Tag Archive for: Fascism

The Deadly Sins of Socialism, Fascism, and Progressivism

Politics isn’t exempt from the allure of the deadly sins. Some political systems even magnify the allure…

The nineteenth-century philosopher Joseph de Maistre once wrote “Every nation gets the government it deserves.” This is true in a sense because, as Ludwig von Mises later wrote, “public opinion is ultimately responsible for the structure of government.” The beliefs and values of a people determine the institutions they embrace or accept.

The influence goes the other way, too. Different systems of government create different incentives. Some institutions foster virtue, while others foment vice.

Let’s consider some historically important political ideologies and the moral qualities they reflect and promote.

Socialism is, as Winston Churchill put it, “the gospel of envy.” A people afflicted with envy and resentment will gravitate toward socialism.

Psychologist Jordan B. Peterson discussed the connection between envy and Marxist socialism in particular:

“There is the dark side of it, which means everyone who has more than you got it by stealing it from you. And that really appeals to the Cain-like element of the human spirit. ‘Everyone who has more than me got it in a manner that was corrupt and that justifies not only my envy but my actions to level the field so to speak, and to look virtuous while doing it.’ There is a tremendous philosophy of resentment that I think is driven now by a very pathological anti-human ethos.”

Socialists are wrong to think that “leveling the field” will lift up the have-nots. But even if they are disabused of that economic error, envy may drive them to cling to socialism anyway, out of a malicious desire to harm the “haves.”

As Mises wrote of socialists:

“Resentment is at work when one so hates somebody for his more favorable circumstances that one is prepared to bear heavy losses if only the hated one might also come to harm. Many of those who attack capitalism know very well that their situation under any other economic system will be less favorable. Nevertheless, with full knowledge of this fact, they advocate a reform, e.g., socialism, because they hope that the rich, whom they envy, will also suffer under it.”

Just as envy advances socialism, socialism stimulates envy by inviting the masses to participate in “legal plunder” (as the French economist Frédéric Bastiat put it) of the rich and affluent.

In the twentieth century many countries fearfully turned to fascism to protect themselves from communism. Many in those countries believed that if communists and their ideas were violently suppressed, their revolution would be nipped in the bud. Fear turned to wrath, as anti-communist fascists violently cracked down on any dissent that might destabilize the state.

“The great danger threatening domestic policy from the side of Fascism,” as Mises wrote, “lies in its complete faith in the decisive power of violence.”

The wrath and violence of fascism is ultimately self-defeating.

“Repression by brute force,” Mises wrote, “is always a confession of the inability to make use of the better weapons of the intellect — better because they alone give promise of final success. This is the fundamental error from which Fascism suffers and which will ultimately cause its downfall.”

Wrath drives fascism, but fascism also stirs up wrath by fomenting tribalism and inviting members of society to use political violence to settle their differences.

Progressivism is alluring to those who imagine they can “optimize” people through social engineering. But, as Leonard E. Read illustrated in his classic essay “I, Pencil,” society is so vastly complex, that this is a pipe dream. To think one can centrally plan society, one must fancy themselves to have quasi-divine omniscience. In simple terms, progressivism is an ideology of excessive pride. As Sen. Ron Johnson put it:

“The arrogance of liberal progressives is that they’re just a lot smarter and better angels than the Stalins and the Chavezes and the Castros of the world, and if we give them all the control, and they control your life, they’re going to do a great job of it. Well, it just isn’t true.”

Progressives are incorrect in their assumption that they know how to run other people’s lives better than those people themselves. Even if they were hypothetically smarter and more ethical than any single member of the rest of society, they would still be wrong.

The amount of information any expert can handle at a given moment is infinitesimal in comparison to the sum of information all individuals have. Letting individuals be free to cooperate through the price system decentralizes the use of knowledge and actually results in more information being used than a centrally planned system of experts. As Friedrich Hayek explained:

“The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design. To the naïve mind that can conceive of order only as the product of deliberate arrangement, it may seem absurd that in complex conditions order, and adaptation to the unknown, can be achieved more effectively by decentralizing decisions and that a division of authority will actually extend the possibility of overall order. Yet that decentralization actually leads to more information being taken into account.”

Thus, the progressive’s faith in technocratic power stems from supreme epistemic arrogance.

“It is insolent,” Mises wrote, “to arrogate to oneself the right to overrule the plans of other people and to force them to submit to the plan of the planner.”

Progressivism not only stems from pride, but stimulates it, because overweening power tends to go to people’s heads.

Must we pick from among political systems that are afflicted by one vice or another? Thankfully not. There is a virtuous alternative: namely, classical liberalism. Whereas socialism, fascism, and progressivism are dominated by the “deadly sins” of envy, wrath, and pride, classical liberalism embodies the “capital virtues” of charity, temperance, and humility.

Where socialism is based on envy, classical liberalism fosters charity. Classical liberals believe in voluntary exchange of goods and services which provides avenues for philanthropy. One can only be charitable when there is a choice to donate or help others. Forced charity is not truly charitable, for there never was a choice, just as giving away something you don’t actually possess is not a sign of selflessness.

As Murray Rothbard wrote, “It is easy to be conspicuously compassionate when others are forced to pay the cost.”

Where fascism is wrathful, classical liberalism has temperance. Fascists see dissent and difference as dangerous. Classical liberals see peaceful debate and competition as the key to progress. Classical liberalism embodies temperance in the way it upholds the rights of everyone, even those who are illiberal. Under fascism, violent hostility toward differences is the rule; under classical liberalism, peaceful voluntary cooperation for mutual benefit is the rule.

Where progressivism is prideful, classical liberalism has humility. Classical liberalism is humble because it doesn’t presuppose what society should value; it assumes that all individuals have goals that they alone know best how to achieve. Classical liberalism knows the limits of what any individual can know and consequently finds no reason to bestow power to any expert over the rest of society. As Hayek wrote, “All political theories assume […] that most individuals are very ignorant. Those who plead for liberty differ […] in that they include among the ignorant themselves as well as the wisest.”

As it says in the Bible, “the wages of sin are death.” And indeed, the sin-ridden ideologies of socialismfascism, and progressivism have yielded a staggering death toll. In contrast, the blessings of liberty include, not only peace and prosperity, but the encouragement and freedom to lead a virtuous life.


Axel Weber

Axel Weber is a fellow with FEE’s Henry Hazlitt Project for Educational Journalism and member of the PolicyEd team at the Hoover Institution. He holds a Bachelor of Science in Economics from the University of Connecticut. Follow him on InstagramTwitter, and Substack.

Dan Sanchez

Dan Sanchez is the Director of Content at the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) and the editor-in chief of FEE.org.

RELATED ARTICLE: Leaked Documents Outline DHS’s Plans to Police Disinformation

EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Only Internet Fascism Can Save Democracy

Won’t someone save democracy from the people?

Free speech on the internet endangers democracy, Barack Obama told Stanford University.

The widely hailed speech at Big Tech’s favorite university claimed that autocrats are “subverting democracy” and that democracies have “grown dangerously complacent.” In the slow parade of teleprompter clichés he even  warned that “too often we’ve taken freedom for granted.”

To Obama, the threat to democracy doesn’t come from government power, but the lack of it.

“You just have to flood a country’s public square with enough raw sewage. You just have to raise enough questions, spread enough dirt, plant enough conspiracy theorizing that citizens no longer know what to believe. Once they lose trust in their leaders, in mainstream media, in political institutions, in each other, in the possibility of truth, the game’s won,” he summed up.

Like every Obama speech, “Challenges to Democracy in the Digital Information Realm” didn’t offer anything new, just a distillation of familiar talking points and misplaced assumptions.

The assumption at the heart of Obama’s speech and that of the range of arguments depicting free speech as a cultural and national threat is that the purpose of discourse is state power.

Obama, like many post-liberal lefty critics of free speech, reduces speech to its social impact and its social impact to its political impact. This holistic integration is so fundamental to Marxists and many lefties that they don’t even think twice about the idea that everything we do is reducible to a move on the great abacus of social justice. The food you eat, the car you buy, and the words you say have the potential to either save or damn the planet and humanity.

This quasi-religious conception of mass social mobilization pervades American society. It’s the precondition for wokeness because the only possible moral justification for terrorizing random people on social media is the conviction that governance isn’t political, it’s social, and that the only way to avert climate change and social inequality is by controlling what everyone believes.

Wokeness collapses the distinction between the private and public spheres, and between government and individuals. In a national social crisis, the only conceptual framework through which the Left ever really governs, there’s no time for such liberal niceties as private spheres.

Obama’s speech neatly illustrates the fascism at the heart of this panopticon political project.

Introduce disagreement and you “raise enough questions” that people “no longer know what to believe” and then “lose trust in their leaders”, “mainstream media” and even “truth”. Stripped of all the Brookings Institute globalist prose, what Obama is really saying is that individual disagreement undermines the state. And that truth is dependent on public faith in the state.

This is a value system utterly at odds with the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, one which envisions an intimate link between individual speech and state authority that would have horrified King George III, but absolutely delighted Hitler or Stalin.

It assumes that there can be no other legitimate points of view other than the official one and that there should be no leaders except those who share them. Limiting the range of opinions is necessary to protect state power because there is no distinction between them and the state.

Or as a certain Austrian artist once put it, “One people, One state, One leader”.

When he was promoting his last book two years ago, Obama made the same arguments. “If we do not have the capacity to distinguish what’s true from what’s false, then by definition the marketplace of ideas doesn’t work. And by definition our democracy doesn’t work.”

The assumption that the democratic process leads to truth rather than choice, absolute rightness rather than people power, is an undemocratic paradigm. Its inevitable conclusion becomes that of Obama, that democracy must be protected by controlling the people.

Not only elections, but ideas, are too important to be left to the public.

Obama doesn’t want a marketplace of ideas because people might get the wrong idea and vote him and his political allies out of office. The explicit goal of internet censorship is to control election outcomes by filtering what information the public is able to access.

Like the provenance of a certain Delaware artist’s laptop.

Narrowing the range of acceptable information in order to narrow the range of acceptable opinions, candidates and political systems is the first fundamental trick of tyrannies. It takes a certain chutzpah and a stock of Orwellian buzzwords to redefine that as protecting democracy.

Obama complains, “China’s built a great firewall around the Internet, turning it into a vehicle for domestic indoctrination” and proposes a democratic firewall around the internet under a “regulatory structure” to be designed with “communities of color” to slow “the spread of harmful content.” The democratic people of color firewall will be so much better than China’s firewall.

Pro-censorship elites have the same assumptions as China about the interaction between speech, society, and the state which is why they, like Obama, arrive at the same conclusions. They can dress up those conclusions in buzzwords about “democracy” and “people of color”, but those are differences of style, not substance. The trains all end up at the same station.

Obama speaks about “bugs” in the Constitution. While he is always happy to critique America, the particular totalitarian bug here is deeply embedded into the leftist worldview which denies that people have individual agency, insists that everyone is a prisoner of their social context, and contends that the purpose of the society and the state is an enlightened intertwining. The bug, which is really more of a feature, directly leads to the same outcome as in China or Stanford.

A free society requires healthy breathing spaces between politics and life. The difference between a politicized society and a tyranny is only time. The question at the heart of this debate is “What is discourse for” which is really the question of, “What are people here for?” To believe, as the Left does, that people primarily exist as vehicles for political change is to enslave them.

That’s why every leftist revolution invariably slides toward tyranny along the same worn tracks.

The Founding Fathers believed that people would self-define their purposes. That was why America’s revolution uniquely led to freedom and why leftist revolutions lead to tyranny.

America defined freedom as individual power while lefties define it by the power of the state.

Obama is simply replaying what happens when liberation is treated as a collective enterprise, a journey toward rather than from, that can only be achieved collectively, through the exercise of state power rather than individually through personal choices. The internet, once individualistic, has become collective, and social media, the ultimate embodiment of that collectivism, has become the battleground between individualist expressers and collectivist censors.


Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.


The Critical Qur’an: ‘A Qur’an commentary that goes where others fear to tread’

Muslim cleric quotes Muhammad saying even women in labor must have sex if husband wants it

Italy: Muslim migrant cook beheads Muslim migrant dishwasher

Sweden: Almost 30% want to ban ‘offensive’ demonstrations after Muslims riot over Qur’an-burning

England and Wales raise marriage age to 18 in bid to protect Muslim girls

Why Should the UN Consider It Its Duty to Protect Islam from Criticism?

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

FASCISM: Simon & Schuster Employees Demand Publisher Drop Books They Disagree With

Over 200 employees of Simon & Schuster have gone full fascist, signing a petition calling on the publishing giant to stop providing a platform for everyone except fellow leftist fascists. The haters of the freedom of speech made three demands:

  1. Cancel the two-book deal with Mike Pence and do not sign any more book deals with former members of the Trump administration.
  2. End Simon & Schuster’s distribution deal with Post Hill Press [which publishes conservative books].
  3. Commit to ongoing reevaluations of all clients, authors, distribution deals, and all other financial commitments that promote white supremacist content and/or harm the aforementioned marginalized communities.

The fascists claimed that “when S&S chose to sign Mike Pence, we broke the public’s trust in our editorial process, and blatantly contradicted previous public claims in support of Black and other lives made vulnerable by structural oppression. Simon & Schuster has chosen complicity in perpetuating white supremacy by publishing Mike Pence and continuing to distribute books for Post Hill Press, including predator Matt Gaetz’s FIREBRAND. By choosing to publish Mike Pence, Simon & Schuster is generating wealth for a central figure of a presidency that unequivocally advocated for racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, anti-Blackness, xenophobia, misogyny, ableism, islamophobia, antisemitism, and violence. This is not a difference of opinions; this is legitimizing bigotry.”

Of course. No dissent from the left is a legitimate “difference of opinions,” because leftists see the world in a way that religious fanatics throughout history would find familiar: they alone have the vision of what is good and just, and since all those outside the fold are ignorant and evil, they have no rights that the arbiters of what constitutes acceptable opinion are bound to respect.

So far, however, Simon & Schuster’s chief executive Jonathan Karp has shown himself to be among the unredeemed. Karp reminded the fascists in his employ that the job of a publishing house was to allow for “a diversity of voices and perspectives.” Diversity! Karp’s choice of words must have driven the petitioners up the wall, because like all leftists, they are no doubt extremely proud of their commitment to “diversity” in all forms except, of course, a genuine diversity of thought. Black and brown and queer and trans voices and all the rest are welcome among them, as long as they all think the same way and say the same thing. But here was Karp gently making it clear that the petitioners weren’t really in favor of diversity in any meaningful way. “We come to work each day to publish, not cancel,” he said, “which is the most extreme decision a publisher can make.”

For that he will likely be canceled himself before too long.

The American left long ago embraced authoritarianism and fascism, and is increasingly intolerant of any point of view other than its own. Note that the petitioners included in its laundry list of denunciations the spurious propaganda neologism “Islamophobia.” “Islamophobia” is an illegitimate conflation of two distinct phenomena: crimes against innocent Muslims, which are never justified, and honest analysis of the motivating ideology of jihad terror, which is always necessary. It is inconceivable that anyone would want to publish a book calling for attacks on innocent Muslims or any innocent people, but there are many books discussing the motivating ideology of jihad terrorism.

Islamic advocacy groups and their leftist allies have been insisting for years that such books, too, constituted “Islamophobia.” Such analyses are what these fascists at Simon & Schuster want to stamp out. If the left succeeds in consolidating power, it will be impossible to publish, and likely illegal to enunciate publicly, any opposition to jihad violence and Sharia oppression of women and others, for there is no example of any such opposition not being considered “Islamophobic.”

The fascist employees also demanded that Simon & Schuster cut ties with my publisher, Post Hill Press (my last six books have been or are in the process of being published under Post Hill’s imprint, Bombardier Books), with which Simon & Schuster has a distribution arrangement. The petition libelously asserts that Post Hill “openly supports and normalizes violence against minors, Black women, and all Black people by individuals and the state.” This is, of course, not remotely true. It is how left-fascists lie in order to demonize and destroy their opponents. Although Karp has rejected this petition, expect to see much more of this sort of thing. We have not yet reached the high tide of left-fascism in America today.


Turkey: Armenian Apostolic Church sues government for return of its historic seat, seized during Armenian Genocide

French paper justifies decision not to try Muslim who murdered Jewish woman while chanting Qur’an verses

Pakistan: Police torture Christian into false confession of blaspheming Islam, detain him for over two months

Pakistan enraged over EU parliamentary resolution calling for its repeal of blasphemy laws

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Karl Marx’s Flight from Reality by Richard M. Ebeling

Though it may seem strange, Karl Marx was not always a communist. As late as 1842, when Marx was in his mid-20s, he actually said he opposed any attempt to establish a communist system. In October 1842, he became editor of the Rheinische Zeitung [the Rhineland Times], and wrote in an editorial:

The Rheinische Zeitung … does not admit that communist ideas in their present form possess even theoretical reality, and therefore can still less desire their practical realization, or even consider it possible.

In 1843, Marx was forced to resign his editorship because of political pressure from the Prussian government and ended up moving to Paris. It was in Paris that he met his future lifelong collaborator, Friedrich Engels (who already was a socialist), and began his deeper study of socialism and communism, leading to his full “conversion” to the collectivist ideal.

Feuerbach and the Worship of Man Perfected

From his student days in Berlin, two German philosophers left their imprint upon Marx: George Hegel (1770-1831) and Ludwig Feuerbach (1804-1872). From Hegel, Marx learned the theory of “dialectics” and the idea of historical progress to universal improvement. From Feuerbach, Marx accepted the idea of man “perfected.” Feuerbach had argued that rather than worshiping a non-existing supernatural being – God – man should worship himself.

The “true” religion of the future should, therefore, be the Worship of Mankind, and that man “perfected” would be changed from a being focused on and guided by his own self-interest to one who was totally altruistic, that is, concerned only with the betterment of and service to Mankind as a whole, rather than only himself.

Marx took Feuerbach’s notion of man “perfected” and developed what he considered to be the essential characteristics of such a developed human nature. There were three elements to such a perfected human being, Marx argued:First, the Potential for “Autonomous Action.” This is action undertaken by a man only out of desire or enjoyment, not out of necessity. If a man works at a blacksmith’s forge out of a desire to creatively exercise his faculties in molding metal into some artistic form, this is free or “autonomous action.” If a man works at the forge because he will starve unless he makes a plow to plant a crop, he is acting under a “compulsion” or a “constraint.”

Second, the Potential for “Societal Orientation.” Only man, Marx argued, can reflect on and direct his conscious actions to the improvement the “community” of which he is a part, and which nourishes his own capacity for personal development. When man associates with others only out of self-interest, he denies his true “social” self. Thus, egoism is “unworthy” of a developed human being.

And, third, the Potential for “Aesthetic Appreciation.” This is when man values things only for themselves; for example, “nature for nature’s sake,” or “art for art’s sake.” To view things, Marx claimed, only from the perspective of how something might be used to improve an individual’s personal circumstance is a debasement of the “truly” aesthetic value in things.

Capitalism Keeps Man from Perfection

Feuerbach believed man was “alienated” from himself when he was not “other-oriented.” To change from self-interest to altruism was mostly a state of mind that man could change within himself, Feuerbach argued. Marx insisted that the problem of “alienation” was not due to a person’s “state of mind,” but was conditioned by the “objective” institutional circumstances under which men lived. That is, the political, social, and economic institutions made man what he is. Change the social order, and man would be changed. “Capitalism,” Marx declared, was the source of man’s alienation from his “true” self and his human potential.

How did this “alienation” manifest itself?

Capitalism, Marx declared, was the source of man’s alienation from his “true” self and his human potential.

First, there is the Stifling of Autonomous Action. In the marketplace, forces “outside” the control of the individual determine what is produced and how it is produced. The individual “reacts” to the market, he does not control it. Thus, market forces are external constraints on man. He responds to the market out of “necessity,” not out of free desire.Furthermore, to enhance production and productivity, man is “forced” to participate in a division of labor to earn a living that makes him an “appendage” to a machine, a “slave” to the machines owned by the “capitalists” for whom he is “compelled” to work.

Second, there is Diminished Other-Orientedness. In the market, the individual sees others only as a means to his material ends; he trades with others to get what he wants from others, merely in pursuit of his own self-interest. Work is not considered a communal “cooperative” process, but an antagonistic relationship between what the individual wants and what is wanted by the one with whom he trades.

Third, there is Limited Aesthetic Appreciation. In the market, people see nature, resources, and the creations of man not as things to be intrinsically valued in themselves, but as marketable objects – as means – to personal ends. Acquisition of things – possessiveness – becomes the primary goal of economic activity for making a living.

Communism’s Liberation of Constrained Man

Communism, through collective planning, would make work an “autonomous” act, rather than “constrained action.” When democratically regulated by the workers as a whole, Marx asserted, collective planning would emerge from the desires of all the members of society as their communal choice and consent. It would be consciously planned and directed through the participation of all the members of society, thus generating an “other-oriented” sense of a “common good” for which all worked.

No one would be forced and constrained to do what another made them do in the division of labor anymore. Indeed, communism would free men from the “tyranny” of specialization. In Marx’s words, from The German Ideology (1845),

In communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow; to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticize after dinner, just as I have a mind.

In this new communist world, no one will have to work at anything he did not like or want to do. In addition, under communal planning, production would rise to such a height of productivity that the work day would be shortened to the point that each person’s time would be free to do only the things he enjoyed doing.

Selfishness would be eliminated as a human trait, and altruism would become the dominant trait.

Communism would also enhance social consciousness and other-orientedness. All that was communally produced would be distributed on the basis of “need” or “want.” No longer would scarcity impose constraints on man’s desires. As a result, the urge for “possessiveness” and acquisition of “things” would diminish and finally disappear. Selfishness would be eliminated as a human trait.Others would no longer be viewed as “competitors” for scarce things, but as social collaborators for attaining “higher” ends of social importance. Altruism would become the dominant trait in man.

In addition, communism would result in the flowering of aesthetic appreciation.

Man would not create so he could earn a living, but for the pleasure of the activity itself. Work would not be a source of “alienation” but an activity reflecting the free – the “autonomous” – desires of man for the “beautiful.”

Communism would liberate man in all ways and all things, said Marx:

With a communist organization of society, there disappears the subordination … of the individual to some definite art, making him exclusively a painter, a sculptor, etc. … In a communist society, there are no longer painters, but only people who engage in painting among other activities.

With the end of capitalism and the arrival of communism, there would come a heaven on earth. There would be enough of everything for all. Man would be freed from working for survival, he would be unchained from the division of labor, he would be liberated to follow whatever gave his heart pleasure. With Communism, man becomes like God – free and powerful to do whatever he wants.

Marx’s Denial of Self-Oriented Human Nature

Let me suggest that what Marx was objecting to – revolting against – was human nature and the existence of scarcity. Man can never escape from or get outside of being an individual “ego.” We exist as individual human beings; we think, remember, imagine, choose, and act as distinct and unique individual men and women.

Our experiences are our experiences; our thoughts and beliefs are our reflections and ideas; our judgments and valuations are our estimates and rankings of things of importance to us. Even when we try to put ourselves in another person’s shoes, to try to sympathize, empathize, and understand the meanings, experiences, and actions of others, it is from our perspective and state of mind that we do so.It is the individuality of the person in these and other facets of our distinct nature and character as conscious, conceptualizing creatures that make for the unique differences and diversities of our minds as self-oriented human beings. This is the source of the creativity and plethora of possibilities that can and have emerged from seeing the world in the distinct and different ways of self-oriented and self-experiencing people when pursuing their own improvement. As they consider what is most advantageous for themselves and others they “selfishly” care about, they support and encourage an institutional setting of peaceful and voluntary market association.

Marx’s Denial of the Reality of Scarcity

Marx also objects to the reality of the necessity to have to produce in order to consume and to have to view one’s own labor as a means to various ends, rather than simply being somehow provided with all that we want and our labor being “free” to be used as a pleasurable end in itself.

Likewise, he revolts against men viewing each other as a means to their respective desired ends rather than as purely human relationships, a “club” in which all get together and freely associate for “good times” with no concern for how or who provides the things without which good times cannot occur.

Nor can he abide men looking upon nature and man-made objects as the means or tools of producing the necessities, amenities, and luxuries of life, with the assignment of a “money value” to a house, a work of art, a waterfall, or a sculpture being “dehumanizing” for Marx.

However, the only reason such things are given values by people in society is that they are wanted but also scarce and because the means to achieve them are scarce as well. As a consequence, we must decide what we consider to be more or less valuable and important to us since all that we would like to have cannot be simultaneously fulfilled at the same time.

Marx’s hatred for the division of labor is an outgrowth of this worldview. Man is seen as somehow less than whole by specializing in a task and selling both his labor and his fraction of the total output to achieve the ends and goals he considers more important than what he has to give up in return.

Marx’s Misconception of Action and Choice

The entire Marxian conception of man, society, and happiness can be conceived, therefore, as a flight from reality. It can be seen in Marx’s distinction between “autonomous action” and capitalist “choices.”

“Action” is, in fact, nothing more than choice manifested: we undertake courses of action only after we have decided what it is we wish to do. That is, we decide which among the alternatives available to us we shall try to bring about, and which shall be set aside for a day or forever because not everything we desire can be had, due to the constraints of nature and the existence of other human beings.

Marx talks of people fishing in the morning and hunting in the afternoon – does that not mean that the person’s time is scarce? Is he not “frustrated” that he cannot do both at the same time, or be in two places at once?

“Action” is, in fact, nothing more than choice manifested.

If every man is to be “autonomously free” to hunt and fish whenever and to whatever extent he desires, what happens when the various members of the community wish to kill the forest animals or catch the fish at such a rate that they are threatened with extinction? Or what if several people all want to fish from the same place along the river or lake bank at the same time, or from the same “cover” position while out hunting?Marx might say that a “societal orientation” on the part of everyone would result in some form of “comradely” compromise. But is that not just other language for “mutual agreements,” “trade-offs,” and “exchanges” concerning the use and disposal of scarce resources – the disposition of the communal property rights among the members of society?

There is no certainty that all of the members of such a society will always like the communally agreed-upon outcomes, with some of them considering themselves “exploited” for the benefit of others who have out-voted them. And, therefore, they may be “alienated” from their fellow men and from nature even in the communist paradise to come.

Nor can there simply be the idea of art for art’s sake or nature for nature’s sake.

Resources for art and gifts of nature (unless cultivated to expand them) are always limited. The use of forests for primitive contemplation versus industrial use versus residential housing would still have to be made in Marx’s magical communist society. And, certainly, not everyone in the bright, beautiful communist society may agree or like the decisions that a majority of others in the blissful societal commune make about such things.

The paint for the artist’s pallet is not in infinite supply, so some art would have to be forgone so other art might be pursued; similarly with the ingredients going into the manufacture of paints versus being used for other things. To assume that men would never conflict over how to dispose of these things is to escape into a complete fantasyland.

Also, it is a physical and psychological fact that men differ in their relative capacities and inclinations in terms of various tasks needing to be performed. It is a physical and psychological fact that men tend to be more productive when they specialize in a small range of tasks as opposed to trying to be a “jack-of-all-trades.”

The Reality of Communism Versus the Reality of Capitalism

As a result, the division of labor raises both the productivity and the total production of a community of men, standards of living rise, leisure time can be expanded, and more variety and quality of goods can be produced.

Indeed, it has been free market capitalism that has provided humanity over the last 200 years with that actual relative horn-of-plenty wherever a fairly free rein has existed for self-interested individual action in pursuit of profit in associative relationships of specialization based on the peaceful use of private property.

Capitalism has been the great liberator of ever more of mankind from poverty, want, and worry. It has freed people from the hardship and drudgery of often life-threatening forms of work. The free market has shortened the hours of work needed to generate levels of material and cultural comfort for a growing number of people and provided the longer, healthier lives and increased leisure time for people to enjoy the wealth that economic freedom has made possible.The “de-alienation” of man from his everyday existence, in the sense that Marx talked about it, has also, in fact, been brought about through the achievements of capitalism. It has relieved more and more of mankind from the concerns of mere survival and subsistence through the capital accumulation and profit-oriented production that has raised the productivity of all those who work and expanded the available supply of useful goods and services. The free market has enabled people to have the means to fulfill more of the enjoyments and meanings of life as ends in themselves.

Furthermore, as Austrian economist F. A. Hayek and others have pointed out, the advantage of the free market system is precisely that it does not require all of the members of the society to agree upon and share the same hierarchy of goals, ends, and values. Each individual, under competitive capitalism, is at liberty to select and follow their own purposes and pursue happiness in their own way. Using each other as the voluntary means to their respective ends in the arena of peaceful market exchange allows a much larger diversity of outcomes reflecting differences among people than if one central plan needs to imposed on all in the name of the interests of a collectivist community as a whole.

Marx’s flight from reality, on the other hand, was the wish to have everything capitalism, the division of labor, and competitive exchange can produce, but without the cost of work, discipline, specialization, and selecting among alternatives. It is like the cry of the child who refuses to accept the fact that he cannot have everything he wants, right there and then and, instead, expects someone or something to provide it to him and everyone else in a blissful fairyland of material plentitude.

Richard M. Ebeling

Richard M. Ebeling

Richard M. Ebeling is BB&T Distinguished Professor of Ethics and Free Enterprise Leadership at The Citadel in Charleston, South Carolina. He was president of the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) from 2003 to 2008.

Soviet Fascism in 21st Century: Agents of Influence — From the Streets to the Palaces

Rudy Giuliani is right, President Obama still has no effective policy against Jihad. Terrorism and anti-Semitism are sweeping through Europe. Barbaric killings, rapes, and kidnappings of Christians increases every day, threatening the stability in the Middle East. Terror threat is expanding globally and all the evils are connected, demonstrating the main features of the ideology known to you as Fascism. I have been warning you of the upcoming threat while discussing the ideology of Soviet Fascism for the last twenty years. Knowledge of this ideology is a must as it has lethal consequences for America and mankind. Don’t ask Obama why he swapped five Taliban terrorists for a deserter and allowed Putin waging war against Ukraine, both issues are logically intertwined.

To have the answers of an upheaval in the world, just learn and assess a current Obama/Putin joint venture named Destruction of the American Republic. Only knowledge of history can solve the problems of the world.

Flag of Russia 2Some History of Russia and of the World

The attempts to take over Western civilization and destroy it have been going on for the last several centuries. Our world was inflamed by the violent Communist-Marxist ideology, defrauding proletariat 200 years ago. Marx understood the worst in human nature such as an envy and hatred towards people of accomplishments, financial security and success. His violent theory was built on fraud and utopia to provoke, inflame, and use human rage. He perverted a rudimentary knowledge of Capitalism–freedom of competition. Using Marx’s rhetoric, a hundred years later, Stalin developed his own doctrine of Communism–Soviet National Socialism–a mechanism of constant attacks with an unprecedented violence. Stalin quadrupled Marx’s fraud, and as a truly dictatorial regime, Stalin’s Communism requires a very big government force to equalize and control the entire population. In that way Stalin built a massive apparatus of Soviet Fascism to wage a war aimed at his own people and then against the West.

We are at the last stage of the war, yet the forces against us are still the same today. The war against the West predominantly proceeded through a permanent destabilization of the legitimate governments across the world. I called those attacks WWIII and to expose the root causes of the war, let me introduce the facts that identify our foremost and a very determined enemy–the Soviet Union and today’s Russia. It is not a coincidence that Obama refused to acknowledge the enemy and present a strategy on how to defeat it. As a matter of fact, the Islamic Extremists are not the only enemies we have today. To grasp the predicament in the world we should evaluate some historical events that took place in Russia and the essence of Stalin’s Doctrine.

Stalin’s love for Muslim culture had a long-term and extremely negative consequences for the world. His political doctrine and the human capacity for evil have been inherited subsequently without any deviations by all Russian leaders who followed him. The idea of One World Government under the Kremlin auspices was the paramount one. The ways to achieve it through the help of the Muslim world was left by him with a particular prescription for actions, based on Stalin’s personal experiences on the Caucasus Mountains and abroad in Iran. The idea of narcotic trafficking was considered by Stalin at the end of the 1940s when he got a hold of the Muslim Brotherhood. It was also the time when the Israeli State was established in the Middle East–vengeance was a prime characteristic of Stalin’s character.

After Stalin’s death, the Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev gave the idea to the members of the Communist Party—drugs and narcotics trafficking should be viewed as a strategic operation that would directly weaken the enemy. “Accordingly, he ordered a joint military-civilian, Soviet-Czechoslovak study to examine the total effect of drugs… on Western society; its effects on labor productivity, education, the military (the ultimate target at that time), and its use in support of the Soviet Bloc intelligence operations.” The army of Terror was born at the beginning of the 1950s. The enemy is clearly identified–Western society.

The effects of drugs were analyzed by scientists from the Soviet Academy of Sciences and the conclusions were that the drugs trafficking would be extremely effective and the most vulnerable countries would be the United States, Canada, France, and West Germany. This study was approved by the Soviet Defense Council in 1955. It was the first formal Soviet decision to launch narcotics trafficking against the bourgeoisie and especially against the American capitalists:

“Soviet strategy for revolutionary war is a global strategy… narcotics strategy is a sub-component of this global strategy… First was the increased training of leaders for the revolutionary movements—the civilian, military, and intelligence cadres. The founding of Patrice Lumumba University in Moscow is an example of one of the early actions taken to modernize the Soviet revolutionary leadership training. The second step was the actual training of terrorists. Training for international terrorism actually began as ‘fighters for liberation.’…The third step was international drug and narcotics trafficking. Drugs were incorporated into the revolutionary war strategy as a political and intelligence weapon to use against the bourgeois society and as a mechanism for recruiting agents of influence around the world.”

Just listen to the rest of the document:

“The fourth step was to infiltrate organized crime and, further, to establish Soviet Bloc sponsored and controlled organized crime syndicates throughout the world. The fifth step was to plan and prepare for sabotage throughout the whole world. The network for this activity was to be in place by 1972. …The decision on organized crime… was to be a global operation targeted against… the United States, along with France, Great Britain, Germany, and Italy… The main reason for infiltrating organized crime was… information on political corruption, money and business, international relations, drug trafficking, and counter-intelligence—was to be found in organized crime. …A secondary reason was to use organized crime as a covert mechanism for distributing drugs.”

In the Soviet operation of drugging America, besides Cubans, the central role was given to Czechoslovakia as well. The first plan was put into action in 1956; it instructed Czechoslovakian strategic intelligence to infiltrate seventeen different organized crime groups including the Mafia in France, Italy, Austria, Latin America, and Germany. I have already mentioned that 20 percent of the Italian police were members of the communist party and the Italian Communist Party used them heavily in the infiltration operation. “These members helped the Soviet Bloc intelligence agents infiltrate the Mafia. War criminals, e.g. Germans were also coerced into assisting the Soviet Bloc agents in this endeavor, especially throughout Latin America.”

All of the above mention quotations were taken from the book titled Red Cocaine, the Drugging of America, Clarion House,1990. The author of the book Joseph D. Douglass, Jr. is a very knowledgeable and savvy man, he used the uncertain situation in Russia at the end of the 1980s, visited old Soviet archives and obtained the rare documents from there. The documents obtained by Mr. Douglass are priceless today, when the archives in Russia are closed for the foreigners.

Please read attentively the document, it contains the motive, agenda, the means, tools, methods, and several stages of how to achieve victory over Western civilization. The crucial factor uniting the agenda and making the document timeless is the ideology–the document was authorized and stamped by Stalin’s Communist Party. That is the major reason I am writing about Stalinism. We can’t win the current war against terrorism without knowledge of Stalin’s Doctrine, it is in the blood of Russian politicians today–they called Stalin “A Great Manager.” Today Stalin is still the most popular leader in Russia and people are free again from the Chimera of conscience.

Please remember that in the future. There is no need to list the actors, means and methods presented in the mentioned document of 1955, the army of terror is quite clearly exposed. Yet there is one element of the West’s subversion, I’d like to discuss with you–The Agents of Influence.

Russian_Foreign_Intelligence_AgencyThe Agents of Influence

The term espionage is well known to you. It is a universal term. Regardless of race, ethnicity, nationality or religion, the activity of the agent of influence is similar to that of a spy. Yet the parameters, scales, and level of his or her activities and its magnitude are much wider. It consists of undercover works and underground operations from political indoctrination to a variety of terror and subversive activities to do economic, ecological, and other harms to the target, propaganda, sabotage, killings, and unexpected provocations. Agents of influence are the CADRES of Soviet Fascism. The vivid example of political indoctrination includes people known to you such as–Soul Alinsky and Marshall Davis. Please remember, all mentioned activities against the West have began in 1955 and are still going on today. The duration is SIXTY years…

The specific threat for America in the 21st Century is a juncture of our enemies foreign and domestic, falsely blaming America for the crimes committed by them. They are practically merge in space, time, and agenda to discredit America and Republicans, making them a guilty party. You saw this juncture of the forces in the presented document, yet there are more races details in the following arrangement and procedure. Listen to the conversation of two KGB Generals, Jon Pacepa, the highest-ranking KGB officer ever to defect to the U.S. and the Chairman of the KGB Yuri Andropov:

“In 1972 the Kremlin decided to turn the whole Islamic world against Israel and the U.S. As KGB Chairman, Yuri Andropov told me a billion adversaries could inflict far greater damage on America that could a few millions. We needed to instill a Nazi-style hatred for Jews throughout the Islamic world, and to turn this weapon of the emotions into a terrorist bloodbath against Israel and its main supporter the United States. No one within the American/Zionist sphere of influence should any longer feel safe.”

General Pacepa wrote further:

“According to Andropov… the Muslims had a taste for nationalism, jingoism, and victimology. Their illiterate, oppressed mobs could be whipped up to a fever pitch. Terrorism and violence against Israel and her master, American Zionism, would flow naturally from the Muslims’ religious fervor, Andropov sermonized.” Russian Footsteps, by Ion Mihai Pacepa, National Review Online, August 24, 2008.)

What can better confirm both of my terms Soviet Fascism and WWIII than those words? I remind you that under Andropov the infiltration into Western civilization had tripled.The bloodiest terrorists’ attacks in the world had occurred under his watch, from the Munich murder of Israelis in the Olympic Village to the Johnstown tragedy in Guyana. Russian President Putin is a devoted disciple of Yuri Andropov. Forty years later, Putin is involving the world in an Apocalyptic Battles against Jihad to divert attention from Ukraine. Do you remember how in the shadow of the massacre by ISIS in the Middle East, Russia’s military attacked Ukraine’s city of Mariupol to create a transportation corridor to a starving Crimea? They failed. Yet Putin’s military actions speak louder than any of his words–Russia is the aggressor in the war against Ukraine.

WW III took a different form and scale in the 21st century. As an advantage, the Kremlin used the erroneous American foreign policy during the last several decades. Instead of fighting the enemy, we were reforming the enemy, reluctant to expose our foremost enemy: Russia. Orchestrated and well coordinated actions of agents of influence brought so-called new leadership in the Middle East and Islamic world—the Muslim Brotherhood and Radical Jihad. The Stalinist postulate cadres decide everything has prevailed in the twenty-first century. The old dictators and criminals I called the Kremlin henchmen, have exposed themselves in the era of the internet. The Kremlin needed the new cadres and the Muslim Brotherhood came to the scene as a Politburo of Islam.

A late example illustrates the tragic repetition of history. One of the nominees for Oscar 2015 was Rory Kennedy for the documentary– Last Days in Vietnam. Listening to that, I was shocked by how history repeats itself. As a matter of fact, it was time, when living in the Soviet Union, I used to listen regularly to the German Velwe. Sitting and weeping I listened to a reportage from the roof of the American Embassy in Saigon. I have no words to express my feeling of anguish, grief, and loss, while listening to the voices of a real human drama in Vietnam, then in the 1970s. Have you seen the terrorists in our embassies in Libya and Yemen? Maybe now you grasp the scale, parameters, duration, and the notion of the agents of influence? Today we are at a catastrophic moment of history. To survive, we must be able and willing to know the political ideology I called Soviet Fascism. Knowledge is Power; this is not a cliche, but a reality of our life.

obama tweet as russian 2America, France, and Libya

I’ll begin this part of the article with the events in America for a reason:

“America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.”

Those were the words of Abraham Lincoln a century-and-a-half ago. That is the reason I provide you with the notion of the agents of influence–they are a COIL of RAGE used by Soviet Fascism. Let me give you two examples. Do you remember protesters, looters, and agitators of Ferguson in November, 2014? Why do you think they wanted to see the policemen dead? Who are they? Who are the conductors of the tragedy in Ferguson on a level of streets? You know the entire careers of the agitators Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. Today we know that both promoted a false story of Ferguson and only the policeman was telling the truth. You saw everything, you are the witnesses of the event. Ferguson is an indictment of a liberal media. Today, four months later two policemen were gun down in Ferguson.

The second example is Bill Clinton. Obama is not the first American President having ties with the Kremlin. On June 9, 1991, two-and-a half months before announcing his candidacy for the U.S. Presidency, Bill Clinton flew to Moscow and had a meeting with the KGB Chairman. The Arkansas Democrat ran the story under the headline “Clinton Has Powerful Buddy in the U.S.S.R.—New Head of KGB.” The True Story of the Bilderberg Group, by Daniel Estulin, TrineDay LLC, 2009, p. 52. I am not asking why Clinton flew to Moscow. I know why. The question is who did provide the secret means of communication with the Russian Security Services to land an American plane without any complications in the Moscow airport? In the light of the recent Clinton’s scandals, involving foreign money, you should consider my question too–means of communication can bring light on Benghazi and many other unsolved scandals. The Clinton Foundation is much more that what you know about it.

The domino of the scandals in America will continue. We are experiencing a clash of civilization, when Liberty’s Doctrine is attacked by Stalin’s Doctrine, by a well trained force of subversive activists. Though the attacks are asymmetrical, they have an enormous amplitude and scale: from sleeper cells in Buffalo to the Prime Minister of Iraq al-Maliki, who was trained in Iran for twenty years. Those subversive activities I called WWIII are a preparation for a real hot war. I believe, that Putin has planed the war by invading Ukraine and relying on Obama’s acquiescence. Putin will resume the war in the end of March or beginning of April, when the roads in Ukraine dry up. My book What is happening to America? gives you a lot of other details and predictions on the subject.

The point is that you should know the agents of influence and Soviet Fascism’s “great” opportunity to do enormous HARM of different types in many aspects of human life by subversive activities: in economics, politics, personal destruction for control and power over Western civilization. Also remember Obama/Putin joint venture. Now we can go to France and Libya. This is my own conclusion based on my knowledge of Soviet Fascism. I believe there was a connection between NATO in Libya and the presidential election in France in 2012. Do you remember a scandal of Dominique Strauss-Khan in a New York Hotel? It was during the time of a presidential election in France and Dominique Strauss Khan rated ahead of President Sarkozy.

Putin used the situation since the infiltration into NATO was Russia’s long-term strategy. To convince Obama was not difficult for Putin. In my interpretation of the events, Putin offered Sarkosy to eliminate Strauss Khan for a certain favors from Sarkazy, the latter agreed and Libya’s fate was decided. NATO was trapped in a middle of civil war in Libya. Putin needed Libya’s oil and destabilization of North Africa. Organized crime was activated and Dominique Strauss Khan has disappeared from a political arena of France. Do you remember the Soviet document dated 1955? Organized crime was and is an integral part of Soviet Fascism. Today ISIS is running Libya’s oil or destroying the facilities to raise the price of oil on the market. Russia needs it.


I’ve introduced to you a lot of my ideas and information in this article. Yet I am not the only one who knows Soviet Fascism. Often I am writing in the name of the former citizens from the Socialist countries. I ‘d like to introduce one of them, the Cuban poet and patriot Maximo Aguirre and his poet’s prophetic vision on Venezuela. In the beginning of the 1960 Maximo Aguirre knowing the regime of Soviet Fascism, imposed on Cuba by the Castro regime, predicted the future of Venezuela. He wrote his poetry in the 3 year period between 1962-1965, when he first arrived in NYC exiled from Cuba. His suffering was enormous and he poured all his feelings in his poems. The poems appear in the book Cuba Mi Patria que Adoro. (Amazon), 2012. The translation of the title is Cuba My Adored Homeland. The poem’s title is A warning to Venezuelans On Behalf of Their Cuban Brothers.

Máximo Aguirre: Cuba Mi Patria que Adoro, 2012 – Recuerden Venezuelans, fragments, Translated by Angela Aguirre

Remember friends Venezuelans
And take as an example Cuba
And never allow those tyrants
Come to power in your homeland.
Remember the great oppression
That we Cubans are enduring
Without food, clothing or freedom
And not allowed to protest;
If you do, you are executed
By this bunch of criminals.

They will take away your money
The industries and oil fields
They’ll take away your treasures
And hide them in secret places.
They detain the military
And dispose of their lives
They judge them to find them guilty
Even those who are innocent
They take them to the firing squad
As they do in my beloved Cuba.(P.182)

They start with the military
And then they kill the civilians
Therefore, look Venezuelans
I warn you to be prepared.
Don’t allow them to gain power
Because they’ll dispossess you
Of your most precious possessions,
They’ll take away your freedom.
Don’t you see the fate of Cuba
They have stripped it from its life? (P.183)

Maxomo Aguirre was right. Today, fifty years later Venezuela is dying as a country. “…six young people have already been killed in recent weeks by police trying to quell protests in a society increasingly enraged against the rampant abuses of the Chavez dictatorship, widespread corruption of the regime, shortages, the collapse of law and the growing chaos to be spreading throughout the country. This context explains the escalating repressive regime in recent days… a gang of demagogues advised by Cuba in the art of repression are pushing Venezuela toward totalitarianism. …across Venezuela.. human rights are violated, channels (TV), radio stations, and newspapers are closed..” At the Abyss, by Mario Vargas Llosa The National, March7, 2015. Mario Vargas Llosa, Peruvian writer and Journalist. Nobel Prize Winner 2010.

Besides the playing down terrorism, Obama’s dealing with Cuba is threatening our national security. Rudy Giuliani was right and Ben Carson is also right in his guessing:”…may be Obama is guilty of treason…” Both Republicans are sensing the catastrophic moment in the American history. Obama equalizes Americans like Stalin preached it in the Soviet Union promoting his Doctrine of Soviet Fascism. Obama criticizes PM Netanyahu, because the latter is right–Iran is Russia’s proxy and in cahoots with Russia, Iran is a major sponsor of global terrorism. Iran’s Revolutionary Guard was built by Russia, imitating the KGB structure. That means an expectation of secrecy, fraud, cheating, deceptions, and double-dealing–the modus operandi of Soviet Fascism

It is not a media hype, reporting terrorist’s activities, it is Obama, who is slowing momentum of logical and immediate response to terrorism. Why? I have already expressed my opinion on Obama in 2008, in my book What is Happening to America? Reading the book, you’ll find out about the recently murdered in Russia a leader of the opposition Boris Nemtsov. He was my friend and a strong supporter of Ukraine. Just look attentively on the events going on in Russia and you will discover the sticking similarity with Venezuela and Iran–the modus operandi of Soviet Fascism. Reading the book, you also learn about the Clinton’s and their activities contrary to American interests.

Our national security will be a key issue in the upcoming election 2016. The time has come to stop our shifting towards the abyss of Socialism. Researching Obama’s domestic and foreign policy you will be stunned by the facts of contradictions. I have an impression that it is Putin, who currently runs America as both policies are aimed at helping Russia at the expense of the American people. The Republicans should have started the process of Obama’s impeachment years ago. Regrettably, they are not aware of our foremost enemy and neglected the ELEFANT in the room. They are not exposing the ideology of the Democratic Party harming America. Ignorance made them toothless and timid. The time has come to stop once and for all the destruction of our homeland by Soviet Fascism! Either you are for saving America or for destroying the best nation in the world. Knowledge is POWER.

To be continued www.SimonaPipko1.com.

RELATED ARTICLE: Putin’s Russia is a gangster regime

Soviet Fascism in the 21st Century: Paris in January 2015

Finally the world has awakened–the heart of Europe, the freedom attacked in Paris has caused a deep awakening of the entire decent world. Have you seen Paris in January 11, 2015? The tremendous display of solidarity, outpouring of emotions, excitement, love of freedom and rejection of terror were shown with all possible colors of human decency by citizens of Paris: Muslims, Christians, and Jews. The leaders of the world did not speak, they just presented the united forces of civilization–ordinary people spoke.

You could identify Muslims by their clothes, moreover you could see the imams speaking, articulating and rejecting a part of the Muslims hijacked by the ideology of terror. You saw a young Jewish woman with the Christian sign standing next to an imam and also eloquently rejecting terror, as did the representative of the Jewish community Simone Rodan- Benzaquen AJC Paris. You saw and heard a French writer and philosopher Bernard Henri Levy who openly and publicly called terrorism–Islamic Fascism. He is exactly right mentioning the word Fascism, but it is only a partial explanation of the events.

The people in Paris were united by their rejection of terror, but in reality they all were speaking about three major targets of Fascism:

  1. Freedom of the Press
  2. Police forces
  3. anti-Semitic attacks against Jewish people

The European history of the 20th century taught us about Fascism and its major targets.The reality of life and the citizens in Paris has identified these three targets again in January 11, 2015, one hundred years later.

As a matter of fact, Islamic Fascism is an integral part of Soviet Fascism, I have been writing about it for the last twenty-five years. The factions of the Muslims who are adhered to the political ideology of Soviet Fascism are acting in the realms of tactics and agenda of Soviet Fascism to destroy and replace Western civilization. This part of Muslim was hijacked by the Russian intelligence many years ago. My book The Russian Factor:From Cold War to Global Terrorism illustrateshow it was done. You should know Stalin’s Doctrine and the fact of his upbringing by the Muslim culture, to grasp the significance of the Doctrine in the 21st century. I have beenemphasizing this fact in all my current articles. Please go to simonapipko1.com in Google’s images and read them.

There is only one road to stop Terrorism–a total awareness of its deep roots connected to the Stalin’s ideology of Socialism and Communism, which were a pure FRAUD, numerous times described in my articles. The people of Paris are echoing and responding to this lethal force that has happened in Sidney, London, Pakistan, Israel, Ukraine, and in many other locations. The similarity of tactics is striking; the sophistication of the techniques is identical. History repeats itself and knowledge is the only power to stop repetition of the prior mistakes.

Thank you the people in Paris. Thank you France forcarrying the bannerof Liberty. Viva La Press Libre. 

To be continued  at www.simonapipko1.com.


French PM declares “war against terrorism, against jihadism, against radical Islam”

“She was definitely killed because she was Jewish”

Communism in America: The first Marxist President and hidden Muslims the Nation’s 230 Year History

At the 2014 South Carolina TEA Party, listen to two presentations about the first Marxist President and hidden Muslims. New Zealander Trevor Loudon warning of the ‘Enemies Within’.

Ben Smith former Navy SEAL is followed by a panel composed of those who all enlisted in the Cold Civil War that is going on in our homeland today. The assault By Communism, the assault by Socialism, the assault by Islam’s Muslim Brotherhood who are here and in the White House.

Frank de Varona, Director, Bear Witness Central, speaks in South Carolina about the first Marxist President and hidden Muslims:

Trevor Loudon at speaks at the 2014 South Carolina TEA Party, Warning of the ‘Enemies Within’:


Frank de Varona is an educator, historian, journalist, and internationally known expert on politics,  economics, foreign affairs, and national security issues. He has written 20 books, including three on President Barack Obama. At the age of 17, he participated in the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba. After the defeat, he was sentenced to 30 years in prison and served two years. After his liberation, he came to the United States and received three college degrees.

america in decline book coverDe Varona is the author of “America in Decline”. The book discusses the reasons for the decline of America under Obama. The author presents the real Obama, who has been associated his entire life with Marxists, socialists, and radicals. The author provides an account of Obama’s connections with his racist and unpatriotic pastor, Jeremiah Wright, his friendship with the unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers and with criminals such as Tony Rezco.

The author reveals the multitude of scandals that have marked Obama’s life before and after his election as president. The scandals of the purchasing of his house in Chicago, the Saudi Arabia’s financing his Harvard education, the IRS persecution of political opponents, the NSA spying on Americans, the Benghazi affair, and many others. He points out that any of these recent scandals could result in impeachment charges on the president.

The author explains that Obama is the first Marxist and hidden Muslim elected to the White House in the nation’s history. The author tells about Obama’s road towards a totalitarian socialist society and his disdain for the Judeo Christian values that made our nation great and his war against religion and Christianity. The book tells about Obama’s desire to take away the sovereignty and the wealth of the nation through U.N. laws and treaties and the eventual establishment of a one world government.

The author covers the misguided economic and foreign policies of the president who has placed our nation at risk of bankruptcy and seriously endangered our national security. The book covers the disastrous beginning of the first year of Obama´s second term. It includes chapters on the unlawful Common Core, the infiltration of the Muslim Brotherhood and communists in the Obama administration, the history of the Muslim Brotherhood and its goal to destroy our nation and the West, Obama’s multiple violations of the Constitution and electoral fraud in the two presidential elections.

The author discusses the volatile situation in Egypt and Syria as well as the increasing threat of al-Qaeda, China, and Russia. The book covers the government shutdown and the disastrous implementation of ObamaCare.

The author gives an account of the unlawful creation of the Federal Reserve Bank by a banking cartel and of the Bank for International Settlements, the central bank of all the private central banks which runs the world. He describes the New World Order and the powerful elite of the Bilderberg Group, Trilateral Commission, and Council of Foreign Relations which runs the United States and the world.

Lastly, the author offers specific recommendations to rescue the nation from tyranny and the road ahead for winning the Senate in 2014 and the White House in 2016.

Buy the paperback at Amazon.com
Buy the Kindle edition