The Campaign Against Diversity Of Thought
The term fascism has its origins in the ancient Roman Empire where the fasces was created as a symbol to represent the elitist ruling class and its many divers subordinates. The concept of this system was based on principles of collectivism. By using specific criteria to define members, a fascist movement determines to incorporate conforming members into one body under the control of an authoritarian ruling class with the objective of assimilating, eliminating, or bringing under subjugation all others.
Traditionally the identifying criteria to define members of a fascist entity has been based upon nationalism, imperialism, or race; nevertheless, physical attributes can be ignored and the operational principles of fascism may be put in application using a common ideology or religious belief to qualify members.
The accusation here is that the latter is being done presently by secularists and liberal elitists on a global scale. The result is a politically aggressive movement embracing a cosmopolitan ideology with aspirations for a collective authoritarian society. However, this movement is unique only in its outward manifestations.
Although not all of the views embraced by the Fascist Party of the 20th century are espoused by progressives today, their concepts of government structure are built upon the same architectural designs and they share a number of philosophies if only applied somewhat differently. Of all forms of government historically speaking, the form presently proposed and propagated by modern liberal progressives is fascism.
Ideofascism
While the actions of progressive liberals today are not a direct comparison to atrocities committed by twentieth century fascists, both ideologies were built upon a shared foundation of common philosophies. While it is true that the structures built upon that foundation differ, many differences are cosmetic, for when both philosophies are deconstructed, there are many more similarities than actual differences between the two.
The principle thing all fascists have in common is that they are based upon a theoretical praxis of socialism, which regardless of its form or intentions will tend only to oppression and destruction. The Nazis destroyed deliberately as a means to achieve their goals, but for liberal elitists, destructive results are often merely the consequences of their liberalism along the way–that is the nature of it. Neither be not deceived, progressive elitists work on both sides of the political aisle.
All fascist movements, ancient or modern, are built around an arrogant nucleus of imagined superiority. This makes fascism a mass movement of narcissism which builds momentum by generating fanaticism for a “superior” cause. As fascist movements achieves power, there is a tendency for the more extreme elements to seize control. As this happens the movement becomes increasingly megalomaniacal and there is an intense determination to establish, expand, and protect their “omnipotence” by quashing all resistance.
This makes all fascist movements the same with some exceptions as to outward appearances and the means they propose to use to carry out their ambitions. Regardless, however fascism frames itself or proposes to achieve its goals, the final outcome will remain a constant.
Although fascist movements consist of many members, they take on the identity of a single collective body. It is accepted that all actions are legitimate if they work for the greater common good of the body. Even atrocities are justified as a necessary evil if they strengthen or benefit the cause; for it is the end, not the means that carries weight in judgment.
There are millions of people who have and millions more who are destine to suffer and die under collective totalitarian rulers. It matters not if they are parading as fascist, socialist, communist, or religionist. Collectivists come to the masquerade in many costumes; but regardless of how they are dressed when they arrive, as they attain absolute authority, their collectivism will only tend to tyranny and at some point the mask will come off.
The term fascism has long been muddied and is often narrowly defined by liberals, who in order to obscure the glaring similarities to their own philosophies, will only associate fascism with right-wing extremism. The truth is, the definition is broad, and extremism to the right or left tends to fascism. Indeed, the more extreme they both become, the more they are alike. There is a phony dichotomy between fascism and communism, for a careful analysis shows they are merely two species of the same beast–both being forms of collectivism. maintaining. Moreover, whatever variations do exist between them in their manifestos and methodology, most of their goals, and in particular the results they produce will hardly differ, if at all.
As stated earlier, fascism is not a recent phenomenon appearing in the 20th century; it existed in practice long before the term was given it at that time by Benito Mussolini. Although both Hitler and Mussolini were anti-communist, Mussolini was originally a devout Marxist before founding the Fascist Party and he incorporated many of Karl Marx’s ideas into his philosophies of fascism. Likewise, Adolf Hitler whose fascism was inspired by Mussolini’s stated, “National Socialism is Marxism made workable.“ Therefore the true rift between communism and fascism in the 20th century was a power struggle between two collectivists rather than a clash of opposites.
It should also be noted that the principles of collectivism which Mussolini and Hitler embraced are much more in the vein of modern liberalism than conservatism. Absent doctrines of white supremacy, an outline of Hitler’s or Mussolini’s manifestos will by far resemble the tenets of big government liberals more than the principles embraced by libertarians or conservatives.
Mussolini, believing that Hitler would conquer Europe, pragmatically decided it in his best interest to align himself with him – But apart from the prospects of Hitler’s success in Europe, a common thread which helped to bring the two together was a shared dream of a global state through the resurrection of the Ancient Roman Empire. Mussolini envisioned his people in a place of power and dominion, assuming the place of their ancestors. Likewise, Hitler’s inspiration for the Third Reich was based upon a vision of the re-establishment and continuation of the First Reich, specifically, The Holy Roman Empire.
The Fasces
Although the term “fascist” has been distorted, once one understands the concept of the fasces the term becomes less murky and the false dichotomy separating it from other forms of collectivism is exposed. Long before Mussolini espoused fascism, the Roman Empire existed as a fascist state. The term “fascist” itself originated from the fasces which were the ancient Roman symbol representing the power of the state. The fasces were comprised of many rods which were bundled around an axe and bound by cords. The rods and axe together symbolized many diverse groups united and bound to a supreme authority as one. This symbol was revived to represent the Fascist Party during the twentieth century.
Unity by itself is not fascism but becomes so when control is placed under a centralized authoritarian which determines to purge out or suppress all nonconformity and resistance. Like the rods of the fasces, fascism today also consists of many social groups and organizations which unite as one in seeking the establishment of a universal authoritarian to empower their agendas and suppress their opponents. These global networks of various groups, many in the form of NGOs and PVOs represent almost innumerable causes such as environmental, humanitarian, animal rights, civil rights, and gay rights just to name a few. By disguising themselves in a cause that evokes sympathy, and by consolidating forces, they infect the body politic to establish an authoritarian rule which will sympathize with and empower their cause. The fasces as a symbol may or may not have out lived its usefulness, but as a concept it is ever present.
Defining Criteria
When fascism emphasizes physical attributes such as genetics, race, or nationality, it creates boundaries and limitations which restricts its growth and creates natural adversaries. Modern liberal fascism removes these boundaries by replacing nationalism with internationalism, thus creating a multicultural nation with ideological boundaries. There should be no doubt that people should be judged by their ideology combined with their actions, however, when persecution is legislated based on ideology alone – merely because it is contrary – ideofascism presents itself.
To the practitioners of ideofascism, those in opposition to their ideology and global agenda become their devil. In terms of characterization they receive much of the same treatment as the Jewish people have by anti-Semites, or as blacks who lived during the Jim Crow era. Beliefs in opposition to modern liberalism are not given serious consideration, and those who hold them, rather than being treated as equals of a different persuasion, are mocked, belittled, and ridiculed. They are also cast as being intellectually inferior, stupid, out of date, out of touch, or just plain evil. However, what characterizations should be expected coming from a nihilistic religion of narcissism whose chief fruit of the spirit is arrogance?
Modern ideofascists, as did their predecessors also, place their faith in the intellect. Intellectual elitism is at the center of their religion which they have built upon the foundations of evolution, eugenics, secular humanism, psychology, and pseudo-science. One of their major prophets of the last century was H.G. Wells who in his own words described himself as being a “liberal fascist.” Wells published over 100 books designed to promote social evolution and liberal worldviews, even laying out blueprints for a social revolution on a global scale. Modern day liberals, wittingly or unwittingly, labor to fulfill Wells’ prophesies. Just as Wells did, their dark fellowship also craves for a body of elitists to rule over humanity. But why not? They feel the most intelligent surely would be the most capable–taking it as a given that liberal intellectuals by nature are more ethical and humane than others. Either that or they lightly esteem moral character as at best a secondary attribute.
H.G. Wells called his idea of how to overthrow present systems, values, and traditions, and supplant them with a one world government “The Open Conspiracy” . In 1928 he published a book by that name. This was followed by another book published in 1940 entitled “The New World Order”, a term which he popularized. Liberal elitists in the same vein of thought today have fulfilled much of what Wells envisioned, only making adaptations as needed to conform to the times. However, Wells would likely be disgusted by the crassness of nature that his envisioned culture war has taken on, as well, its reactionary emotionalism which has replaced critical thought.
The Synthesis
If indeed the world is to be made subject to universal laws and standards, appearances of discrimination based upon race or nationality must be removed. This however, will not end discrimination or persecution, for discrimination against dissidents is necessary to achieve unity. Furthermore, dissidents in a global society cannot be exiled or migrate away from international law. Therefore, universal agreement is achieved by suppression of contrary ideas and beliefs. We are told to celebrate diversity, but as the word itself suggest, diversity divides. We are one only when we are one in name, thought, and heart, and this can be a good thing when freewill is involved. However, when thoughts are monitored by speech, and conformity of thought becomes mandatory, this is ideofascism.
In any fascist society freedom of speech will be subject to regulations and controls. Due to laws prohibiting the infringement of free speech, this is more difficult to impose upon free societies. In such cases, it is necessary that major media and communication outlets are owned or controlled by those who are like-minded and able to suppress or manipulate the information that society has access to. Society is then saturated with a specific worldview, while any opposition is marginalized, demonized, censored, or ignored. Hence, you may have the right to speak; you do not have the right to be heard. The marriage of a monolithic media to a specific ideology and agenda is a threat to all.
In order to control society, the control of media alone is not enough. It is imperative to have those who share the same vision in every place of power possible. To achieve this, there is a great effort to consolidate and control major corporations, banking, labor unions, and non-governmental organizations, but above all, education. The objective is to establish one mind among those who do, or will have, any significant amount of power or influence in the future. The aim is not to seek competing ideas for debate to see which ones hold up, but to eliminate conflicting veins of thought altogether for the sake of harmony. This is done to the end that society can be managed and controlled with as little resistance possible. When all institutions and organizations are under sufficient control, they will all submit to strict governmental authority.
The Cosmopolitan Übermensch
In the mind of the liberal ideofascist the neo-master race is not one of genetics or ethnicity; it is comprised of cosmopolitans who along with their elitist leaders share the same DNA of a universal mindset. You are considered an Übermensch and declared to be a part of this enlightened master-race by acceptance of the prevailing ideas as established by recognized elitists and liberal intellectuals.
Of course they will not use such terminology as the afore mentioned to refer to themselves; they will instead use terms such as educated or enlightened, and it is to this end that modern education is directed.
Surrogate Negroes and Jews
Those deemed sub-humans by fascists in the past were often deemed inferior due to their genetics or race. While fascists of the past considered Negroes to be intellectually inferior and lacking in mental capacity, the Jewish people were depicted as intelligent but having intrinsic defects in their nature that made them inherently evil.
Today the opponents of liberal elitism are categorized the same way. They are both belittled and ridiculed as being stupid and ignorant, or if they excell, they are accused of being evil. No longer need you be black or Jewish to be viewed or treated as they were by fascists. This can now be achieved by merely opposing the ideology of modern liberalism.
Eric Hoffer commenting on the nature of mass movements stated that they could exist without a God to drive them but not without a devil. It is therefore imperative that all fascist movements, past and present, have a designated devil to drive their cause.
Whatever the adversary, be it a nation, race, religion, or ideology, fascism uses marketing techniques to sell a disparaging image in order to demonize those whom they seek to dispossess or subjugate. The presentation of a false characterization must be constant if it is to sell as it did during the previous rise of fascism during the 1930‘s. (Enter main stream media)
Egocentric Elitism
The narcissistic nucleus of intellectual elitism which spawned Nazism still exists, but it can no longer thrive in that past form made naked by its atrocities. It still strives to establish a supreme culture controlled by an authoritarian state, but remains ever mutating as a virus must in order to survive and spread.
Although modern elitism morphs fascism to adapt to the present, its course still must in many ways run parallel with actions and occurrences which took place during the reign of former fascists. Dogma is subject to change but the religious belief and worship of the intellectual as the supreme being is invariable.
Today the intellectual establishment is hailed by liberals as the savior of the world and its elite thinkers and leaders are revered as its prophets and messiahs. They come bearing a message of condemnation for traditional beliefs, moral values, and establishments. They also prophesy of impending doom and destruction upon the environment and all of civilization unless the earth’s inhabitants awaken, repent, believe, and convert to the gospel according to progressivism. The liberal agenda is the only hope of salvation.
In order to create the God-State, it is a prerequisite that present establishments and traditional ideas be removed. In their place they offer a Utopian vision of an advanced global society where peace and equality prevail. It is noteworthy that both, their prophesies and promises of a coming kingdom, in many ways mirror those put forth by fascists of the older order. Their modus operandi also resembles that used in the past, albeit in modern times operations are carried out using a soft approach, subtly invoking sympathies and exploiting emotions. (Enter the effeminate activists)
The effemination of fascism
There is much to be written about the attack on the male role model in society, especially that of the white male, however, here the primary focus will be on the effeminate character of the progressive movement itself; for the main way in which fascism has changed is by adopting an effeminate approach to politics and propagating itself.
Fascism in the twentieth century appeared as masculine entity seeking to bring about change through brute force and coercion. The impregnation of civilization by rape it would give birth to their vision, and undesirables would be aborted. These intentions and end goals envisioned by fascists of the old order were in their view good. However, their atrocious and unconscionable deeds would become the standard by which all future acts of evil would be measured. Only by the most barbaric cultures today are the atrocities of Nazism and fascism condoned and celebrated.
By contrast, today in western societies many of those now holding totalitarian philosophies similar to past fascists, strongly disavow and condemn their predecessors. They prefer not to rape society as there forebears, but rather, seduce the populous into consent and induce pregnancy by artificial insemination. They cannot recognize the many similarities in thought which they share with yesterday’s masters of infamy. Indeed, instead they are likely to project the despicable image of yesterday’s fascists onto their opponents, often accusing and condemning them for the very things they themselves are presently guilty of.
One difference that would seem to exist between old world fascism and modern fascism is that the latter seems to hold great disdain for the military. This would seem somewhat of a departure in policy. It may not be. Before Mussolini achieved power he spoke of his disdain for the military and spent several years of exile in Switzerland because, as a confirmed pacifist, he refused to undergo military training. On the other hand, after Mussolini came to power, he praised changed by use of military force. Another example is H.G. Wells who despised the military as well. He wrote often of his abhorrence for it; however, he also spoke of the need for force to impose and maintain a global system of government. One might then ask if fascists are only pacifists when they are out of power.
It is not that the essence of fascism has changed; it may be that had Hitler believed he could achieve his goals by peace, he would have pursued it. The policies and the face of fascism changed due to their failure of success. Fascists of the past used force to achieve their ambitions. After having been defeated by force, fascism has now lost its power to impose itself by force. If fascism today were to attempt to use violence, it might be easily identified as fascism and lose effectiveness at the political level. Therefore, force is used very carefully. But finesse can only take one so far.
One should not think that because liberal fascists fear force they will not resort to force in the future if they find themselves firmly in power. Until such a time as they feel secure however, they will seek other avenues. They will not venture such great a defeat again. Modern liberal fascists, being insecure will therefore seek to gain power through craft, appeasement, and condemning the use of force until they feel certain they are in full control. (Enter the anti-war movement)
Not only do radical liberals use the soft approach of appeasement when confronting external threats, they also engage in soft revolution internally. Unlike the bloody uprisings of the past, their approach to overthrow is through a gradual undermining of traditions, morals, and foundational beliefs. By use of social engineering in place of violent revolt the progressive movement works in incremental steps through education, entertainment, and media communications to indoctrinate society. Likewise, in the judicial system activist judges legislate from the bench to give public perceptions of authority to their usurpation of powers. Along with corrupt politicians and other change-agents within the government, they labor together to undermine constitutional laws with the backing of financial giants and internationalist who lobby for liberal social policies and promote leftist agendas which weaken the nation.
Modern liberalism is merely transgendered fascism. By forsaking a masculine approach to embody an effeminate nature, liberalism creates the appearance of a compassionate movement in the pursuit of world peace for the benefit of all mankind. In actuality it is an attempt to seduce and manipulate the world’s populations for their own benefit and pleasure.
For the time being, modern liberals have chosen the seduction of the world through emotion and appeasement rather than conquest by brute force – finding political prostitution more practical than the brutal rape of society. However, in all likelihood, the more power liberal fascism obtains, the crueler it will become and the more vehemently it will exert itself. Once in power, if it continues to prosper, it will in its own way eventually become like the old fascism we thought had virtually passed away.
Multicultural fascism
One attraction to modern fascism is its narcissistic Utopian allurement which extends not just to a particular race or nation but is universally adaptable to all people who will adhere to it. It has a broader appeal than ethnic, religious, or national fascism and therefore is more dangerous in that it has a greater potential of dissemination than any fascism before it, for it finds fewer opponents and is already accepted by millions world wide.
By wrapping itself in a cloak of goodwill and proclaiming a universal hope for all of humanity, multicultural fascism with its narcissistic appeal is more marketable to the modern world.
It still cannot go without saying that anytime a great empire comes to power, dissent will grow. When dissent reaches the level where the state feels threatened it will eventually impose a “final solution.” At that point the state will attempt to legislate and enforce a universal conscience upon society. Nonconformist will be cast as intolerant, hateful bigots and will not be tolerated.
H.G. Wells contended it was inevitable that there would be a socialist global system of government, which in order to establish a benevolent society would find it necessary to forcibly suppress nonconformists and dissenters. He implied this in his book entitled “The New World Order” (1939):
“… when the struggle seems to be drifting definitely towards a world social democracy, there may still be very great delays and disappointments before it becomes an efficient and beneficent world system. Countless people … will hate the new world order … and will die protesting against it. When we attempt to evaluate its promise, we have to bear in mind the distress of a generation or so of malcontents, many of them quite gallant and graceful-looking people.”
At the present time modern fascism advances using a soft touch while stressing compassion and celebrating the virtues of a multicultural effeminate global society, should it gain absolute power, will it keep that same soft touch, or will it become a tyrannical oppressor as cruel and brutal as any of those fascists before? In case you are wondering, history has already answered that question more than once.
R. A. Sprinkle
________________________________________________________________________
* Fascism: A Centralized autocratic government or belief system, or the ideology of proponents for such characterized by:
1. A centralized authority with absolute power to mandate severe economic and social regimentation along with enforceable suppression of all opposition.
2. Aspirations to conquer and consolidate all into a single collective body under a single ideology, law, and controlling authority, be it national, cosmopolitan, ethnic, political, secular, or religious.
