Daily Stormer The Most Censored Publication in History
Most people are stupid, and this is especially true for people on the internet. Sometimes, you have to talk to them like they are babies.
I recently wrote an article about Tucker Carlson and other right-wingers claiming that America is a “fascist country,” while denying the reality that by every definition, it is in fact a democracy. My assertion is that democracy is not good, and is in fact bad. Whatever you think of historical fascism, it was a much better, fairer system that led to greater prosperity and personal freedom.
Unfortunately, people will still post this alleged quote from Benito Mussolini, and act as though it explains everything:
Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power.
There is no evidence that this is a real quote, but rather one of the many fake quotes that got passed around on the internet in the early 2000s.
The quote is usually attributed to a 1935 article written by Mussolini in the 1932 “Enciclopedia Italiana,” but the quote does not appear in that article. A longer article addressing the same issues from the same year, “Fascism: Doctrine and Institutions,” also does not contain the quote. Maybe he said it at some point, no one can say because he said a lot of things, but there isn’t any source documentation of it.
If he did say it, he certainly didn’t mean what people imply he meant, which is that “fascism” was intended to be similar to the modern American state, where private corporations work directly with the government to write laws that benefit a small minority of wealthy persons. When Mussolini talked about “corporatism,” he was actually talking about the standard definition of the term, which refers to collective bargaining by various worker syndicates. (Wikipedia explains it well enough.) Corporatism is similar to the medieval system of guilds, where artisans and merchants had membership organizations that regulated their trade and through collective bargaining power made tax and other regulatory deals with local lords and sometimes the monarchy itself. The corporatist system also encompassed trade unions, the military, and the Catholic Church, giving each self-regulating group a seat at the table to negotiate directly with the state.
This system of various working bodies in society organizing collectively and negotiating directly with the state is very different than what we have now in America, though we do have remnants of it in the form of unions. I’ve always been anti-union, because these groups are completely corrupt and decadent, but it is possible that if things were ordered differently, unions would not function as cartels leeching off of the public trust. It seemed to work fine in Mussolini’s Italy, but we should remember that this government only existed for a short time before it was snuffed out by the Americans.
The people who cite this fake quote, however, are observably very low-level morons, and appear to be claiming that any form of public-private partnership is “fascism” and is therefore bad and evil. If “fascism” is purely defined by “public-private partnerships,” then every government which ever existed, save extreme communist governments, were fascist states. You have to have some kind of system of private persons and private groups cooperating with the government, or the entire society is going to be controlled by the government.
The problem in America is that the masses of people are cut out of the equation, given no power at all, while the private interests that work with the government are made up entirely of elites who manage the various private institutions of society. Not only are the competing interests not balanced, the interests of the largest groups, which are the peasantry and the middle classes, are never addressed, and no normal person has any ability to make his voice heard. This is what I addressed in the previous article, pointing to the fact that in a democracy, the bureaucracy is totally opaque, and elected politicians simply serve as temporary frontmen for that bureaucracy, which means that no one in the system can ever be held responsible for anything. The buck stops nowhere, so there is never anyone to blame. Presidents always avoid blame, passing it onto the Congress or the court system, while even particularly diabolical individuals such as Anthony Fauci, a man who certainly appeared to be making a lot of decisions personally, are able to toss the hot potato into the black hole of bureaucracy, claiming that they were just following orders of some other group.
“America is a Republic”
A separate but related response to condemning the American system of democracy is “America is not a democracy, it is a republic.” This is a special kind of retarded statement, which would only be possible for an American to make.
Here’s the thing: basically every country that is not a monarchy is a republic. It simply means the country is guided by a constitution rather than a blood lineage. Cuba and North Korea are republics. Egypt and Turkey are republics. The USSR was divided into many republics, several of which became “independent republics” after the USSR fell, while post-Russia remains a “federation of republics.”
Meanwhile, the United Kingdom remains a kingdom, that is a monarchy, and yet has just as much democracy as the various republics.
Therefore, “the US is a republic” is a factual statement, but a totally meaningless one.
Obviously, this is not to say that when the Founders declared “America is a republic” that they intended for things to turn out like they have. The problem, however, is not that America stopped being a republic, but rather that it began to integrate much too much democracy into the republican framework, which allowed for institutions of power, including both private interests and the government itself, to evade all accountability and operate as a black box.
Originally, the US was a “democratic republic,” but it was only land-owning white men that were allowed to vote. The major change in our system of government that created this mess was enfranchising peasants, then black people, then women. None of these groups are capable of making informed decisions or holding the government accountable, and the “one person, one vote” system means that the media is capable of deciding the outcomes of elections using lies and emotionalized nonsense.
To put the absurdity of claiming that every single individual in society deserves equal say into perspective, Ireland recently did a push to get people with Down syndrome to vote. There is Google data showing that around this last election, “can dogs vote?” became a popular search query. Allowing dogs to vote would make more sense than giving the vote to a human who wonders if their dog can vote.
In recent years, we’ve obviously dealt with rampant voter fraud in America, but it should be noted that the universal suffrage system is the only thing that allowed for this voter fraud to happen in the first place. If we had a body of land-owning men as the only ones allowed to vote, they would never allow for what amounted to anonymous voting in the first place, and instead would have voted for a secure voting system. Through this mass democracy system, people have voted to ban voter ID, as a result of emotional propaganda claiming that black people are so pitiful they can’t get IDs, and thus it would be a cruel action against an oppressed class to require ID to vote. A system that makes these kinds of decisions is clearly not at all reasonable.
Mussolini’s vision of organized syndicates making deals with the government might be open to the same kind of corruption we have seen in labor unions over the last century or so, but no system is completely immune to corruption. Surely, a system of syndicates would operate more in the rational interests of the public than this universal democracy system.
What is the Power Doing?
People need to start thinking about what power is instead of how it operates. All of this talk about systems is ultimately academic. The idea that American democracy serves the interests of the public is cartoonish and vile, and clearly untrue, but there are systems that allow universal voting that are not this corrupt. Russia allows universal voting, and while there is a fair amount of corruption in Russia, it is nowhere near on the level of the US, and despite corruption, the policies of the government generally line up with the popular will.
People in power are always first and foremost concerned about remaining in power. This is natural enough. If you had a lot of power, would you want to give it up? I would not.
If you look at this as the prerogative of the powerful, then you see something that is the same across every government that has ever existed: the powerful defend their position of power. Democracy sort of obfuscates that by moving around these various figureheads, but at this point I think everyone understands that there is a well-established political entity in Washington, DC that is composed of a series of powerful individuals and families who are intent on maintaining their power.
There is no way to prevent powerful people from doing everything in their power to remain in power. And if you shared the goals of the people in power, you would not want to remove them from power. Therefore, dislodging the powerful is good or bad based only on the goals of that power.
In historical monarchies in Europe, there were not a lot of people wanting to dislodge the king from power, as the goal of the king was necessarily to perpetuate Christendom, and to care for the people. The people could disagree with the king, or want him to do things he wasn’t doing, but this usually did not mean they wanted to overthrow him. If kings were replaced, it was with one of their relatives, meaning the family maintained its power. But of course, under a Christian mandate, the king did not have the ability to do anything weird, and therefore the public didn’t have much reason to oppose him.
The problem in the United States and her vassals is that the government in Washington is fundamentally Jewish, and thus fundamentally opposed to the interests of Christian people. Democracy provides the shield for them to engage in the ultimate forms of subversion, corruption, and tyranny, to obfuscate their power, and to operate with impunity. If it were not for the Jews, this current universal suffrage system would still be totally corrupt, but it would not be so ridiculously weird and evil. Jews have brought in women, homosexuals, and various aggrieved minorities to serve as soldiers in their campaign against heterosexual white Christian men. The fact that they are on a campaign against us is the problem. Why would they be on such a campaign, other than because they are evil by their very nature? They had extreme power in America by the 1960s, and they could have held onto it indefinitely, but they decided to use that power to go to war with the core population of the country.
Democracy is relevant only insofar as it is the ultimate manifestation of Jewish tyranny. If it was not for these Jews who have lodged themselves into positions of power, democracy would have been reformed long ago, and made to work better than it does, but Jews want to perpetuate their own power, and they want to push their agenda, and so they push for more democracy, and push to overthrow governments all over the world and install their system of democracy in order to extend their global control network.
Most of the problems that the 20th century movements of fascism, communism, and capitalism were seeking to address have already been solved by technological advancements, and don’t really need to be addressed with such vigor. China has figured out a system that allows a billion and a half people to live relatively good lives, with the opportunity for social mobility, and they’ve done it without employing any type of ideological dogma, simply focusing on the practicalities of the relationships between the state, the wealthy, and the working classes.
In the West, Jews are the problem. Jews are the reason why we are in an age which should be something resembling a technological utopia, and yet most people are struggling just to get by. While discussion of the nature of the system can be interesting, it is ultimately futile if the goal is anything other than dislodging Jews from power.
