The Myth of Right Wing Fascism

Leave a comment

The Myth

Fascism, according to the American Heritage Dictionary (1983) is A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism. Italian philosopher Giovanni Gentile’s entry in the Encyclopedia Italiana read: Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power. No less an authority on fascism than Mussolini was so pleased with that definition that he later claimed credit for it.

The Problem

The problem with this definition is can anyone name the so called corporations that controlled the government in Mussolini’s Fascist regime or any other?  Of course not.  It was government control of the means of production (socialism) minus actually holding the deed.

The Reality

Mussolini like his father was a Syndicalist (socialist) like his father.

Syndicalism is a proposed type of economic system, considered a replacement for capitalism. It suggests that workers, industries, and organisations be systematized into confederations or syndicates. It is “a system of economic organization in which industries are owned and managed by the workers”.[1]

Its theory and practice is the advocacy of multiple cooperative productive units composed of specialists and representatives of workers in each field to negotiate and manage the economy.”

He never left his socialist roots, he instead took a “National Syndicalist”

National syndicalism is an adaptation of syndicalism to suit the social agenda of integral nationalism. National syndicalism developed in France, and then spread to Italy, Spain, and Portugal. . . . In the early 20th century, nationalists and syndicalists were increasingly influencing each other in Italy.[5] From 1902 to 1910, a number of Italian revolutionary syndicalists including Arturo Labriola, Agostino Lanzillo, Angelo Oliviero Olivetti, Alceste De Ambris, Filippo Corridoniand Sergio Panunzio sought to unify the Italian nationalist cause with the syndicalist cause and had entered into contact with Italian nationalist figures such as Enrico Corradini.[6] These Italian national syndicalists held a common set of principles: the rejection of bourgeois values, democracy, liberalism, Marxism, internationalism, and pacifism while promoting heroism, vitalism, and violence.[7] Not all Italian revolutionary syndicalists joined the Fascist cause, but most syndicalist leaders eventually embraced nationalism and “were among the founders of the Fascist movement,” where “many even held key posts” in Mussolini’s regime.[8] Benito Mussolini declared in 1909 that he had converted over to revolutionary syndicalism by 1904 during a general strike. . . . In November 1918, Mussolini defined national syndicalism as a doctrine that would unite economic classes into a program of national development and growth.”

Fascist Manifesto

Italians! Here is the program of a genuinely Italian movement. It is revolutionary because it is anti-dogmatic, strongly innovative and against prejudice.

For the political problem: We demand:

a) Universal suffrage polled on a regional basis, with proportional representation and voting and electoral office eligibility for women.

b) A minimum age for the voting electorate of 18 years; that for the office holders at 25 years.

c) The abolition of the Senate.

d) The convocation of a National Assembly for a three-years duration, for which its primary responsibility will be to form a constitution of the State.

e) The formation of a National Council of experts for labor, for industry, for transportation, for the public health, for communications, etc. Selections to be made from the collective professionals or of tradesmen with legislative powers, and elected directly to a General Commission with ministerial powers.

For the social problems: We demand:

a) The quick enactment of a law of the State that sanctions an eight-hour workday for all workers.

b) A minimum wage.

c) The participation of workers’ representatives in the functions of industry commissions.

d) To show the same confidence in the labor unions (that prove to be technically and morally worthy) as is given to industry executives or public servants.

e) The rapid and complete systemization of the railways and of all the transport industries.

f) A necessary modification of the insurance laws to invalidate the minimum retirement age; we propose to lower it from 65 to 55 years of age.

For the military problem: We demand:

a) The institution of a national militia with a short period of service for training and exclusively defensive responsibilities.

b) The nationalization of all the arms and explosives factories.

c) A national policy intended to peacefully further the Italian national culture in the world.

For the financial problem: We demand:

a) A strong progressive tax on capital that will truly expropriate a portion of all wealth.

b) The seizure of all the possessions of the religious congregations and the abolition of all the bishoprics, which constitute an enormous liability on the Nation and on the privileges of the poor.

c) The revision of all military contracts and the seizure of 85 percent of the profits therein.


Does the above list look familiar? It should. It started from the same foundation. Syndicalism.

Herbert Croly

Herbert Croly was one of the creators of the progressive movement and co-founder of the progressive magazine “The New Republic”  He called for a more “Nationalistic” government with “syndicalist” reforms.

The Promise of American Life has received criticism from a number of angles. Many feared the underlying tones of totalitarianism or fascism. Others worried that Croly’s plan would make America socialist—a criticism Croly foresaw in his book and attempted to combat by labeling his government as nationalistic rather than socialistic.”

Croly argued that America’s liberal promise could be redeemed only by syndicalist reforms involving workplace democracy.

Croly’s synthesis — the ameliorative national state in opposition to the internationalism of socialism

“The salutary and formative democratic purpose consists in using the democratic organization for the joint benefit of individual distinction and social improvement” (461). Thus such a democracy would be dedicated “to liberty and equality, in so far as they made for human brotherhood.” It is only in this way that democracy can “claim the allegiance of mankind on rational moral grounds” (462).

But this demands a subordination of the machinery of democracy to “a reconstructive programme and an efficient organization”

Popular government “is to make itself expressly and permanently responsible for the amelioration of the individual and society” (462-463).

Democratic nationalism versus socialism. This is not so much socialistic as nationalistic. Unlike socialism, it is dedicated to “the development of a higher quality of individual self-expression,” and this requires “the preservation of the institution of private property in some form, and the . . . radical transformation of its existing nature and influence” (463). Croly also rejects “violent means.”

– “The great weakness of the most popular form of socialism consists, however, in its mixture of a revolutionary purpose with an international scope” (463). It would undermine “national cohesion” for international class conflict. “permanent good” can only come “through the preservation and the development of the existing system of nationalized states” (464).

– Croly admits that “national traditions . . . contain a large infusion of dubious ingredients,” and that there are “governments whose ruin is a necessary condition of popular liberation” (464). But to “the extent . . . [a] government is representative of national traditions and is organized in the interest of valid national purposes” it is entitled to the citizen’s loyalty.

The Problem With Both Fascism and Progressivism

Remember e from the Fascist Manifesto?

“e) The formation of a National Council of experts for labor, for industry, for transportation, for the public health, for communications, etc. Selections to be made from the collective professionals or of tradesmen with legislative powers, and elected directly to a General Commission with ministerial powers”

Under progressive legislation we have all of that through a multitude of regulatory agencies that now control almost every aspect of our lives.  While the modern progressive continuously blames those evil “capitalist” for every problem in this country.  They ignore the fact that the capitalist no longer control the economy, they do as Thomas Sowell points out.

“What President Obama has been pushing for, and moving toward, is more insidious: government control of the economy, while leaving ownership in private hands. That way, politicians get to call the shots but, when their bright ideas lead to disaster, they can always blame those who own businesses in the private sector.Politically, it is heads-I-win when things go right, and tails-you-lose when things go wrong. This is far preferable, from Obama’s point of view, since it gives him a variety of scapegoats for all his failed policies, without having to use President Bush as a scapegoat all the time.Government ownership of the means of production means that politicians also own the consequences of their policies, and have to face responsibility when those consequences are disastrous — something that Barack Obama avoids like the plague.Thus the Obama administration can arbitrarily force insurance companies to cover the children of their customers until the children are 26 years old. Obviously, this creates favorable publicity for President Obama. But if this and other government edicts cause insurance premiums to rise, then that is something that can be blamed on the “greed” of the insurance companies.”

In some respects the corporations do now control the country, not by design of the progressives.  But they failed to understand that which the founders understood all to well.  The Truism of Lord Action

““Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority; still more when you superadd the tendency of the certainty of corruption by authority.”

When they bestowed upon themselves to create these powers “regulatory agencies”  They ignored Lord Actions words and also the greed of the individual.  Greed is not just the lust for money but also the lust for power and there are always those in power that will sell out the country for more of both.  The cure was in the founding principles of limited government denying would be tyrants the power or authority to do so.  Wisdom can be found in the words of Milton Friedman on the subject.


MAC Get’s Spanked

1 Comment

MAC (Media Action Center) is crying the blues.  Broadcast Blues that is.  Sue Wilson (the founder) has been trying for years to silence Conservative Talk Radio. She even had an exchange with Top conservative Talker Rush Limbaugh who gave it to her in spades in SacBee Laments Right-Wing Talk Radio as a “Threat to Democracy”

So at least one conservative was willing to give her a voice.  This Libertarian and life long broadcaster has had several exchanges with her including exchanges on my blog and her own.  The thrust of her argument was that the airwaves were owned by the people aka the government, which I thoroughly trashed here.  She also tried to backdoor the unconstitutional “Fairness Doctrine” through the “Zapple Doctrine” claiming that the editorializing done by the pundits in talk radio constituted free time for a conservative candidate.  Of course she ignores the part of the first amendment guaranteeing freedom of the press and their right to editorialize and the fact that Zapple applies to the purchase of advertising not the content of a talk show host.  In the latest post by MAC they all but said the above.

For the Zapple Doctrine to be invoked, the supporters of the opposing candidate would have to specifically ask the station for air time.  If the station refused, the supporters could then appeal to the FCC, but no such Zapple complaint has been made in at least eight years.  Therefore, there was no violation of the Zapple Doctrine by the stations here, and even if there were, that would not be a basis for the denial of a license renewal, since programming has nothing to do with licensing in the first place.(Emphasis mine)

Zapple was and is intended to allow supporters of a candidate to purchase equal time as an opposing candidate, not to be used as a tool do dictate content of a show!

She then goes on to whine.

Perhaps, sir, you have forgotten our telephone conversation last May about this matter.  Perhaps you have forgotten that, on May 24th of this year, I emailed you documents entitled “Formal Complaint to FCC re WISN and WTMJ,” and “addendum:  Formal Complaint to FCC re WISN and WTMJ” citing specific Zapple violations by the stations.  Perhaps you have forgotten that you emailed me back, acknowledging receipt of said complaint.

Perhaps Sue you should again read the emphasised portion of their response.  Shall I repeat it reeeeaaaal Slooow.  “and even if there were, that would not be a basis for the denial of a license renewal, since programming has nothing to do with licensing in the first place.”

For them to dictate programming would be a violation of the first amendment and freedom of the press. Or do you need a primer on the first amendment too.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

As far a the stations serving the public, I would say the arbitron about sums it up.  I do not have access to the Milwaukee arbitrons but if they are anything like Madison more people listen to conservative then liberal and that is not the fault of programming.  I have said this repeatedly, this is sour grapes because no one wants to listen to progressive radio and because of that no stations want to carry it.

New Arbitron ratings paint bleak picture for progressive talk in Madison

Media Action Center “The Empire Strikes Back”


It appears the leftist group “Media Action Center” Lost it bid to stifle free speech by using the Zapple doctrine to back door the Fairness Doctrine back into existence. In her blog post Sue Wilson (the founder of Media Action Center) made the claim that I did not know the FCC rules.

 WI Broadcasters Assn knows the rules, don’t you? (1+ / 0-)

See pages 5 and 6.…

By the way, I have been a broadcaster – a NEWS broadcaster since 1987.  Emmy’s, AP, RTNDA awards…  I do get things right.

by Sue Wilson on Mon May 21, 2012 at 03:51:16 PM PDT

To Which I responded.

You conveniently ignore the fact that on page four (of your document)  section C  The equal opportunities requirement applies to “legally qualified candidates”   and section D that only opposing candidates are afforded equal time.

In another blog post Mz Wilson was forced to admit that I was in fact correct.

 [new]  Section 315 A Communications Act (3+ / 0-)

This law does say equal time for major party candidates only.  I disagree with that law, but for now, if I can at least get the Democrats represented on radio in the 60 days before an election, rather than Republicans only, that’s a really good start.

by Sue Wilson on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 01:33:31 PM PDT

But the attack on freedom of speech doesn’t end there.  The Empire has literally struck back with a petition campaign. Of course they make the socialist claim that the “Airwaves are government owned” with the following statement from the petition.

The Media Action Center (“MAC”) and local Milwaukee area residents and members of MAC Ray Grosch and Randall Bryce (declarations attached),oppose the renewal of the broadcast license of station WISN-AM  (“Station”) in Milwaukee, Wisconsin,  because existing management is failing to serve the public interest in the community, and is using the publicly owned airwaves with political intent which violates existing FCC rules.  Renewal of said license would detrimentally and irreparably harm the public.

Of course that statement is patently false.  It is true that like many industries Radio is heavily regulated, regulation does not mean ownership!  The vast majority of the regulations are in effect to keep stations from interfering with each other or putting up an even larger transmitter that would overpower smaller stations.  The fact that the Fairness Doctrine was found unconstitutional shows that the government does not have control over content.

How is it that these programs can take political positions without triggering requirements that opposing candidates get equal time? Under FCC rules, unless a candidate’ recognizable voice or image is broadcast by a station, there is no right to equal opportunities. In the past, until the FCC abolished the Fairness Doctrine by declaring it to be unconstitutional, even without a candidate appearance, the station would have had an obligation to give both sides of a controversial issue of public importance, such as an election, free time to respond to on-air statements by an announcer. When the doctrine was abolished, stations were free to air pointed programs taking positions on issues, giving rise initially principally to the conservative commentators, and more recently to their more liberal counterparts such as those heard on Air America radio.

The abolition of the Fairness Doctrine also allowed broadcasters to editorialize, even endorsing candidates for political office without having to give the opponent of their favored candidate equal time, just like print media can do.

In the petition Sue makes the following argument.

According to the FCC, programs must meet three tests to be considered “bonafide news.”  The program must be regularly scheduled, producers must be in control of guests and content, and the program must be non-partisan, not supporting any candidates.

As I pointed out in a previous blog post she is yet again dead wrong. She as most leftist claim to support the “First Amendment” ignore and bastardize it’s intent.

First Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

By dictating content they are infringing on the rights of the broadcasters right to free speech and the freedom of the press. As pointed out earlier print media has always had the right to endorse a candidate and it is worth repeating.

The abolition of the Fairness Doctrine also allowed broadcasters to editorialize, even endorsing candidates for political office without having to give the opponent of their favored candidate equal time, just like print media can do.

The “First Amendment” prohibits the federal government from interfering with the freedom of speech and the freedom of the press. Compelled speech is just as much an infringement as much as a denial of speech. Here is Judge Andrew Nepolitano’s take on it.

On the other hand, if our rights come from our humanity and our humanity is a gift from God, then we would still enjoy the freedom of speech, whether it is insulated from government interference by the First Amendment or not. The wording of the First Amendment itself gives us a peek at what its authors thought. They wrote: “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech.” It doesn’t say that Congress shall grant freedom of speech; rather, it prohibits Congress from interfering with it. And by referring to free speech as the freedom of speech, the drafters recognized that the freedom of speech already existed before the country that they were founding even came to be.

Of course Sue like all leftist concentrated on the “Scott Walker recall” ignoring the fact that Obama won the election proving that Conservative radio does not have the negative impact that they claim.  They just did not make their case to the public through their outlets.  Their Hypocrisy is also apparent in the fact that they do not hold left wing talk radio to the same standard. Ed Schultz was camped out in Wisconsin pushing for the leftist agenda.

Yet another “Progressive blogger” used similar arguments.

In a statement to Badger Democracy, Democratic Party spokesman Graeme Zielinski raised grave concern over this practice:

If it is not illegal it certainly is unethical for these broadcast corporations to be providing propaganda support in a scheme straight out of the Kremlin’s playbook. The employers at WTMJ and the other stations should explain how they are independent of the Walker administration and how their hours and hours of slavishly positive-and now, we see, coordinated-coverage fits within their own ethical guidelines and the rules and laws of Wisconsin and the United States.
The idea that the government can so directly control broadcasters who use public airwaves represents a major crisis for Wisconsin journalism.
A fellow member of “Media Action Center” Andrew defended Sue with the following comment.

Jun 14, 2012 @ 03:59:43 [Edit]

I seriously doubt that.
a) Even during the election cycles, the shows are free to be as partisan and one-sided as always whenever the topic is not about that current election.
b) How could constructive debate of both sides put them out of business? In fact, some of the most exciting and entertaining radio is when both sides are allowed to hash it out together. Why is WISN and WTMJ so afraid of that?
Progressive talk shows already have plenty of conservative guests on for debate. Take for example,
3 million+ listeners tune in to hear him debate multiple conservative guests on almost every show. Why can’t Belling, Sykes, or McKenna do that?

Here is a classic example of Thom’s fair and balanced approach to Journalism.

Of course you don’t see Libertarians like me or even Conservatives calling for these shows taken off the air.  But then you don’t see any of us using class warfare,gender warfare or race baiting to make our case.  But there are warnings from the past on those that do.

Of course it is not only free speech that these “Progressives” are going after.  Your privacy is at stake.

A Senate proposal touted as protecting Americans’ e-mail privacy has been quietly rewritten, giving government agencies more surveillance power than they possess under current law.

CNET has learned that Patrick Leahy, the influential Democratic chairman of the Senate Judiciary committee, has dramatically reshaped his legislation in response to law enforcement concerns. A vote on his bill, which now authorizes warrantless access to Americans’ e-mail, is scheduled for next week.

Leahy’s rewritten bill would allow more than 22 agencies — including the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Federal Communications Commission — to access Americans’ e-mail, Google Docs files, Facebook wall posts, and Twitter direct messages without a search warrant. It also would give the FBI and Homeland Security more authority, in some circumstances, to gain full access to Internet accounts without notifying either the owner or a judge.

Revised bill highlights

✭ Grants warrantless access to Americans’ electronic correspondence to over 22 federal agencies. Only a subpoena is required, not a search warrant signed by a judge based on probable cause.

✭ Permits state and local law enforcement to warrantlessly access Americans’ correspondence stored on systems not offered “to the public,” including university networks.

✭ Authorizes any law enforcement agency to access accounts without a warrant — or subsequent court review — if they claim “emergency” situations exist.

✭ Says providers “shall notify” law enforcement in advance of any plans to tell their customers that they’ve been the target of a warrant, order, or subpoena.

✭ Delays notification of customers whose accounts have been accessed from 3 days to “10 business days.” This notification can be postponed by up to 360 days.


I have frequently pointed out in the past that no one listens to liberal radio, that’s why Air America failed!  They were both in the progressive areas of Wisconsin and Milwaukee and yet they failed.  Freedom of choice dictates that if you don’t like the content you simply change the dial!

Rush put it eloquently.

RUSH:  All right, a couple more little blurbs here.  Sacramento Bee, Sue Wilson: “Considering a 2003 Gallup poll showing that 22 percent of Americans get their information from talk radio, we’re not just talking about what is fair play; we are talking about a threat to the democracy we hold dear.”  Lib talk radio dying. Lib talk radio “has been taken off the air in Boston; Fresno; San Diego; Madison, Wis.; Eugene, Ore.; Austin, Texas; New Haven, Conn.; Columbus, Ohio and other markets all across the country,” because it failed, because it got no listeners.  But yet there’s this 2003 Gallup poll showing that “22% of Americans get their information from talk radio.  We’re not just talking about what’s fair play.

He also said;

Let me answer your question, Sue. Corporate dollars are not the sole arbiter of what information you the people get to hear on publicly owned airwaves. Your little lib station, your little lib programming has had a couple of opportunities in Sacramento. Nobody wanted to listen to it. Corporations are not required to lose money in order to present a point of view and in such a way that irritates people just so there is so-called fairness.


Badger Democracy Revisited

Leave a comment

A couple of weeks ago I took on a progressive blogger because of his attacks on Talk radio. The exchange quickly turned to economics.  He said:

There is too much here to discuss in a comment response. If you are hanging your economic hat on Friedman, I’m sorry. He and his followers have been wrong in so many ways about his so-called “free market” theories. Friedman’s theories put into practice are directly responsible for worldwide dissolution and collapse of middle class working economies. The only reason his economics are still practiced is revisionist history and those in power profiting greatly from the outcome. Greed as the driving force – you are missing the point. Friedman has always misrepresented the work of Adam Smith – ignoring the moral imperative in his work. “Superior prudence,” Smith said, “is the best head joined to the best heart.” But over the years, economics instructors have edited out Smith’s “moral sentiments” — leaving only the impression that the “invisible hand” of free markets can magically convert individual greed into mutual benefit. Much ignored today is the fact that Smith was pro regulation – The purpose of banking regulations was to oblige “all of them to be more circumspect in their conduct, and by not extending their currency beyond its due proportion to their cash, to guard themselves against the ruinous runs, which the rivalship of so many competitors is always ready to bring upon them” (Wealth of Nations).

On the invisible hand comment Right from Smiths wealth of nations page 363,

By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain; and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest, he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good. It is an affectation, indeed, not very common among merchants, and very few words need be employed in dissuading them from it.

Page 19

Whoever offers to another a bargain of any kind, proposes to do
this. Give me that which I want, and you shall have this which
you want, is the meaning of every such offer; and it is in this
manner that we obtain from one another the far greater part of
those good offices which we stand in need of. It is not from the
benevolence of the butcher the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity, but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities, but of their advantages. Nobody but a beggar chooses to depend chiefly upon the benevolence of his fellow-citizens. Even a beggar does not depend upon it entirely. The charity of well-disposed people, indeed, supplies him with the whole fund of his subsistence. But though this principle ultimately provides him with all the necessaries of life which he has occasion for, it neither does nor can provide him with them as he has occasion for them. The greater part of his occasional wants are supplied in the same manner as those of other people, by treaty, by barter, and by purchase.

On regulation page 112;

A regulation which obliges all those of the same trade in a particular town to enter their names and places of abode in a public register, facilitates such assemblies. It connects individuals who might never otherwise be known to one another, and gives every man of the trade a direction where to find every other man of it.
A regulation which enables those of the same trade to tax themselves, in order to provide for their poor, their sick, their widows and orphans, by giving them a common interest to manage, renders such assemblies necessary.
An incorporation not only renders them necessary, but makes
the act of the majority binding upon the whole. In a free trade, an
effectual combination cannot be established but by the unanimous consent of every single trader, and it cannot last longer than every single trader continues of the same mind. The majority of a corporation can enact a bye-law, with proper penalties, which will limit the competition more effectually and more durably than any voluntary combination whatever.
The pretence that corporations are necessary for the better government of the trade, is without any foundation. The real and
effectual discipline which is exercised over a workman, is not that
of his corporation, but that of his customers. It is the fear of losing
their employment which restrains his frauds and corrects his negligence.

Badger then goes on to say:

 . . .  As for your definition of fascism – to imply that progressive policies in any way reflect fascism is laughable. And by the way…the founders NEVER intended pure laissez faire capitalism. Our current state of corporate capitalist-dominated politics was one of their worst nightmares.

It is not my definition of fascism it is your fellow progressives that have made that distinction.

Of course you ignore the fact that it is the Progressives that took the money supply from the Department of  Treasury and created a private corporation called the FED who they also gave control of the banks.

From the FED’s own page.

The Federal Reserve System is considered to be an independent central bank because its decisions do not have to be ratified by the President or anyone else in the executive branch of government. The System is, however, subject to oversight by the U.S. Congress.

In recent history the progressives passed the PACT Act under the guise of stopping the trafficking of cigarettes. it did nothing to reduce trafficking  it was nothing more then a protective measure to protect the states that imposed abusive taxes on it’s citizens. With the added benefit of “nanny statism” Then we move on to The Main Street Fairness Act which has the same protectionist attitude as the PACT Act but applies it to sales tax. It ignores the fact that competition lowers cost even when it comes to taxation.  Adam Smith even covers this.

Page 361

That this monopoly of the home market frequently gives great
encouragement to that particular species of industry which enjoys
it, and frequently turns towards that employment a greater share
of both the labour and stock of the society than would otherwise
have gone to it, cannot be doubted. But whether it tends either to
increase the general industry of the society, or to give it the most
advantageous direction, is not, perhaps, altogether so evident.
The general industry of the society can never exceed what the
capital of the society can employ. As the number of workmen that
can be kept in employment by any particular person must bear a
certain proportion to his capital, so the number of those that can
be continually employed by all the members of a great society
must bear a certain proportion to the whole capital of the society,
and never can exceed that proportion. No regulation of commerce
can increase the quantity of industry in any society beyond what
its capital can maintain. It can only divert a part of it into a direction
into which it might not otherwise have gone;

It is quite lengthy but Joseph T. Salerno did a video called “Keynes and the “New Economics” of Fascism”



You’ve Been Outed! (Rant of a Keyboard Warrior)

1 Comment

I started my journey into being active in the political process as a keyboard warrior.  I would post on forum and newspaper comment sections under the cover of anonymity.  On Topix I used the name Free_America’ at the Crapital Times FreeAmerica.  I gave up that anonymity the day I became a proud member of Ban the Ban Wisconsin, but since I had established accounts at these various places I continued using my pseudonyms at these various places but frequently added who I was and my affiliations.  Recently aware of the plight of friends at a local RYO shop and decided to take an active role in their fight.  I contacted Vicki McKenna using my credentials as a member of Ban the Ban as my introduction and enlisted her help in the fight for these RYO shops, I neither asked for nor was I granted anonymity.  To the shock of some fellow keyboard warriors, Vicki dared utter the name “Marshall Keith” on the air.  Some of them emailed me telling me that Vicki had “outed” me and that now “they know who you are”.   I of course found this quite humorous for “they” have known for quite some time.  After a week of reflection I no longer see humor in it, as a matter of fact I am PISSED!.  Not at the keyboard warriors, but at the culture of fear behind it. Just thus week at the Greenbelt Patch James Repace a so called unbiased scientist who took part tn the 1992 EPA report and the two subsequent Surgeon generals reports used prioritizes like tobacco trolls, nicotine addicts, Fronting for Big Tobacco, Forces Goons, etc etc etc. He referred to fellow scientists who disagreed with him “the usual suspects”.  Yet he could not answer simple questions like why they had to cheat and use meta-analysis.  To those of us in the fight these tactics are nothing new, they are actually part of the tobacco control training as stated by former Tobacco Control trainer Dr Michael Siegel.

The true colors of the modern-day anti-smoking movement showed brightly last week, as a prominent smoke-free air advocate (me) was thrown off a smoke-free advocacy list-serve for daring to criticize an inflammatory and unfounded personal attack, bordering on defamation, of an individual (private citizen) who is a smoking ban opponent which was posted on the list-serve.

And of course the do frequent polls to see how effective their demonization campaign is working.
These tactics are not just limited to those fighting the smoking ban, indeed we see exactly the same tactics used against the Tea party, those fighting for second amendment rights and conservatives in general. Just last week at a local watering hole, one in the group went on a rant about how everything was Bush’s fault and on how people were not giving Obama a chance?  I began to talk about free market principles to which he jumped up and screamed “You sound like a fucking Republican”!  I smiled and responded “Worse, a Libertarian”.  I got that deer in the headlight look.  He lapped up the left’s Kool-aid and freely offered it to others, but didn’t have a clue. His response did not surprise me, it was the lack of response by others who I knew for a fact didn’t agree with him. With his outburst he forced them into silence.  This is their goal!  Do they think racial taunts like “Uncle Tom” are going to silence a strong black man like Herman Cain?  Hell no, it is to silence any weaker blacks who may be considering straying from the collective fold.  And of course when the facts don’t fit the propaganda, “Fake IT”.

And if you listen to Vicki’s show there very well may be a little of that hanky panky going on using the war on drugs as a tool to enact even more gun control.

Why would they do this?  Because perception is everything.

Propaganda is not a matter for average minds, but rather a matter for practitioners.  It is not supposed to be lovely or theoretically correct. . . . We do not want to be a movement of a few straw brains, but rather a movement that can conquer the broad masses. Propaganda should be popular, not intellectually pleasing.  It is not the task of propaganda to discover intellectual truths. Dr. Paul Joseph Goebbels

And again they take polls to see if their campaign is working.  Again, not to silence people like me, Vicki or Herman Cain. Their goal is to silence You,  my fellow keyboard warriors. Those who are afraid to speak their mind in the light of day.

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

And this goes hand in hand with Benjamen Franklin’s quote.

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

We see daily the constitution and our very liberty being whittled away, all in the name of safety, and not all of it by lawmakers.   It is also dying the death of a thousand papercuts from the rulemakers at the regulatory agencies.

More on incrementalism and the coat tax.

The last of these ad-hominem attacks took place on facebook. Vicki was celebrating the fact that she has not had a cigarette in a year. Instead of celebrating with her she was attacked because she used a non Tobacco Control (Big Pharma) approved method, the e-cigarette. Sharon Daniel How’s it feel to be a pusher?” Again this is a tactic by tobacco control to push thir drug partners potentially fatal drugs and has no basis in fact.

So if you hide behind your keyboard through the safety of anonymity or hang your head in silence while they burn the Constitution, remember this warning from the past.

First they came for the communists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a Jew.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

One year later, smoking ban critics lose steam?

1 Comment

JSOnline had a piece entitled “One year later, smoking ban critics lose steam” But have we? Judging by the comments, not by a damn site.

Keep breathing easy, Wisconsin – Tuesday marks the one-year anniversary of the statewide ban on smoking in bars and restaurants.

Since the law took effect July 5, 2010, most Wisconsinites, including former detractor Gov. Scott Walker, have grown to accept or have embraced the ban.

A survey released last week by advocacy group SmokeFree Wisconsin found that 75% of respondents supported the ban, up from 69% in 2008 when state lawmakers were still debating the issue.

Of course we have been over the carefully crafted polls conducted by Smoke Free Wisconsin. But as I have repeatedly said, the free market is the ultimate pollster and it tells a different story. The free market public opinion poll tells the real story. Here is sheriff Nehls words.


Nehls estimates that about 75 percent of tavern owners in Dodge County abide by the terms of the smoking ban. However, the remaining 25 percent that knowingly choose to ignore the law are drawing the resentment — and business — of those that follow the law.

“We now have this rivalry of bar owners turning in other bar owners. That’s what the fight is about now. You’re either a business that complies with the law and has no business as a result or you’re breaking the law to get more business,” Nehls said. “And we’re going to bring that to an end.”

How’s that for a real life poll, not a carefully crafted poll to obtain a predetermined result. But a live poll of real people living their lives.

Progressive Mythology ” The Level Playing Field”


In my fight against the draconian smoking ban I checked out MoGASP.  Now Martin Pion is a decent, but misguided man.  He is one of two pro-ban activist that I know of that allows dissenting opinions, Dr Michael Siegel’s being the first.

Acknowleging the integrity of Martin I still have to laugh at the hypocrisy and and conflicting statements in some of the posts. This is not intentional as I find Martin to be an honorable man. It is blind faith in the cause and faith in progressive ideals. The first statement is in fact the call for a “level playing field”

The speakers said the seven-month-old smoking ban did not provide a level playing field for businesses.
Ken Breier is an owner of Schottzie’s Bar and Grill in South County, which does not have an exemption.

What makes this statement a myth is the fact that the free market is the ultimate “level Playing field”, it was the smoking ban that created the unlevel playing field which brings us to the total hypocracy and dishonesty of the tobacco control movement. You see they frequently boast and claim the popularity of these smoking bans using carefully crafted polls.

I hear almost weekly from county residents that are thrilled with the new environment, and employees I talk with are also thrilled. A recent survey done for the American Cancer Society showed that voters really like this ordinance and want it strengthened.

I find it ironic that these activist don’t see the conflict in these statements, you see the “free market” is also the ultimate polling place, people will frequent businesses that cater to the wishes of their clientele. But is it the bars with exemptions that are calling for a level playing field, crying make them allow smoking? Of course not, based on these facts any intelligent person would question the integrity of these polls.

But this “level playing field” or “fairness” is a common cry of the progressives in order to rectify problems of their own design. Progressive states impose excessive draconian taxes which cause their constituents to seek relief through interstate sales. How do the progressives react to this? After all they handicapped local businesses with the draconian taxes, well instead of lowering the taxes they call for “fairness” or a “level playing field” They call it the “Main Street Fairness Act”

Tobacco control in Wisconsin is using similar tactics when it comes to tobacco taxation. They use carefully crafted polls to deceive the public. The exact wording of the poll was Closing the tax loophole so candy and fruit flavored tobacco products are taxed at the same rate as cigarettes. This of course is after planting in the minds of the interviewee that this was an act to protect children. The fact is, it is not children that smoke these, it is the elderly on fixed incomes. Any one that has tried these find them disgusting and would not appeal to children. Then they call for public funding of their lobbying efforts.

close tax loopholes that allow some tobacco products to be
taxed less than others and continue funding the Tobacco Prevention and Control Program

Is it proper for tax dollars to be spent on any lobbying efforts?

Older Entries