No Matter how much things change they always remain the same

Today’s words are not mine but this is an observation more relevant now than ever in the history of the United States. This is Ayn Rand on the struggle between “Left” and “Right” for power. Keep in mind what she is pointing out: that the Right seeks power through chaos and the Left seeks power by referring to the threat of the Right. Never lose sight of the ultimate objective of both; POWER, not justice, not equality just pure raw power.

[Some “moderates” are trying to] revive that old saw of pre-World War II vintage, the notion that the two political opposites confronting us, the two “extremes,” are: fascism versus communism.

The political origin of that notion is more shameful than the “moderates” would care publicly to admit. Mussolini came to power by claiming that that was the only choice confronting Italy. Hitler came to power by claiming that that was the only choice confronting Germany. It is a matter of record that in the German election of 1933, the Communist Party was ordered by its leaders to vote for the Nazis — with the explanation that they could later fight the Nazis for power, but first they had to help destroy their common enemy: capitalism and its parliamentary form of government.

It is obvious what the fraudulent issue of fascism versus communism accomplishes: it sets up, as opposites, two variants of the same political system; it eliminates the possibility of considering capitalism; it switches the choice of “Freedom or dictatorship?” into “Which kind of dictatorship?” — thus establishing dictatorship as an inevitable fact and offering only a choice of rulers. The choice — according to the proponents of that fraud — is: a dictatorship of the rich (fascism) or a dictatorship of the poor (communism).

That fraud collapsed in the 1940’s, in the aftermath of World War II. It is too obvious, too easily demonstrable that fascism and communism are not two opposites, but two rival gangs fighting over the same territory — that both are variants of statism, based on the collectivist principle that man is the rightless slave of the state — that both are socialistic, in theory, in practice, and in the explicit statements of their leaders — that under both systems, the poor are enslaved and the rich are expropriated in favor of a ruling clique — that fascism is not the product of the political “right,” but of the “left” — that the basic issue is not “rich versus poor,” but man versus the state, or: individual rights versus totalitarian government — which means: capitalism versus socialism.”

Me again, I should remind you not to shoot the messenger. Here, the messenger is not me but Ayn Rand. I say don’ t shoot the messenger because there are many who do not care for Ms Rand’s perspective of politics, especially those who can’t resolve themselves regarding her atheism and her philosophy of ‘Objectivism’. Still, this observation speaks to those who stand up and declare that in order to save ourselves from fascism we must embrace Progressive Collectivism. Consider only the facts as an intelligence officer would and as I have pointed out many times before: it doesn’t matter whether you turn to the left or to the right, when you reach a point 180 degrees from your starting position the view is the same. My next blog will be on the tactics of those opposed to our current governmental form. You might find it interesting.

Leave a Reply