desire for regulation was shared by both the Right and the Left. It didn't matter how you expressed yourself; the goal was the same no matter what you said. Moreover, this meant that the economic system had to be regulated in its core tasks by the producing groups.

When it comes to the producer group, Flynn says that conservatives and liberals can't agree on who should be on the list. People on the left tend to see workers as producers. Business owners are seen as the primary producers by the Right. Both were cartelized as a political compromise, which is still in effect today.

For both labor and private capitalists, the fascist government becomes a cartelization instrument. The political elites have decided that the members of these groupings need to work together and collaborate under government supervision in order to develop a powerful country.

Historically, the fascists have been fixated on the concept of national superiority. However, to them, this does not include an ever-expanding middle-class population that is achieving ever-greater prosperity and enjoying longer and healthier lives. When a country starts on monumental projects like erecting Mount Rushmore or the Panama Canal, it is considered to be a national grandeur.

However, national greatness is not the same as personal greatness, family and corporate grandeur, or even the greatness of a particular occupation. Quite the opposite. If you want it, you'll have to be taxed, your money's worth reduced, your privacy compromised, and your well-being harmed. Government, in this perspective, must make us great.

Although it is unfortunate, this type of policy has a better shot at being implemented in the political arena than traditional socialism. Fascism, unlike socialism, does not want to nationalize private property. As a result, the economy is not immediately brought to its knees. Fascism also opposes efforts to achieve income equality. Abolishing marriage or the nationalization of children has not been discussed.
It doesn't matter how much we think we're free; we are all just one step away from Guantanamo.

Religion isn't outlawed; rather, it's turned into a political weapon. Fascism was significantly more politically adept than communism in this regard throughout the Nazi regime. It combined religion and government into a one package, urging people to worship God via the use of the state as a middleman.

Fascism preserves society as we know it, but a powerful governmental machinery rules over it. Fascism, on the other hand, was clearly nationalist, unlike conventional socialist doctrine. It welcomed and lauded the nation-state as a supreme ideal.

To put it another way, fascism doesn't want to take away the wealth of the wealthy from the bourgeoisie. When it comes to benefits, the middle class receives social insurance, medical insurance, and big doses of national pride in return.

Fascism takes on a right-wing slant because of all these causes. Isn't an attack on the fundamentals of the bourgeoisie. All-around national economic, political, and geographic control, as well as censorship and cartelization are used to gain support for a democratically-backed all-around national regimentation.

On the other hand, I have no difficulty labeling the fascist agenda as right-wing even if it does fulfill some features of the left-wing dream. The most important issue here is its attraction to the general public and to the demographic groupings who are often drawn to right-wing political ideology.

Right-wing statism is distinct from left-wing statism in color, character, and tone. Each one targets a distinct demographic of voters, each with their own unique set of concerns and ideals.

In the past we've seen how a left-wing socialist agenda can adapt itself and become a right-wing fascist one with little more than a tweak in its marketing.

Fascism's Eight Pillars of Policy

The irony that practically everyone else decided to dismiss what he witnessed infuriated John T. Flynn, as did other Old Right members. To combat authoritarian governments overseas, he argued, America has embraced those systems of rule at home—price controls;rationing;censorship; executive tyranny; and even concentration camps for whole populations thought to be untrustworthy in their allegiance to the state.

He concludes with a list of eight key characteristics of the fascist state after studying this long history.

My thoughts on the modern American central state will be made as I present them.

P1: The state is totalitarian because it recognizes no limitations on its authority.

Such a clear sign. According to this interpretation, the United States' political system is totalitarian. Most individuals would find this statement offensive. Those who aren't caught up in the state's web, on the other hand, are free to reject this description. A person who becomes such will rapidly learn that there are no boundaries to what the state may do. There are a variety of ways in which this might occur, including boarding a plane, driving about town, or getting into trouble with the authorities. If you don't comply, you will either be imprisoned or murdered. "This nation, created in liberty, has been stolen by the fascist state." Regardless of how much you feel that you are free, all of us today are only one step away from Guantanamo.

Throughout the 1990s, Clinton seemed to hint that his administration could not accomplish all of the goals he had set for it. The limitations of the law or the limitations of reality are no longer arguments that any government official has used to justify their actions. The government has a hand in every part of our lives, even if we don't realize it. All of our food, transportation, clothes, home items, and even intimate relationships are subject to regulation.

This was Mussolini's principle: "All inside the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state." Mussolini "The nature, functions, and purposes of the state are at the heart of the Fascist ideology," he stated. Fascism views people and groups as subordinate to the State.

In my opinion, this is the dominant political philosophy in the United States at the moment. The fascist state has abducted this nation, which was founded on freedom.

P2: Government is a kind of dictatorship since it is built on the principle of a leader.

This country doesn't have a one-man rule, but it does have a type of one-man rule over the entire country, which is a dictatorship. The concept of checks and balances has become a running joke in American politics due to the massive growth of the executive branch over the previous century. Civics class teaches students things that have no basis in reality.

The executive state is the state that we are familiar with, with everything emanating from the Oval Office. The courts' job is to carry out the executive's wishes. Legislators' job is to provide final approval to the executive branch's plans.

This executive isn't about the person who appears to be in command either. The office of president is only a façade, and presidential elections are nothing more than a series of tribal rites performed in order to lend legitimacy to the institution. There is no "democratic mandate" for the nation-state in reality. This is where we find the authority to impose rules on all parts of life, as well as the evil ability to generate the funds required to support this executive tyranny.

When it comes to the concept of leadership, there is no bigger fiction in American public life than the myth that the next president/messiah would bring in a new era of peace, equality, freedom, and universal human pleasure. In order to accept this thesis, one must suspend all skepticism about the nature of reality and accept that the whole fabric of society can be molded and manipulated by a single individual's will.

Despite this, many continue to do so. When Barack Obama was elected president, the expectation of a messiah was at an all-time high in the United States. We had into full-blown adulation mode for the greatest human being ever to have existed or would exist. It was a dreadful show, to say the least.

Electing a new president is another myth held by the majority of the populace in the United States. So much for logic, right? The Bush state was the Clinton state, the Clinton state was the Bush state, and the Bush state was the Reagan state. The Obama state is the Bush state. It's possible to track this all the way back to the 1970s and see overlapping appointments of bureaucrats, ambassadors, Federal Reserve officials, and the like. Because of death, there is a constant turnover of leadership positions.

P3: For the purposes of this discussion, the government administers a capitalist system with an enormous bureaucracy.

We've lived with the realities of bureaucratic administration since at least the New Deal, which was based on the World War I planning bureaucracy. Bureaucracy is a necessary component of any centrally planned economy, be it under Mussolini or today. The planning state's heart, lungs, and veins are bureaucracy. And yet, with a billion little changes, an economy as tightly regulated as the one we have now would be doomed to failure.
In policy debates, have you ever noticed how little attention is paid to the military budget?

In the short term, this does not always imply a decrease in economic activity. It does, however, mean that any growth that might have occurred in a free market is essentially halted.

What's going on with us? What happened to the promised peace dividend following the conclusion of the Cold War? Are we reaping the benefits of the incredible improvements in efficiency that modern technology has provided? The bureaucracy that oversees our every move on this planet has devoured it. The Federal Code is a hungry and insatiable beast that calls on thousands of entities to use the police authority to keep us from living free lives.

Because, as Bastiat noted, the actual cost of the state isn't just the tax dollars it spends, but also the wealth we don't get to enjoy, the opportunities we don't get to take advantage of, and the bright future we're denied. It's like a thief breaking into our house at night and stealing everything we own.

P4: Syndicalism-style cartelization of the production process occurs.

Usually, when we think of our existing economic system, we don't conceive of it as syndicalist. However, remember that syndicalism is a kind of economic democracy in which the producers take control of the economy. Capitalism is distinct from other forms of government. Because of market arrangements, customers have complete control. For syndicalists, then, the only question that remains is which producers will be afforded political power. Employees are one possible target, but the biggest firms may also be to blame.

It has been three years in the United States, and we've seen huge advantages granted to Wall Street banks and brokerage houses, pharmaceutical businesses, insurance companies, automobile manufacturers, and quasi-private mortgage companies. They've all banded together with the government to live like parasites on us.

Since the post-boom adjustment that markets would have dictated would have been prevented by this, it has cost the U.S. economy countless trillions of dollars and contributed to an economic downturn. In the guise of stimulation, the government has reinforced its syndicalist stranglehold.

P5: Autarky is the underlying premise of economic planning.

The term "autarky" refers to a state of economic independence or self-sufficiency. This mostly relates to the nation-economic state's independence. In order to maintain rapid economic growth for a big and rising population, the nation-state must be geographically large.

The foundation of fascist expansionism is based on this. The state will perish if it does not grow. As a result, the peculiar combination of protectionist pressure and militarism that we see today is likewise based on this ideology. In part, it is motivated by the desire to better manage resources.

"A real and successful antifascist coalition is the most important thing we can do right now," said the author.

Is it any wonder why we're seeing so many conflict zones? We'd be lying if we said these battles weren't at least somewhat driven by the oil industry's producer interests. As a general rule, the United States promotes dollar dominance.

The proposed North American Union is a direct result of this.

Instead of a world of peaceful trade, national self-sufficiency is the objective. Consider, too, the Republican ticket's pro-protection inclinations. Except for Ron Paul, there isn't a single Republican who truly favors free trade as it is traditionally defined.

Imperialism has been a favorite kind of statism for the capitalists for millennia. Rather than being exposed for what it is, Bush's post-9/11 campaign for the global empire has been presented as patriotism and love of country rather than as an attempt to steal people's freedom and property for the advantage of politicians.

P6: Government spending and borrowing keep the economy going.

Because it's no longer a secret, there's no need to elaborate. stimulus 3 will need a new name because stimulus 1 and stimulus 2 have been so thoroughly debunked. The American Jobs Act, if you will.

In a prime-time address, Obama used some of the most ridiculous economic analyses I've ever heard to support this scheme. When schools, bridges, and infrastructure are in need of repair, why are so many people out of work? He made it a point to coordinate supply and demand in order to place people in positions of need with available positions.

Hello? The state is responsible for the construction and upkeep of all of Obama's mentioned infrastructure, including schools, bridges, and roads. That's why they're deteriorating so quickly. People are unemployed because the government has raised the cost of hiring them. It isn't difficult. In the same way that you can't desire for water to flow upwards, you can't want for boulders to float in the air. It's a rejection of reality, in other words.

He went on to invoke the Nazi thirst for national glory, though. To become an economic powerhouse, "building a world-class transportation infrastructure" is part of the equation, he added. His next question: "Are we just going to sit back and let China develop more airports and quicker railroads?" he questioned rhetorically.

Yes, it is the solution to your inquiry. That isn't all, either. If a Chinese individual travels on a quicker train than we do, it doesn't damage a soul in the United States. It is a call to nationalist frenzy to assert otherwise.

As for the remainder of the plan, Obama pledged yet another long list of expenditures. Only in the United States have we spent, borrowed and produced more phony money than any other government in the world's history. As long as the United States does not meet this definition, no government has ever done so.

All of this is only feasible because of the Federal Reserve, the world's largest lender. Fiscal policy in the United States would be impossible without this organization. Without this organization, the national debt could not rise at the rate of $4 billion each day.

All of this irrational expenditure would be curtailed by a return to the gold standard. We'd be looking at a rating significantly lower than A+ if US debt were placed on the market with a default premium.

P7. Government expenditure relies heavily on militarism.

When it comes to policy discussions, the military budget is almost never brought up. The amount of money spent by the United States exceeds that of the rest of the globe put together.

And yet, according to our politicians, the United States is a little commercial republic that longs for peace but is continually threatened by the rest of the globe. Those who advocate for us to believe that we are all vulnerable and exposed would like us to believe otherwise. It's all a horrible falsehood. Today's greatest danger to international peace comes courtesy of the United States, a military superpower with a worldwide reach.

US military spending is extremely frightening when compared to that of other countries. The US military spending is shown as a tower surrounded by little dwellings in a simple bar graph. China, the second-largest consumer of goods and services, spends only a tenth of what the United States does.

Where is the discussion on this policy? Where is the discussion? This cannot continue. Neither side questions the underlying assumption that the United States must be the world's deadliest country, threatening to wipe out everyone who does not comply if they do not get their way. Every reasonable person should view this as a financial and moral outrage.

It's not just the military, the contractors, or the CIA assassination squads that are at fault here. It's also about the militarization of the police at all levels. This applies to all law enforcement personnel, including municipal and state officers, as well as crossing guards. The thuggish, trigger-happy commissar attitude has permeated society at large.

It is not difficult to observe atrocities. Try entering the United States from Canada or Mexico and see what happens. The jackbooted goons in bulletproof vests and heavy weapons are causing havoc as they run their dogs around the streets, searching individuals at random, harassing the unwary, and poking fun at the defenseless.

Entering this state gives the sense of a police state. That's a good first impression.

Nevertheless, for the average person, the solution to every societal problem appears to be more prisons, longer sentences, increased enforcement, increased arbitrary power, increased crackdowns, increased capital penalties, and increased authority; What's the point of it all? What if the end comes before we grasp what's been done to our once-liberated nation?

P8: Military spending serves imperialist interests.

Ronald Reagan once said that maintaining world peace necessitated a significant increase in military spending. Since the 1980s, US foreign policy has demonstrated that this is incorrect. The United Governments has launched several wars against non-compliant countries, as well as the construction of new client states and colonies, since the end of World War II.

The peace that has resulted from the United States' military might is the exact reverse of what was intended. As a result, the United States has been viewed as a danger by the majority of the world's population, leading to unjust conflicts in several nations. at the Nuremberg trials, wars of aggression were classified as crimes against humanity

This was meant to be Obama's final act. All of his fans, however, felt that he had made a vow to do so. To the contrary, he has acted in such a way. Armed forces under his command have become larger and more entrenched, and new conflicts have been initiated. It's more accurate to say that he's presided over a state of war that rivals any in history. This time, though, the Left is no longer critical of the United States' global position. When it comes to the warmongers and the military-industrial complex, Obama is the finest thing to ever happen to them.

As for the Right in our nation, it was formerly opposed to military fascism of this type. All of that changed with the start of the Cold War. Murray Rothbard's underappreciated classic, The Betrayal of the American Right, lays bare the tragic ideological change that the Right was led into. Right-wingers adopted Bill Buckley's call for a domestic totalitarian bureaucracy to wage global wars in the cause of thwarting communism.

Right-wing Americans briefly returned to their noninterventionist origins after the conclusion of the Cold War. However, this was only a brief fling. There has been no serious reassessment of the American empire since George Bush the First revived the militarist impulse with the first war on Iraq. Today, Republicans get their loudest plaudits by focusing on foreign concerns, but they never emphasize that the true threat to American well-being is in the Beltway.

What's Next?

A genuine and successful antifascist cooperation is the most important thing we can do right now, in my opinion. One is already developing in a number of different ways.. We don't have a formal relationship. People who oppose the Federal Reserve, who refuse to support fascist policies, who advocate decentralization, lower taxes, and free trade, as well as those who want the freedom to do business with whomever they choose and on their own terms, as well as those who believe that parents should be able to educate their children on their own, make up this movement.

It is also made up of the millions of entrepreneurs who have discovered that the institution that professes to be our largest benefactor: the government, is the number one danger to their capacity to serve others through the commercial sector.

Is there a large number of persons in this category? It's more than we've figured out. The movement has a scholarly bent. It's a political issue, no doubt about it. It's a matter of perspective. It's a product of modern technology. Everyone from all walks of life is represented. As of now, this is no longer a nationwide protest. In other words, it's a worldwide phenomenon.

As a result, we are no longer able to forecast if our members are left-wing, right-wing, libertarian, anarchist, or any other ideology. It comprises a wide range of parents, from suburban homeschoolers to city dwellers whose children are among the 2.3 million inmates incarcerated in the country with the world's highest prison population.

And what are the aspirations of this movement? Sweet freedom is all you need. In other words, it doesn't beg for or demand that the freedom be provided to the reader. Freedom from the Leviathan state, which robs, badgers, jails, and murders us, is all that is being asked of our movement.

This movement is not going anywhere. Evidence for its correctness and accuracy surrounds us every day. We're becoming increasingly aware that the state does nothing to improve our well-being, but instead dramatically detracts from it.

Partisans of the state were bursting with ideas in the 1930s and even into the 1980s. Their ideas and goals were supported by a large number of intellectuals. They were ecstatic about the new world they were creating. In addition to ending business cycles and bringing about social progress, they would also develop the middle class and cure sickness. Fascism had faith in its own power.

This isn't the case anymore. No fresh ideas, major initiatives, and even the adherents of Fascism do not believe it can achieve its goals. Fascists are discouraged and conscious that their objective lacks logical foundation since the reality created by the private sector is so much more beneficial and beautiful than anything the state has done.

As more and more people realize that statism does not and cannot function, it becomes more and more accepted. The grand falsehood is one of inertia and inertia alone. Statism does exactly the opposite of what it claims to do. Fear, poverty, violence, and death have replaced the security, prosperity, and peace it promised. We must create our own future if we are to have one. We can't get it from the Nazi government. It, on the other hand, obstructs.

Classical liberalism's romanticism with the concept of a small state seems to have faded, as well. Young people today are far more inclined to accept a concept that was considered unimaginable just 50 years ago: the idea that society is better off with no state at all.
To put it another way, we have a choice: complete state or complete freedom.

I consider the growth of anarcho-capitalist theory to be the most significant intellectual development of my adult life. There is no longer a belief that a state's role is only to keep an eye on the most basic rights, settle conflicts, and safeguard freedoms.

This perspective is utterly devoid of any basis in reality. The night watchman is the one in charge of keeping an eye on things, the one with the firearms and the authority to use force if necessary. Who's keeping an eye on him? Does anyone have any say in this? Because he has no one to blame but himself for society's most serious problems, he is the root of all evil. Nothing, not even a constitution or an election, can restrain his authority.

The night watchman, in fact, has seized entire authority. Flynn characterizes the whole state as a government that "possesses the ability to enact any legislation or adopt any step that looks suitable." The government is considered totalitarian if it has "the capacity to do anything without any limits on its powers," according to him. "It has complete control."

No longer are we in a position to ignore it. Taking away the night watchman's authority and distributing it throughout the entire community is the only way to ensure that the material world's benefits continue to flow to us.

In the end, we have just two options: a totalitarian state or complete freedom. The choice is ours. If we continue to rely on the state, we will continue to decline and finally lose everything we value as a society. Human cooperation can be harnessed to help us build a better world if we choose freedom over slavery.

There is no need to be pessimistic in the struggle against fascism. With every ounce of faith that we own the future, we must keep fighting.

Their entire world is crumbling around them. Ours is still under construction.

They live in a world founded on faulty beliefs. Freedom and realism are at the heart of ours.

Their world can only remember the good old days. In our minds, the future we are creating is bright.

In their world, the nation-state is dead and buried. This enormous and noble aim of developing a prosperous civilization through peaceful human collaboration calls on the energy and imagination of everyone in the planet.

True, they have the most powerful weapons. In Iraq or Afghanistan, or anywhere else on the earth, the use of heavy weapons hasn't guaranteed a long-term triumph.

The only weapon that is genuinely indestructible is the proper concept that we hold. Victory will come from this.

As Ludwig von Mises once put it,

"Even the most violent and cruel administrations can't stand a chance against ideas in the long run. The tyrant's foot will be taken out from under him when the majority-supported ideology finally wins out. Many of the enslaved people will then rise up in revolt and defeat their oppressors."

This presentation was given on October 1st, 2011 in Phoenix, Arizona, at the Doug Casey conference "When Money Dies."

Follow us on Google News