Fascism and Communism Were Two Peas in a Pod
Dictator Fanboys
One person who understands this is Jonah Goldberg, author of the 2007 book Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left from Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning. Ten years on, the book still holds up. Goldberg argues, provocatively, that fascism shared roots in common with what we call modern liberalism or progressivism.
People often argue over whether Hitler and Mussolini were “right wing” or “left wing.” More to the point is that both men's ideologies had roots in the Progressive movement of the turn of the 20th century.
The Progressive movement was closely tied to the philosophy of Pragmatism: the belief that thought is a tool for action and change. In contrast to the ancient and medieval philosophers, for whom philosophy was the contemplation of reality, the Progressives were animated by the desire to mold reality and to harness knowledge for social betterment. Many in the vanguard of progressive thought initially were enamored of Mussolini and even Hitler, considering their dictatorships a useful “social experiment.”
H.G. Wells, the popular science fiction writer, was one. In a number of speeches and books he praised the militaristic social mobilization in the new fascist regimes: an entire society moving as a single unit under the rule of a Nietzschean superman.
Complete state control of all aspects of life was seen as highly pragmatic and scientific by many. Nationalism and militarism – elements commonly associated with the Right – were actually key components of the Progressive Era, flourishing in particular under President Woodrow Wilson, as Goldberg documents.
Ideological Twins
Popular wisdom holds that Fascism and Communism were diametrical opposites. Actually, the two ideologies were (and are) so similar that they had to define themselves in opposition to each other in order to survive. At the very least, both were socialistic in origin: Mussolini was immersed in socialism by his father, and the name of Hitler's party – National Socialist German Workers' Party – speaks for itself.
These regimes fostered hostility to traditional religious beliefs and morality (both men despised Christianity), “salvation by science” (as shown, for example, in the Nazi's racist eugenics movement), and state-controlled health and environmental projects (as shown in a Nazi slogan, “Nutrition is not a private matter!”).
All of these elements grew out of the “scientific” progressivism of the early 20th century. Even the Nazis' vÖlkisch ideology—with its nationalist and traditionalist overtones – was at heart a secular religion-substitute which enshrined the Will of the People, a concept which Goldberg traces to the French Revolution.
It would seem undeniable that Hitler and Mussolini, like the Soviet Union's Joseph Stalin, were revolutionaries and in no sense conservatives or traditionalists. Their ideologies grew out of the avant-garde positivist, progressive, and pragmatic philosophies of the late 19th century.
A Progressive Moment
The point here is not to engage in “left wing”/“right wing” name calling. Rather, it is to realize that all these political movements were tied up in a historical moment – Goldberg calls it the “fascist moment” of Western history – which originated in the French Revolution and came to fruition in the 20th century.
This moment was “progressive” in that it signaled the abandonment of the West's moral and philosophical traditions. And it was embodied, philosophically, in the turn away from the contemplation of truth to “action, action, action.”
Reprinted from Intellectual Takeout.
Michael de Sapio
Michael de Sapio writes at Intellectual Takeout.
This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.
Health Insurance and Good Health Are Not the Same Thing
Analysis by the Congressional Budget Office, which showed that 14 million more Americans could lose coverage by 2018 under the Republican replacement, caused an intense public outcry and was frequently cited as a rationale for not abandoning the ACA. There is immense political pressure not to take actions that will lead to a large loss of coverage.
But here’s the thing: the relevant metric by which to judge Obamacare isn’t insurance coverage numbers. To do so is to move the goalposts and place undue importance on a number that might not be as significant as we imagine.
The ultimate point of health insurance, and the implied rationale for manipulating insurance markets to cover sicker people, is that people will use insurance as a means by which to improve their health, not just carry a plastic card in their wallets.
Health Insurance ≠ Health
The impulse to use insurance coverage as a proxy for health is misguided but understandable. For one thing, it’s a simple, singular number that has dropped precipitously since the implementation of the ACA. That makes it a great marketing piece for supporters. For another, health insurance is the mechanism by which most of us pay for most of our healthcare.
And yet in 2015, the uninsured rate fell to 10.5% (down from 16.4% in 2005) while age-adjusted mortality increased for the first time in a decade. It turns out a nominal increase in the amount of insured Americans doesn’t necessarily translate into improved health outcomes for those individuals.
A newly released paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) finds that while the ACA has improved access to healthcare, “no statistically significant effects on risky behaviors or self-assessed health” can be detected among the population (beyond a slight uptick in self-reported health in patients over 65).
These results are consistent with other studies, like the Oregon Medicaid Experiment, which found no improvement in patients’ blood pressure, cholesterol, or cardiovascular risk after enrolling them in Medicaid, even though they were far more likely to see a doctor. There were, however, some notable-but-mild psychic benefits, such as a reduction in depression and stress in enrollees.
In short, despite gains in coverage, we haven’t much improved the physical health of the average American, which is ostensibly the objective of the ACA.
Why Not?
To be fair, the ACA is relatively young; most of its provisions didn’t go into effect until 2014. It may well be that more time needs to pass before we start to see a positive effect on people’s health. But there are a few reasons to think those health benefits may never materialize – at least, not to a great extent.
A lot of what plagues modern Americans (especially the poorest Americans) has more to do with behavior and environment than access to a doctor.
Health insurance can be a lifesaver if you need help paying for antiretroviral medication, but it won’t stop you from living in a neighborhood with a high rate of violent crime. It won’t make you exercise, or change your diet, or stop you from smoking. It won’t force you to take your medicine or stop you from abusing opioids, and it certainly won’t change how you commute to work (that’s a reference to the rapid increase in traffic deaths in 2015).
Of course, all things being equal, more insurance coverage is better. But nothing comes without cost, and as a society we want to be sure that benefits justify costs. So far, that’s not clear. This poses an existential question about our current pursuit of universal coverage, and, by extension, the relevance of coverage as a metric for the success of healthcare policy: If insurance isn’t the cure, why are we prescribing it with such zeal?
Eddie Ferrara
Eddie Ferrara is a writer from western Massachusetts. He blogs at eddiethoughts.com.
This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.
Shoot Like a Sniper: Simple Tips to Hone Your Marksmanship
Fundamentals of Markmanship
Air rifles can be either powered by Carbon Dioxide (CO 2) cartridges, or with an internal pneumatic pump, either with multiple pumps for increasing power or a single pump (as with “break-barrel” models of rifles). For the most part your standard air guns come in either .177 or .22 caliber models. Beeman offers one that has interchangeable barrels in both calibers, with the velocity decreasing slightly as the caliber is larger.There are many things you can do with an air rifle from a hunting and survival perspective. You can hunt small game quietly without the need for a suppressor if you’re doing it on the q-t, and ammo for it is both affordable and (when the SHTF) able to be reproduced simply (refer to the recent article I wrote on how to build your own forge).
The air rifle or air pistol fires pellets and/or BB’s (little ball bearings) that can be reused repeatedly. There are several “trap” targets like this one available with replaceable buffer materials on the inside. These targets enable you to collect your air rifle ammo and use it again. It is a simple thing to set up a range within your own basement or out in your backyard with an air rifle or air pistol. Although the motion of the weapon in terms of recoil is reduced from that of a rifle, the fundamentals of marksmanship are the same. Here they are:
This article is not intended to cover rifle marksmanship in general; however, you get the picture. Hand-eye coordination and the employment of these three fundamentals can be accomplished effectively with the air rifle. There are several European and Korean firms that manufacture air rifles in “big bore” calibers that can take down large game, if you wish to pursue air rifle marksmanship further. For starters, you can take your pick from Daisy, Crossman, Beeman, Benjamin, even Ruger, among others in the two mentioned calibers.
Breathing: Before you pull that trigger, you need to control your breathing, and optimally should pull immediately after you have exhaled
Aim: Self-explanatory, but it involves you zeroing on your target to line up your sights with your eyes and enable you to hit that bullseye.
Trigger squeeze: Should be accomplished with the very tip/end of your index finger, and should be a smooth, non-jerky action akin to squeezing a lemon
Just remember to lay out your range in a professional and safe manner. Treat your air rifle as a firearm at all times, as it is a type of firearm that can hurt someone severely, or worse if misused or used in an unsafe manner. As a field-expedient trap, you can even make one out of telephone books/directories mounted in the front of a carboard box. These work better for BB’s, as the pellets are usually made of lead and the strike tends to deform them. Safety glasses or goggles are also recommended, as a ricochet can come straight back in your direction.
The air rifle or air pistol are great tools to introduce your kids to principles of firearms safety and train them in marksmanship. It is quality time spent with them, in which they will learn how to do things the right way before they are old enough to fire that .22 rifle or that Winnie ’94 for the first time. Affordable and effective, the air rifle is an excellent training tool that you never really outgrow, and can enable you to have your own indoor range during the winter months that is both safe and cost-effective. Be safe, take care of one another, and happy shooting!
Jeremiah Johnson is the Nom de plume of a retired Green Beret of the United States Army Special Forces (Airborne). Mr. Johnson was a Special Forces Medic, EMT and ACLS-certified, with comprehensive training in wilderness survival, rescue, and patient-extraction. He is a Certified Master Herbalist and a graduate of the Global College of Natural Medicine of Santa Ana, CA. A graduate of the U.S. Army’s survival course of SERE school (Survival Evasion Resistance Escape), Mr. Johnson also successfully completed the Montana Master Food Preserver Course for home-canning, smoking, and dehydrating foods.
Mr. Johnson dries and tinctures a wide variety of medicinal herbs taken by wild crafting and cultivation, in addition to preserving and canning his own food. An expert in land navigation, survival, mountaineering, and parachuting as trained by the United States Army, Mr. Johnson is an ardent advocate for preparedness, self-sufficiency, and long-term disaster sustainability for families. He and his wife survived Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath. Cross-trained as a Special Forces Engineer, he is an expert in supply, logistics, transport, and long-term storage of perishable materials, having incorporated many of these techniques plus some unique innovations in his own homestead.
Mr. Johnson brings practical, tested experience firmly rooted in formal education to his writings and to our team. He and his wife live in a cabin in the mountains of Western Montana with their three cats.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
This newly released book from MIT Press “proposes a different kind of communism, one that is true to its ideals and free from authoritarianism.”
The death toll from communist regimes in the 20th century is well-documented. One study found that more people were killed under communism than homicide and genocide combined, and only 9 million more people were killed in World War I and World War II combined than under governments of this ideology.
Another study showed how the mass killings of civilians by their own governments took an immediate nosedive after the collapse of the Soviet Union and international communism.
Communism seemingly gets a pass to be reimagined as a sweet fable while it’s inconceivable that a book called “Fascism for Kids” would ever be printed by a reputable publisher.
Marion Smith of the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation wrote, according to The Washington Free Beacon:
This odd attempt to get kids into communism is unlikely to spawn a new generation of true believers on its own, but it does highlight the growing problem for younger Americans who are generally clueless about even recent history.
As The Daily Signal previously reported, a study from the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation found that millennials, in particular, are stunningly ignorant about what occurred under the Soviet Union and other communist regimes just a generation ago.
One-third of millennials surveyed actually believe that more people were killed under former President George W. Bush than under Soviet dictator Stalin.
If one truly wants to teach young Americans what communism is really about, it would be better to hand them a copy of the classic “Animal Farm,” by George Orwell.
The book is an allegory—using farm animals as stand-ins—about the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia a century ago. The revolutionary promise of “all animals are equal” is used to overthrow farmers, but quickly turns into a new, even more oppressive tyranny under animal overlords
A reign of forced labor, intimidation, and terror puts the animals under the thumb of their new masters—their ideals used to prop up an all-powerful regime. The refashioned creed becomes “all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” In the end, human, or rather “animal,” nature proved to be more powerful than any ideology.
As the Roman poet Horace once said: “You can drive out nature with a pitchfork, but she will ever hurry back.”
This lesson from Orwell would be a much better way to teach young people about destructive ideology than a fanciful account of how “true” communism—minus the mean authoritarian stuff and mass murder—would be truly grand.
Under communism, tyranny is a feature, not a bug.