Privatization is at the Core of Facsism

Privatizations are increasingly fashionable, such as in Greece, Ukraine, the U.S., and UK — and privatizations are a central feature of fascism.

Eric Zuesse

Image source.

The first group of privatizations occurred in the first fascist nation, Italy, in the 1920s; and the second group of privatizations occurred in the second fascist nation, Germany, in the 1930s. Privatizations started under Mussolini, and then were instituted under Hitler. That got the fascist ball rolling; and, after a few decades of hiatus in the wake of fascism’s embarrassing supposed defeat in WW II, it resurfaced and then surged yet again after 1970, when fascist forces in the global aristocracy, such as via the CIA, IMF, Bilderberg group, and Trilateral Commission, imposed the global reign of the world’s main private holders of bonds and of stocks: the world’s aristocrats are taking on an increasing percentage of what were previously public assets.

Privatizations, after starting in fascisms during the pre-WWII years, resumed again in the 1970s under the fascist Chilean leader Augusto Pinochet; and in the 1980s under the fascist British leader Margaret Thatcher (a passionate supporter of apartheid in South Africa) and also under the smiling fascist American leader Ronald Reagan (who followed the prior success of Richard Nixon’s “Southern Strategy” of White domination in the by-then resurgent-conservative U.S., and might even be said to have been America’s first fully fascist President); and in the 1990s under several fascist (formerly communist) leaders throughout the former Soviet Union, under the guidance of Harvard University’s fascist economics department, which transferred control from the former nomenklatura, to the new (Western-dependent) “oligarchs,” all under the virtual guidance of its former head, Lawrence Summers, who then was serving as the World Bank President.

And, privatizations are now all the rage throughout the world, such as in today’s fascist United States, and today’s fascist United Kingdom.

Mussolini was the man-of-the-future, but — after Franklin Delano Roosevelt died, and finally Thatcher and Reagan and other ‘free-marketeers’ came into office — Mussolini’s “future” has increasingly become our own “now”: the Axis Powers’ ideology has actually been winning in the post-WW-II world. Only, this time, it’s called instead by such names as “libertarianism” or “neo-liberalism,” no longer “fascism,” so that only the true-believing fascists, the aristocrats, will even know that it’s actually fascism. It’s their Big Con. It’s their Big Lie. Just renaming fascism as “libertarianism” or “neo-liberalism,” has fooled the masses to think that it’s pro-democratic. “Capitalism” has thus come to be re-defined to refer to only the aristocratically controlled form of capitalism: fascism. The ideological battle has thus apparently been won by a cheap terminological deceit. That’s all it takes for dictatorship to be able to win.

The democratically controlled form of capitalism, such as in some northern European countries, has commonly been called “socialism”; and, of course, it’s opposed to all forms of dictatorship, both communist and fascist. Socialism is the democratic form of capitalism. It’s not the dictatorial form of socialism, which is Marxism. It’s the form of capitalism that serves the public, instead of the aristocracy, at any point where the two have conflicting interests. It subordinates the aristocracy to the public. Fascism instead subordinates the public to the aristocracy, which is the natural tendency (because the “World’s Richest 0.7% Own 13.67 Times as Much as World’s Poorest 68.7%,” and the “World’s Richest 80 People Own Same Amount as World’s Bottom 50%”).

Thus, recognizing those just-linked-to shocking realities, the basic decisions for the future of the world can actually be made by perhaps as few as only a hundred or so people, whose representatives at forums such as Bilderberg can coordinate things in private, and so can provide a sort of global supra-government, with those representatives serving as ministers to their principals, who, of course, will then carry out the details of whatever has been agreed upon between their agents, on their behalf. Payments then can be made in the normal way, between their respective corporations, and this arrangement can include payments to lobbying firms, etc., as well as to media companies, for advertisements, both of a commercial, and of a political, nature, in order to keep everything in line with the mutually-agreed-upon global-aristocratic plan.

Within recent decades, the international aristocracy, with America’s in the lead, has, in fact, set into motion a plan to privatize an emerging world government, so as to prevent it from being democratic: instead of socialist, this would be a fascist world government. Its origins can even be found in the writings by Mussolini himself.

If he might be said to have had a “Plan ‘B’,” then this could have been his, and the plan’s ultimate adoption seemed during the Obama Presidency to be only a matter of time, because he led the movement, which had started under President Nixon. The present informal fascist system, via Bilderberg meetings etc., as was just summarized, would then operate only around the fringes of that more formal system, which would destroy national sovereignty and any trace of democracy, regarding many currently governmental matters, such as regulating the environment and product-safety. In a sense: virtually the whole world would then be a prison containing the public, and only aristocrats would have keys to unlock it, if and when and where they wish to let someone out into their tiny luxurious free world.

Mussolini, incidentally, did not create fascism; he learnt it from his personal teacher, Vilfredo Pareto, who was one of the founders of the microeconomic theory that exists to this day and that is intrinsic to all cost/benefit analyses in capitalist economics. (It’s actually fascist economics, neither socialist nor communist economics. No microeconomic theory for a democracy — no socialist microeconomics — has yet been put forth, or else none has survived that was.)

Aristocrats liked Pareto’s theory, so it became embodied in what’s called “welfare economics,” which is designed to fit with his political theory, which is fascism. Pareto was even rightly called “the Karl Marx of fascism.” For example: According to Pareto, freeing a slave from his or her master would be wrong unless the master accepts it as part of a transaction in which the slave is being sold and the master is satisfied with the payment that is being offered in the transaction. If the master isn’t satisfied, then the transaction would be “inefficient,” in the terminology of fascist microeconomic theory, which is the foundation of the existing type of capitalist economics — the type of economics that is being taught around the world.

America’s President Abraham Lincoln was one of the first people to advocate coherently for socialism. Of course, he advocated for democratic socialism, not Karl Marx’s type, which is dictatorial. Whereas, to Pareto, property came first; to Lincoln, persons came first. To Pareto, property-rights were supreme. To Lincoln, human rights came first.

Lincoln was tragically shot by a conservative, and the political Party that he had helped to found (the Republican Party) was then quickly taken over by America’s aristocrats (and it, too, is described at that last link, making clear that Lincoln would have despised the Republican Party that followed after him; he would repudiate it; he would damn it).

Although the America of today is opposed to socialism, America’s two greatest Presidents, Lincoln and Franklin Delano Roosevelt, were both socialists: they both placed human rights above any property rights; they both favored democratic capitalism and democratic socialism, together: democracy. Unlike FDR, Lincoln existed before fascism did; so, in Lincoln’s era, the equivalent was feudalism, and he was determined to end that in the U.S. South — thus, the Civil War.

Even an ordinary American scholar has argued that both Lincoln and FDR were “socialist,” and in the case of Lincoln he lists the actions this President took, as being the reasons for calling him a “socialist.” Lincoln wasn’t merely a pioneering socialist; he was, indeed, a very bold one.

The opposite of democracy is dictatorship, which is fascism if of the capitalist type, and communism if of the socalist type.

America did not become fascist until recent decades. At the end of an analysis of polling-data in 2012, I had concluded: “The danger of outright fascism coming soon in Washington is real – the culmination of Reagan’s rightward thrust. It’s shown not just in the polling data, but in each day’s news, especially when viewed in the light of history. Everyone should be made aware of it.” But now I would say: We are already there.

And the last U.S. President before Ronald Reagan, which was Jimmy Carter, recently said, in a startling outburst of honesty, reflecting upon what has happened to the United States after he left office:

Now it’s just an oligarchy with unlimited political bribery being the essence of getting the nominations for president or being elected president. And the same thing applies to governors, and U.S. Senators and congress members. So, now we’ve just seen a subversion of our political system as a payoff to major contributors, who want and expect, and sometimes get, favors for themselves after the election is over.

He described fascism: the privatization of the government itself.

The core of fascism is the idea that there is some elite, whether ‘Aryan’ or ‘chosen by God,’ or otherwise, who should run things, and that everyone else exists in order to serve that elite. Inevitably, this official elite consists of the people whom the powers-that-be assign as constituting the owners of almost everything that’s valuable. Increasingly, things become those people’s private possession — even what was formerly a public asset becomes now private. Beaches become private. Schools become private. Natural resources become private. It’s not just the art that was stolen by the Nazis and privatized to them and/or shown at museums that they control, which becomes private; it’s whatever the elite want to have, and to control: it’s all now private. That’s the fascist ideal.

The legal system accommodates the legal owners, in any fascist nation, just as the legal system accommodates the legal owners in any nation at all. And, in fascism, the legal owners are the aristocracy, which are the people who have helped bring the system into being as it now is. Typically, they are the aristocracy that already exists in the given nation, if it was formerly a democracy (aristocrats tend to hate democracy; so, they bring into being fascism to replace it), but they can also be a group that is partially new and that is also partially composed of merely the winning segment of the old aristocracy — the segment of the old aristocracy that had won the type of intra-aristocratic conflict that always exists, within any aristocracy. Whereas any aristocracy is always at war against the public, there are also competitions within any aristocracy to determine which aristocrats will be the dominant ones.

Any fascism is controlled by the nation’s aristocracy, and serves those people — not really the public, who receive nothing but propaganda from the aristocrats’ regime. Even in a dictatorship, not only in a democracy, the press or media are needed in order to sell the government’s policies to its public. If the press is privatized, it’s owned by members of the aristocracy. If the press is owned directly by the government, it still is propaganda. The great majority of the public have no way around propaganda. If aristocrats are in control, few people will even know that that’s the case.

Privatization thus replaces public, government-owned, assets, by privately owned assets, and so it transfers control from publicly elected (government) leaders (who are answerable to everyone at ballot-boxes), to private ones — to private stockholders who decide how those assets will be used — regardless of whether the asset happens to be schools, or hospitals, or land, or natural resources, or roads, or whatever. Anything can be privatized. Anything can be run by an elite, by an ‘owner.’ Fascism tries to maximize that: private ownership of what was formerly public property.

Originally posted at strategic-culture.org
newest oldest most voted
Notify of

Pretty ambiguous article.
In my opinion, the author too frivolously uses such words as ‘fascism’.
In general, in our time, many things (including words, concepts) are easily depreciated.
Different people, educated in different ways, who grew up in different cultural, social and economic environments often put different meanings in the same words or concepts.

I live in Russia, and I can say that for Russians, fascism is first of all those horrors that were characteristic of the Second World War period. Namely: concentration camps, gas chambers, lampshades from human skin, soap from human fat, terrible medical experiments on children, the blockade of Leningrad, the genocide of peoples (Slavs, Jews, Gypsies…), killed relatives, destroyed families, devastated cities…

For Russians, the word ‘fascism’ has a clearly defined meaning, due to historical experience. For the leaders of Germany or Spain, this word may have a different understanding. The inhabitants of Egypt are unlikely to close the understanding of ‘fascism’ that Russians have. And the residents of Iceland or Australia hardly understand seriously what it is. For them, it’s probably just a word.

The author of the article applies the word ‘fascism’ to the peculiarities of economic systems. I don’t know, in my opinion it’s too much. At least for the Russians, this has nothing to do with fascism, since we understand and perceive this concept quite differently. The ones Eric Zuesse is talking about in Russia were usually called either simply capitalists, or imperialists, or exploiters. We also had the expression “the plunderer of socialist property”.

This is what I am talking about – the depreciation of a word or concept. Now almost everyone can be a fascist: an evil boss pays you a small salary? He is a fascist! Mad driver dangerously overtook you on the road, creating the risk of an accident? Damn fascist! Is a political party in your country opposing the uncontrolled acceptance of thousands of migrants? Vile fascists, they have no heart! Your co-worker criticizes Israel in connection with the actions against Palestine? Obviously he is a fascist, and, of course, an anti-Semite! And so on, and so on…

Now it has become convenient for any reason to use many words and expressions that in former times had a very specific and serious application.
This is the depreciation. This is what I personally do not welcome.

Therefore, Eric’s article remained doubtful for me. I understand what he’s talking about, but I’m against the use of the word ‘fascism’. Why not find some other, maybe a new term for what Zuesse says? Let us use, for example, the word “exploiter” – “exploiter class”, or “exploitative elite”. Don’t touch the word fascism. This is too serious a term.

And of course, I am unequivocally against any equalization of fascism and communism. Maybe I’m mistaken, but I saw this equalization (albeit indirect) in this Eric’s sentence:

“The opposite of democracy is dictatorship, which is fascism if of the capitalist type, and communism if of the socalist type.”

Francis Lee
Francis Lee

”In my opinion, the author too frivolously uses such words as ‘fascism’”


Fascism is a specific type of counter-revolution against parliamentary democracy and socialism. It is imperialistic and suffused with a ragbag of irrational myths, chief of which are the virtues of war and conquest. It is a mass movement – counter-revolution from below – based upon the mobilisation of returning war veterans and economic depression which had produced an army of unemployed. These were recruited by both the SA and the Communists KPD. Interestingly enough contained in this movement were leftish elements calling for the overthrow a the effete and exploitative and corrupt capitalist regime. Hitler’s Storm Troopers, the Sturm Abeiteilung (SA) were hot for a national socialist revolution, unfortunately for them they were expendable and the leadership was wiped out by Hitler’s Pretorian Guard the SS 30 June 1934.

What we have today is a counter-revolution from above, not below. It is an elite programme and practise based upon the elites control of the means of production, communication, and money. There are no storm troopers, street battles with rival groups. Just the use of the power of the oligarchs against the people. The only genuine fascists today are the Ukrainian neo-nazi descendants of Stapan Bandera’s OUN-B and the UPA the Ukrainian Insurgent Army.


Fascism and Big Business – Daniel Guerin

Tha Mass Psychology of Fasicsm – Wilhelm Reich

may hem
may hem

i call it PIRATEization.all


EU was introduced by a Fascist in the 50’s, (so not exactly a grassroots movement), Ted Heath took a bung, (£35000), from these guys to squeeze the UK into the EEC, knowing that what he was doing was treason. The FCO helped things along by funding pro-Euro orgs to push their line, ( about £450000 in currency of the time). FCO also pressured the BBC and other media sources to get rid of anti-EEC personalities like Jack de Manio. FCO funded a fake-letter writing campaign to The Times extolling the virtues of joining the EEC, and colluded with foreign potentates; all that and more, contrary to GB Constitutional Law. Today we can see the result of such manipulations. Over here in Blighty, as in Europe, chaos and discord generalises, and the people are clamouring to regain their stolen Sovereignty. So in or out of the EU, it’s very likely you won’t have a job in the near future, or, if you are a money grubber, sucking on the EU teat, it’s likely you’ll be broke, again, in the very near future. I am NOT giving up on Art 61, (Lawful Rebellion), of the Magna Carta any time soon, so don’t wait on my consent to any so called ‘deal’ with a totally fraudulent and wholly criminal enterprise which is the EU. Nor do I owe obedience to the Quisling governance which passes itself of as a “sovereign parliament’. — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLGwfKnrH3c — David Noakes on EU, Brexit


We should all shed bucket loads of tears for all the bent, discredited, failed politicians like the Kinnock clan, Mandelson and Co. who have lost their cushy jobs regulating bendy bananas and curvy cucumbers on half a million euros a year.


I’m sure Brexit will open the floodgates of privatisation even wider. Certain Tories are rubbing their hands already…

Frankly Speaking
Frankly Speaking

I agree, but the Marxists here are bizarrely deluded into thinking Brexit is all about democracy rather than the neoliberal putsch and divide and conquer project the rest of see that it is.


The sinister effects of privatisation should be made very clear.

Aside from the rich elites, Privatisation and Deregulation are causing considerable harm where every aspect of people’s wellbeing is negatively affected. This includes mental and physical health, education and access to justice.

As to fascism, corporate media seems to be doing a very good job in suppressing and/or diverting the feelings of discontent in our midst. This needs to be looked into in more details: How controlled corporate media is suppressing the malaise generated from this ‘economic progress’!

Fair dinkum
Fair dinkum

Let’s call it what it is.



Indeed, placing a public good into the hands of private stakeholders is theft on gargantuan scale. But the elite rulers have managed quite not to make ‘privatisation’ an election issue. Even when privatisation of a particular asset made it into an election campaign, the public usually get misled with sordid lies.



followed by Extortion from monopoly >>>

Corporate Criminals & Lobbyists buying up Politicians, cashing in . . .

on National Heritage.

Prostituted Politicians propagated by Propaganda Presstitutes ,
gone ‘tits up’, then rolled over for a right Royal shagging in the ‘ Derry air ‘ ! ?

Ask the Irish 😉 & Gary Hoy ! ! ?

A brave Man demonstrating sad reality in “Secret Services”

… – – – … {º_Jº} Deep shit states of mind control 😉


History repeats.

‘In 9 AD the Roman Senate and People thought they were about to absorb greater Germania in to the growing Roman Empire. Caesar Augustus had unified the Roman world into a single entity and the Roman state had absorbed several adjacent territories in the Mediterranean under his rule. Germania was ripe for conquest.’
‘It was supposed to be a simple operation, but Varus was not a military leader, he was a politician. He was a friend of the Emperor and made his name in securing post-rebellion Judea, a state that had had the resistance beaten out of it. Rome seen Germania as already pacified and just in need of Roman organization to become a Roman province.’
‘Despite the positive Roman outlook the German tribes were not of the same mind. They saw themselves as free people, strong and proud of their heritage. ‘

Rome with ‘Nato Fukus Fascist Empire’
Germania with Aghanistan or Iraq or Syria or … Venezuela… or even the EU;-),

Judaea remains the same,

Varus with Bolton,

The German tribes with… socialists!

Time for a system change?

‘The practice of extracting and accumulating energy to concentrate material wealth and power in the hands of a few is bound to destroy us all before century is out.’

(Admin, I think the Naffed Ahmed article deserves publishing widely and many prizes)


“Time for a system change?

It’s not clear when Nafeez Ahmed published that article–it’s dated “Jan 11” but the webmaster was too busy to specify the year so I can’t be bothered to dig deeper to find out–but the first (1972) edition of the International Association of Associatio6ns (now the “Union of International Associations” or “UIA”)’s “Encyclopedia of World Problems and Human Potential” referred, much more succinctly, to the nub of the problem set out in Nafeez’s first real paragraph (right under his boldshit preface) as an upcoming “crisis of crises” — too many crises occurring in too short a timeframe for the then structures of society to cope.

By my reckoning 1972 is about 46 years ago already.

Deceased hominids perambulating.


Nafeez has produced a good article, but the Buddha said much the same 2,500 years ago …and it wasn’t new then! Plenty of time for change. The philosophia perennis is, well, perrenial. It would do for a concerned humanity to inquire as to how we have been inculcated into a pre-Greco-Christian Enlightenment synthesis of sectarian dualism …now we can see who that suits and why they are ideologically possessive of it. Other philosophies are available, perennially.


Bobo you clown – what difference would it make when exactly it was first published.
As BB points out many of the concepts aren’t knew in human cultures.

What Nafeez does is gove it a ‘scientific’ treatment. He pretty much dismantles Freudian power and without stating promotes Jungian explanation of the psyche.

Mostly though he highlights what most rational, empathic human adults learn once they are deprived of the teet, you are not the centre that your parent will always revolve around; you are your reactions to stimulii external and internal;
Understanding that and watching it happen in yourself is the route to changing that. Seeing how all humans are the same and how that knowledge has been used to psycholgocally profile and influence human choices by the very very few high priests and undeserving born to rulers is critical if further human civilizational development is to take place.

There can be no kings, priests or warrior classes in a 100 years if humanity is to progress – they are like a cancer which must be cured or it will kill is all.


“…what difference would it make when exactly it was first published.”

If you’re going to get stuck into Jung you better get used to more than only one message at a time in the Collective Unconscious envelope. If presentations are not correctly cited then they can’t easily be analyzed in their context and you’re quite possibly in shit for brains land before you’ve finished viewing the first slide of any derivative work, with no road home. If presentations are rendered uncitable before they’ve even been presented then what is in them is not only unanalyzable in their context, it’s increasingly lost–in or out its context–with each passing day. Suppose that Ahmed had something in there that was worth someone’s recommending to readers in another pulication 20 years, after Media bit the publishing dust that, “Freud had a huge dick that contained so many of the ideas and observations that had overflowed his brain that his pecker was totally infallible in and of itself,” say, and the recommendee thought “That doesn’t sound quite right,” so asked, “Where does Nafeez say that?” “In an article on now defunct website called “Media”. “Date?” I’m pretty sure it was January.” Well gee, Mr Web Designer from 20 years ago, back then you just made Mr Recommendee’s job (number of Media issues per year) times harder. With luck, Mr Ahmed will be rembered for his unusual ideas about Freud for decades to come, as Mr Recommendee give up looking and readers of less discrimination take up Mr Recommender’s ideas on Mr Ahmed’s ideas on Freud and spread it in vox pops everywhere…

As for anything possibly crammed into the same envelope as the above inspiration for your response, there probably wasn’t, so unithink on. (But you’ve got to admit it is sad that Ahmed blotted his copybook with that Freudian dickbrain equivalence theory).


Nothing called “Media” shows up? I’m pretty sure it was called “Media”. Around that time, having given up on the MSM, I was reading only it and the “Daily Stormer”. Try the “Daily Stormer”.


Collective Consciousness.

Says Jung to me.

You don’t have to be a genius to see that Ahmed is NOT presenting a theory of his own making. He is a journalist, who’s job is to make complex issues easier to understand to us, the non-experts.

I don’t disagree that a date should be correctly stated.


Thank you for signposting the medium article. A nice combination of inspiration and a kick up the arse for my ‘self’. Cheers.


you are so backwards and stupid. Fascists governments control the corporations. if the corporations isn’t cooperating with the government it gets wiped out. but You are a socialist liar.. it’s the stock in trade of marxism. Everyone knows that.




“Fascists governments control the corporations”

It’s the other way round.


I agree with you.And Hitler did not privatize puplic assets.The whole public transport remained in public hands and was even subsidized.As dictator he raised the pensions and raised the payed holidays from eleven days to eighteen days and he prohibited that teenagers under sixteen years work nights and holidays etc.He regulated the markets.Hitler didn’t like the corporations and they didn’t like him.But in the end they put up with him in expectation of big arms contracts.With Mussolini I don’t know but as far as I know the Italian aristocracy were opposed to Mussolini so was the military whose high rank officers came from aristocratic families.If someone knows better please let me know.And the German Aristocrats were opposed to Hitler as well.They called Hitler “the private from Austria”and completely underestimated the great danger the Nazis were.But they voted for him as the corporate business did because they were afraid the Stalinist communists would win.Hitler they thought was the lesser of the two evils.

Eric Zuesse
Eric Zuesse

Not only was Hitler no authentic populist such as you seem to think, but (as my link documented) he was big on privatization; and, furthermore, he was a great admirerer of the aristocracy.
Adolf Hitler spoke before the Industrial Club of Dusseldorf on 27 January 1932, and raised the millions that would finance the doubling of his vote-percentage, from 18.3% in September 1930, to 37.3% in July 1932. Here are highlights from Hitler’s speech that day, in which he communicated to Germany’s aristocracy (and thus to the world’s aristocrats) the physiocratic Weltanschauung or ideology that he knew they already held, and that he was promising would guide him as Germany’s leader; here was his pitch, to the people who would finance his biggest single step-up, in the Nazi ascent to power:

Let no one say that the image which is conveyed as the first impression of the culture of mankind is the impression of its overall achievement. This entire structure of culture, down to its foundations and in each of its building blocks, is nothing other than the result of creative talent, the achievement of intelligence, and the industriousness of individuals. The greatest results are the great crowning achievement of individual geniuses endowed by God [he often invoked God]; the average results are the achievement of men of average ability; and the total result is undoubtedly a product of the application of human working power towards the exploitation of the creations of geniuses and talented men. But this naturally means that, when the capable minds of a nation – who are always in the minority – are given a value equal with all the others, this must result in subjugating the genius to the majority, in subjecting the ability and the value of the individual to the majority, a process which is mistakenly called the rule of the people. This is not the rule of the people, but in fact the rule of stupidity, of mediocrity, of half-measures, of cowardice, of weakness, and of inadequacy. The rule of the people is rather when a people allows itself to be governed and led in all areas of life by its most capable individuals who are born for the task, than to allow all areas of life to be administered by a majority which, by its very nature, is alien to these areas. In this way, however, democracy will, in practice, result in cancelling out the real values of a people. …

You, Gentlemen, are of the opinion that the construction of the German economy must be based upon the concept of private property. Then again, you can only maintain the idea of private property if it appears to be somehow founded in logic. This concept must draw its ethical justification from the insight that it is a necessity dictated by nature. It cannot, for instance, be motivated solely by the claim: ‘It has been this way until now, and therefore it must continue this way.’ For, … it is necessary to justify these types of traditional forms which are to be preserved in such a manner that they can be regarded as absolutely necessary, and as logical and right.

In that case, I must say one thing: private property is only morally and ethically justifiable if I assume that men’s achievements are different. Only then can I say that, because men’s achievements are different, the results of those achievements are also different. But if the results of men’s achievements are different, then it is expedient to leave the administration of these achievements to men to an appropriate degree. It would be illogical to assign the administration of the fruits of an achievement connected to one individual to the next best, less capable individual or the whole, for these latter individuals have already proven, by the simple fact that they themselves have not performed the achievement, that they cannot be capable of administering the resulting product.

Therefore, one must admit that, from an economic point of view, men are not equally valuable, not equally significant in every area from the onset. Having admitted this, it would be madness to claim that, while there are doubtless differences in value in the economic sector, there are none in the political sector! It is nonsense to base economic life on the concept of achievement, of personal value and thus practically on the authority of the individual, while denying this authority of the individual in the political sphere and substituting in its place the law of the greater number – democracy. …

If it is correct to assume that human achievements are different, then it must also be correct that the value of man in respect to the creation of certain achievements is different. But then it is absurd to attempt to apply this only … in the sphere of economy and its leadership, but not [also] in the sphere of leadership in the life – struggle as a whole, namely in the sphere of politics. Rather it is only logical that, if I acknowledge the unequivocal recognition of particular achievements in the sphere of economy as the prerequisite for any higher culture, then politically I must similarly grant priority to the particular achievement and thus to the authority of the individual.

If, on the other hand, it is asserted – by none other than the economic sphere – that no particular abilities are required in the political sector, but that absolute uniformity reigns here in respect to achievement, then one day this same theory will be transferred from politics to the economy. Political democracy, however, is analogous to Communism in the economic sector. Today we find ourselves in an age in which these two basic principles are in conflict with each other on every border and have already penetrated the economy. …

In summary, I see two principles starkly opposed: the principle of democracy which, wherever its practical results are evident, is the principle of destruction. And the principle of the authority of the individual, which I would like to call the principle of achievement, because everything that mankind has achieved until now and all human cultures are only conceivable given the rule of this principle.


This is true. Domestic policies on social welfare, employment rights, green environmental policies, organic farming and animal welfare were very progressive and way ahead of their time. Hitler was very big on recycling and vegetarianism and anti smoking. In a sense he was just carrying on the tradition of Bismarck and even Frederick the Great. You have to make the system work for people if you want their support – something that May, Macron, Merkel and Co. would do well to try.

It is something of a canard that the big industrialists and capitalists bankrolled Hitler. Most of the Nazi Party’s finances came from their millions of members. Big Business supported the established conservative parties. They were frightened off by Hitler’s talk of nationalisation. It was only after Hitler had already won that Big Business started to support him, it was a case of climbing aboard the bandwagon after the event.

Any of the big business elite who thought that they could give orders to Hitler needed to chek their life insurance was fully paid up.


please read the manifesto


I don’t know that ‘fascism’ serves to the bill but rather a global technocracy – via multiple masks.