Fascism.
(media.greatawakening.win)
Comments (12)
sorted by:
IG Farben and the rest of the Germanic great families helped put Hitler into power.
JP Morgan and others attempted to put Smedley Butler in power here, in the US, at the exact same time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot
They failed because they didn't account for the fact that Smedley Butler was a Patriot.
I can't help but smile when I see the resemblance between Gen. Butler and Gen. Flynn.
IG Farben only bankrolled the Nazis once Hitler was already Chancellor and Goering was the reichtstag president and they started to throw some protection racquet energy about. Yes, the companies were greedy but the Nazi top brass weren't above using mob tactics either. And IG Farben was a predominantly Jewish company, so on shaky ground with the Nazis and they knew it. Their Jewish board was eventually replaced with Nazi puppets.
Smedley Butlers situation is a weird one to equate with Michael Flynn. Banks didn't like that a democratic president was bringing in banking regulations and ushering in an era of socialist reforms. Butler was a socialist. I don't think General Flynn would appreciate being likened to a socialist, but that's just my take.
Revolutionary France would be considered Fascist. The futurist manifesto of 1909 is considered fascist, so Mussolini did not invent it. One of the defining behaviours of fascist states has been to strongly control and regiment the economy and corporations, there is no alliance. If anything, corporations currently lead the government.
Fascism was invented by Mussolini (and Gentile). This post oversimplifies what fascism is.
Fascism is socialism with a national identity. Marx said the working man has no country. Mussolini disagreed (wanting to have a standing military to protect Italy's culture and religion from being assimilated into a global state like Marx called for), other than that fascism and socialism are practically identical. Mussolini was even a member of the communist party.
Well, if you're talking about just the word, fascism, that's still off the mark about Mussolini. But in terms of Conservative ultra nationalism and the style of governance that went with it, it had been around long before Mussolini or Gentile. There were communist and socialist parties in Italy early in Mussolini career and he was a socialist. He was even high in their ranks but got booted out. He didn't leave, they ejected him from the party because of his beliefs. Like the Nazis, Mussolini often co-opted socialist ideas to appeal to the masses, but what he was offering was populism. He was not at all egalitarian, he was just a wolf in sheep's clothing. Socialism and fascism did have ideas in common but they are very different, idealogically. Neither have proven to be great for a country. What really seems to work is the Nordic model of having free market capitalism but with a strong welfare state safety net. Although the nordic countries don't do this via 'socialism' as such, it can only happen due to wealth redistribution, a very socialist idea.
I am very well aware that Mussolini got booted out of the communist party. But the reason why he was booted out was because he wanted Italy to join the war. Again, Mussolini wanted Italy to fight for its sovereignty, which Marx did not believe in. Mussolini said as he was removed from the party: "I am a socialist and I will always be a socialist". Fascism is basically patriotic socialism.
Mussolini was not a conservative by any stretch of the imagination. Being an ultra nationalist does not make one automatically far right. Once you centrally plan an economy, nationalize industries and create a totalitarian government, you are not far right. I don't understand why people claim that the Nazis and fascists "used" socialist ideas to appeal to the masses... They didn't just claim to be socialist for political reasons... They were socialist. No, Mussolini was not an egalitarian but then again no socialist is.
The Nordic model only works because they outsource their defense costs to us so they can drop all their extra money on crappy free healthcare. That and the overall population of Nordic countries tends to be less than say California (just one U.S. state). Try to apply that system to a large country and it collapses. If America was to quit covering practically all costs of NATO, the welfare programs would disappear after the countries gradually start getting into wars with each other, something that has been happening in Europe for centuries until America and the USSR showed up post WW2 and told everybody to play nice.
The lame brain leftist governments in Scandinavia are hardly an ideal model of government and any claims that they represent real socialism are typical Marxist lies since real socialist governments have never succeeded. Wealth redistribution has no place in a capitalist economy and really only serves to make people dependent on the state. This is intended as an easy way for socialism to creep back into west. Remember the leftists/cabal play the long game. There is a reason the Nordic countries are importing tons of immigrants.
Mussolini was not a part of the communist party, he was part of the socialist party. By 1919, he was saying socialism was dead and people only believed in it to hold a grudge. But then, like I say, he was an opportunist and let's face it, not to be trusted. The Nazis, the falanges, the Italian fascists, the didn't nationalise industry, the were capitalist, on the face of it. They just ended up screwing industry over and taking everything they had to feed the party and individual ambition. Mussolini was Conservative, as far as he voters were concerned. He sided with the catholic Church to implement strictly Conservative education and family policies (because he wanted to build an army and he needed a brainwashed youth and increased birthrate) and Conservative working rights and trade union policies to maintain hierarchical systems so people would fight in his dream war.
Of the 5 nordic nations, only 2 are part of NATO, so that is incorrect. As a percentage defending America costs NATO more than they contribute, so America being part of NATO represents a net loss for the alliance. NATO also oversees certain regards of Arms trade, from which America is the only beneficiary. Its not perfect, but it is a good deal for America, overall.
While communism and socialism are different (though both still are socialist in nature) the terms are often used interchangeably when I refer to "the communist party" I refer to the socialist party of Italy.
Read the Nazi 25 point plan, they nationalized industry. As far as Italy goes, corporatism was the name of the game and corporatism is a form of socialism. Even the most rudimentary research on fascist Italy will show that they not only advocated Marxist economics but practiced them as well. Fascists are syndicalists. Syndicalism is not a right wing or conservative ideology, as it calls for seizing the means of production ane giving it to labor unions. If we want to be perfectly clear, the Nazis were national socialists, the Italians were national syndicalists.
I'll agree that Mussolini used the church and institutions to push for a higher birth rate and brainwashing, but I would be skeptical of calling their education conservative or right wing.
From Wikipedia (a left leaning source btw): The fascists in Italy followed Karl Marx's admonition that a nation required "full maturation of capitalism as the precondition for socialist realization". Under this interpretation, especially as expounded by Sergio Panunzio, a major theoretician of Italian fascism, "[s]yndicalists were productivists, rather than distributionists". Fascist intellectuals were determined to foster economic development to enable a syndicalist economy to "attain its productive maximum", which they identified as crucial to "socialist revolution".
Mussolini said socialism was dead because he knew Italy would never go down the path of textbook socialism, largely because nobody in the socialist party aside from him had the drive or the intellect to make revolution. He said that socialism was dead the SAME YEAR he started up the Fascio. Mussolini agreed with almost everything about socialism, but he knew that a unified national identity (Italy against the world) was the way to go, not an international socialist governmentt divided by class. A rose by any other name is still a rose. Mussolini used socialist economics and socialist government, of course he would call it obsolete because (in his mind) he had made socialism obsolete with fascism.
I did not just mean NATO only, fact is by America defending the free world, smaller countries such as the Nordic countries hailed as socialist, don't need large militaries and can put their funds elsewhere.
Communism and socialism are very different. They're not interchangeable.
The Nazis may have promised to nationalise industry, but once in power, they privatised pretty much everything. From utilities to rail to chemical industry and on and on it went.
Mussolini implemented a corporate state. He may have promised syndicalism, he even supported a few strikes, but in the end, he shafted everyone. Especially the workers. He took all took all the money from the church, banks and industry and pissed it up the wall on his daft ambitions. He tried to sell that to his people that to work, gave you the same title as a king. But only he was Il Duce and they were poor and at war. The weren't happy and they strung him up to show it eventually. So much for his unified national identity.
I don't get your point on the fascists and Marx. It will take capitalism reaching its zenith to collapse capitalism. And yet, they pushed capitalism. They used socialism as a lure but...?
If America goes to war, any war, it has the support of NATO, thems the rules. So America can't defend the free world without them. The two things are inextricably linked.
Americas budget on internal defence spending, maintenance of the forces, arms spending, research and development however is large. Suspiciously large. Probably grossly over inflated. So that's a grift on the people, imo.
I would like to ask, as you seem like a person with some solid knowledge and a good handle on things, where to start looking properly on my new journey into this mystery.
I'm obviously new here but I've read about Q and feel I know enough to make me very intrigued and want to know more. Honestly though, I was advised by a friend to come to this site for more in depth info but I'm out of my depth here, everyone knows so much more than me. Where should someone with a bit of knowledge but not a ton, go looking for a good grounding on the theories?
Any tips on who to follow, watch, read, all gratefully taken and appreciated.
And as of 2020, America and Germany are equal contributers to the overall NATO budget, 16% each. No doubt only because Trump put the thumb screws on.
A bit of an oversimplification but yeah, the bones are there