Reflections From a Murky Pond

You hear the word fascism shouted out by Liberals and Progressives – and the “lamestream” media. It’s mostly used as a tired and dog-eared pejorative against Americans, who stand firmly against the anti-American and often race-based, Leftist ideology promulgated by these sorts.

The ironic part of this is that the Left are the ones supporting a historic Fascist precursor.

What these Leftists either conveniently forget or willfully ignore is the very simple fact that Fascism as a socio-economic model is firmly rooted upon Syndicalism, something that they rampantly and stridently endorse.

While Syndicalism may have started as Anarcho-Syndicalism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries and was a movement meant to destroy both the corporate structures and the State, this revolutionary movement was defeated and proven untenable. The State proved too necessary and too powerful to be supplanted in developed nations with strong interactions and agreements with other nations.

What rose up to replace Anarcho-Syndicalism was National Syndicalism, which sought to supplant or suborn the State actors while maintaining the original political framework of the nation.

This directly led to the rise of Labor Syndicates as power bases in European countries and the regimes of: Francisco Franco in Spain, Benito Mussolini in Italy, and finally Adolf Hitler in Germany.

Does this mean that the rise of labor unions and their entrenchment in the State always results in Fascism? No; of course not. It has, however, regularly, if not universally, done so in the past. Hence, the Liberals and Progressives are vociferously supporting the precursor behaviors of the very thing – Fascism – that they so often accuse Americans are supporting.

Related Reading:

It seems that the unelected, embattled, racist who currently fouls the New York State Executive Mansion in Albany, NY, David Paterson has an image problem. People keep referring to him by his first name instead of showing the “proper obeisance” and calling him by the unearned title of “Governor.”

It seems that, no matter what venue he is in, people keep referring to him as, “David,” though many quickly “correct” themselves afterward. Many just do not view Mr. Paterson as an especially elevated or intimidating figure.

This is something that bothers the political operatives that the DNC has provided to Paterson.

Being called David can undercut that improvement, and undermine his perceived authority. “I rarely hear the word governor. I always hear David,” said George Arzt, a campaign strategist who advises Democratic candidates in New York. “On the one hand, it’s charming, in a campaign sort of way, that he’s one of the people. On the other hand, it shows he’s not feared.”

What is important in Arzt’s lament is the use of “fear” instead of “respect.” Paterson’s campaign strategists have surrendered any thought of- or desire for the wildly unpopular Paterson to be respected by the people of New York; they’re wishing for him to be feared instead.

A man worthy of being called such desires respect, both for himself and for those things he supports.  A thug, deserving and having no respect for itself or its own agenda, desires to be feared.

It’s also a risky strategy. Americans aren’t cowards and have a tendency to rightfully “remove” things that cause them or their families fear. Paterson is blind; he’d never see the bullet.

Yet – the misbegotten mockery of mankind, Paterson, aside – isn’t such an attitude as George Arzt’s both indicative and typical of the attitude of the new misborn breed of Liberal that has usurped control of the Democrat party both in New York and across our beleaguered nation?

To govern a people requires mutual respect. But Americans have already seen that this new breed of Liberal – Statists who advance a diseased, anti-American, mongrel hybridization of Socialism and Italian Fascism – have little or no interest in governance; they desire to rule.

Related Reading: