Opinion

ARE YOU A FASCIST?

We hear the word fascism slung around so frequently this past decade, and in the most derogatory manner (since it is an extremely derogatory label, so duh!), making many of us cringe, thinking: Oh, yikes! Fascism, bad! Of course, it’s bad!

It’s become apparent that many who cringe whenever the word is read, or spoken aloud, have zero comprehension of why it’s bad, only that it is bad. Because…? They have no idea what fascism is! And guess what? Neither do many of those slinging that word around.

And no—now is not the time to go run and check the Wiki or the Google. If you want to use a nonbiased web search engine, forego Google, and instead try Duck Duck Go. Take a look at the difference in your search results. You’ll get a more balanced and uncensored array of interesting information from both sides of the political spectrum and everything in between.

As for the Wiki, we all know Wiki is user updated and its definitions can change daily depending upon whose grubby and biased little fingers are dancing on the keyboard. Likewise, Google, in my humble opinion and that of many others, is no more “unbiased” than our Facebook “fact” checkers, aka Facebook Fascists, who are apparently attempting to emulate Nazi Germany, by giving only “leftist approved reading” for its users. And yes, I do consider Facebook fascist. You likely will, too, once you understand what fascism is, and how it is presently destroying, America, with businesses like Facebook leading the way.

When we hear the word fascism, liberals point to conservatives. Conservatives point to liberals. Independents point to both sides. And the apolitical who don’t vote and don’t keep up on current affairs? Well, they don’t give a rat’s ass either way. To everyone, except the apolitical, regardless if the true definition of fascism feels like sliding into an old and comfortable shoe, they point the finger at anyone they consider “the opposition.” And that’s how it begins: Fascism. You must first identify the opposition.

What’s most maddening is how the definition has been altered over time, repeatedly, depending upon who controls the narrative. Translation: the definition fluctuates based on who controls the news media, the Wiki, Facebook, Twitter, and Google, and even, sadly, our learning institutions.

In today’s climate, even our left-wing friends must be truthful enough, at least to themselves, to admit that their party controls today’s mainstream narrative. They have Hollywood clearly in their pockets, football, and other sports, along with behemoths CNN, MSNBC, Fox News (most though not all anchors). And let us not forget our big tech companies, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram—all far left-wing operated, complete with far left-wing policies that forcefully engage in censorship/suppression of any ideas with which they disagree. (fascism, anyone?)

When you see how one side controls our entertainment, sports, education, and news, then you can see where fascism can easily step in and take over…as it is doing now.

Benito Mussolini (who, by the way, published socialist newspapers), departed from his socialist comrades to form his new party, The National Fascist Party, while maintaining his socialist beliefs. Contrary to the left-wing narrative, Mussolini did not turn away from the ideologies of socialism. No. He enhanced them. So, while many sources point to him as being far-right, he was a socialist through and through. Last time I checked, socialism didn’t make it anywhere near the far-right spectrum of things. Not even moderately right-wing. Not even dead center. Socialism is far left.

In fact, Mussolini considered himself a socialist throughout his entire life, and was a strong believer in collectivist ideologies. Which, to anyone who understands the political spectrum, smacks strongly of not just left-wing, but far left-wing. Mussolini considered his fascist party a variant of the socialist party he left behind, one that put nationalistic endeavors at the forefront. But not just nationalistic, ultranationalistic!

While Mussolini engaged in his collective ideology and needed a way to force it on others, how did he assert submission upon the people?

You see, regardless of how many times the definition of “fascist” has changed, this part remains the same: Fascism was implemented through the forceful suppression of opposing voices. This plan calls for one’s sycophants, e.g., ANTIFA-like followers, to engage in various overt, covert, and subversive techniques, including violence, threats of violence, inciting fear, shame, engaging in character assassination of those who disagree with them, etc., to shut down the speech of those whose opinions you want silenced. Much like today’s “cancel culture.”

Which, when you look at it clearly, today’s cancel culture—brought to us directly from our left-wing extremists—is the epitome of fascism. The one thing all fascism has in common, whether you chose to view it as right-wing, left-wing, or somewhere in between, is the forceful silencing/suppression of those with whom you disagree.

This forced suppression of the freedom of speech, such as the madness we are all watching now, including that of the far left-wing ANTIFA (whose contradictory name would be funny if it weren’t so tragic), is becoming more commonplace. Such silencing is not just accepted in America now, but encouraged and even lauded by our left-wing friends and neighbors. And, it is fascism in its purest form.

Being called a fascist, when indeed you are not, is a threatening feeling. Just as being called ‘racist’ when you know it’s not so, can make some bow down and become silent. These are fascist tactics. These tactics are used because they are known to suppress the voices of those with whom you disagree. A means to shut them down completely, giving the power of free speech only to one side—your side.

When public discourse is stifled to eventually become one-sided, then people begin to fall in line, become slaves to their new dictatorial state of life, this is when true freedom is lost.

The word “fascist” has become very much like the word “racist,” slung around anytime there is a disagreement, when most times race or fascism has nothing to do with it. Hence, using such words this way to openlyyour opposition and shut them down is—surprise!— fascism!

In other words, it’s like saying the First Amendment only applies when someone you agree with is using it. Equal rights means they are granted equally to all, not just to your friends who think as you do.

So let us look at the Fakipedia definition of fascism that is widely being taught to our young:

From Wikipedia:

“Fascism is a form of far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and strong regimentation of society and of the economy which came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe.”

Let’s dissect this a bit. If you remove the hyphenated words “far-right” from the equation, none of it sounds even the slightest bit “conservative.” Even the over-the-top, fringe far-right don’t fit into that definition. That might be why the “far-right” part wasn’t part of the definition when I attended school. And, it’s not in all definitions, just the definitions pushed by the far-left through search engines such as Google. How convenient! Especially since history has associated fascism with socialism (think: Hitler, Mussolini, etc.). Someone, somehow, snuck in two words to place the blame elsewhere. So how did that hyphenated phrase get put in there?

Remember, whoever controls the media and the Wiki, controls the narrative. And our far-left friends and neighbors have been in control of our news media for decades. Whatever vile nasties in their past that didn’t flatter them, weren’t simply erased. They were, instead, attributed to their opponents.

So, to disprove this definition using that very definition, itself, let’s take a look at it. Within that definition is the phrase “dictatorial power.” Anyone who is right-wing or approaching right-wing knows that we scream loudly against “dictatorial power.” We want less government and more personal freedoms. That’s the creed of the right. “Dictatorial power” is what we see in socialistic and communistic governments. As you can clearly see, this part of the definition alone should give anyone with even a modicum of intelligence a moment’s pause. How can it be far-right when no one who is far right believes in dictatorial power?