TIPS

So there you have a slew of the elite intellectual fascists of the interwebz telling us that they’re virtually the same thing as communists, that they want the state to “seize the means of production” (Marx would be proud) and are authoritarian-leftists. Their only beef with what I’m saying is that I don’t like their slightly modified variant of Marxist Communism and they think it’s great. But they’re still mad that I point this out in a negative way because they’re trying to sell it to socially right-wing people as some kind of one-stop shop fix for all our problems by dipping their variant of Marxism into identity politics to make it more appealing.

This guy who I’ll be responding to here calls himself “Caesar Avg”. He’s basically an anon “reply guy” on the website Odysee and does little more than spam wall-texts full of pseudo-intellectual pretentious bafflegab. The following meandering vomit of strawmen and lies was sent to me by a colleague and I thought it yet another good opportunity to dunk on these disingenuous, bad faith, eternally butthurt spergs.

Let’s begin.

Nothing about Brandon Marrothbard is ‘Right- wing’ or ‘nationalist’.

So social conservatism, ethno-cultural-preservation, closed borders/restricted immigration, pro-family, a competitive market economy and fiscal conservatism (balanced budgets) is not “right-wing” or “nationalist”? Ok retard. You have no actual definition of “right-wing” then, you’re making it up to suit your Marxist whims. You are an economic leftist socialist (aka an egalitarian) so it’s funny you’re trying to appropriate the “right-wing” label for yourself, which is dishonest. I’ve never even read anything from Rothbard nor do I cite him as inspiration for anything so to imply I’m some kind of disciple of his is fan fiction invented by Third Position crypto-communists.

He is on record as opposing all of the following, all of which can be reliably sourced against any attempt at denial or removal

If I am on record then why does this screed of yours contain not a single actual in-context quote from me but a bunch of deceptively “paraphrased” misrepresented strawmen and lies? You didn’t want to quote me directly because that would ruin your whole psyop.

Autarky: ‘socialist nonsense’

A full throttle autarky has never been achieved by any country anywhere, not even your beloved Third Reich. Hitler himself admitted a complete autarky with no trade was impossible in the short term and his attempt at achieving it long term led him to invade Russia to get the resources he wanted, causing 30 million deaths. Well done.

A country should aim to produce in-house what it needs, but there are some things it must get abroad if it doesn’t have the capacity to produce it all in-house. Small countries and island countries for example would not survive long if they attempted “autarky”. They don’t have the labour base or space to be able to produce what they need or might want domestically. Bigger countries can manufacture more but they also have to import stuff they need and to export their own products abroad to bring in revenue. I’m not for a “free” trade but a controlled or limited trade with allied countries.

Isolationism

If isolationism is what you’re after, then your gods Hitler and Mussolini miserably failed the litmus test, having intervened and invaded most of Europe and parts of Africa during their heyday. Their war-hawk expansionism was the opposite of “isolationism” (in fact fascism is inherently war-like and imperialistic) and yet this is the ideology you are defending in your own comment. I am for a type of isolationism when it comes to the non-European world. I don’t think we should get much involved in places like the Middle East or Africa unless there is a vital interest there. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have a foreign policy at all, which actually puts you more in line with the libertarians (who are to-a-man isolationists) you hate than me. I think coming to the aid of allied countries in Europe when they are in need, like in Ukraine now, is not a bad thing. If your country was attacked, you will need the aid of other countries too. When Europe is threatened by regimes like Russia and China, an alliance of European countries would do well to put resources together to stop it. Nothing wrong with that, but you’re a libertarian don’t-tread-on-me “isolationist” so you don’t care about anything but yourself right?

Nationalisms, including Nordicism and German and Russian nationalisms, laughably conflated with Communazism

This is dishonest bullshit. I obviously support “nationalism” including that of Germany, Russia and any other country, but you’re dishonestly conflating nationalism with “Nordicism,” which can be interpreted multiple ways, but the variant I oppose is the imperialist one espoused by Hitler and the Nazis. Here’s how Hitler described his foreign policy:

“…the Anglo-Saxons have the mission to govern the people they have subdued, precisely in the name of their superiority. The Nordic race is called to dominate the world, and this right must guide our foreign policy. The goal was the Nordic domination of Europe, and through America Nordic-Germanic domination of the world.”

I do not however oppose Nordic self-preservation, which is different to what Hitler was doing, which was Germanic EXPANSION. I explained that here:

He states there “Russian nationalism” but what he’s actually referring to is my opposition to Russian-Eurasianist imperialism of Putin, which he clearly supports, because if he didn’t support it he’d have to stop defending Hitler’s Lebensraum. So this sack of dogshit is trying to sell you Eurasian IMPERIALISM as if nationalism when it’s much closer to homogenizing globalism as it’s erasing borders in Eastern Europe and Russifies the regions it conquers.

and the very same Zionism that he otherwise defends, all to be replaced with a homogenizing pan-Europeanism: an EU minus non-whites, an Americanization of Europe

Yeah I’m such a huge defender of Zionism, like this video here right? You’re a stupid bad faith liar.

If by “support” you mean I think Israel already exists, likely won’t go away any time soon and diaspora Jews should probably go live there instead of in our countries, then guilty as charged. But that’s what any decent European nationalist would support, not some third worldist Islamist like yourself doing the reply guy Internet Intifada bit.

My Pan-Europeanism is not “homogenizing” because I don’t advocate we erase any current borders nor do I even support the EU’s current existence. It is merely a sentiment of brotherhood among European countries so that we can cooperate and avoid the murderous fratricidal infighting of the past, which you clearly revel in. Your fascist hero Oswald Mosley however did support a “homogenizing” pan-Europeanism, what he called “Europe a Nation”:

It says he was inspired to that idea by none other than Benito Mussolini whose “manifesto of the Italian Social Republic included a call for the establishment of a European Community”. So your own ideological godfathers supported this idea that you are falsely attributing to me. Talk about a massive SELF OWN! So you are out of step with your own demigods. Wow, you really dug yourself a hole here didn’t you retard?

I’ve never supported the “Americanization of Europe” either, whatever that’s supposed to mean. Just another strawman invention of this rat.

Revanchism

So his real views come out. What he is defending is not “nationalism” but revanchism, which is the lust to reclaim perceived lost territory. Revanchism is imperialism and doesn’t usually end with taking back just some “lost territory” but expanding further, as Hitler and Mussolini both did. This is also what Putin is doing and this scumbag supports both Hitler and Putin’s revanchist imperialism. Revanchism is a recipe for eternal conflict in Europe. Borders have shifted and changed so many times that if every Euro country decided to do militarist revanchism tomorrow, the entire continent would go up in flames. I bet you want that because you like to see bloodshed and death of Europeans. I think border disputes among Europeans can be worked out amicably without killing each other.

State-ownership, erroneously conflated with Marxism and socialism

That’s exactly what Marxist Socialism advocates, you moron.

The only way to “collectivize” all businesses and property is to have a centralized state take it over, which was the method that every single self-defined communist or socialist state employed to achieve this end. Mao’s China, Soviet Russia, Castro’s Cuba, Kim’s North Korea, East Germany, etc., all did this. Do I really have to explain the basics to this uninformed child?

Marrothbard claims that possessing economic similarities to some Marxist, somewhere, is proof of that person’s Marxism

It’s not just some similarities to “some Marxist somewhere” but to Marxism itself, you assclown. It’s proof that your ideology was inspired by and was a variant of classical Marxism, which most intellectuals of fascism readily admit, you fucking moron. Here’s what Mussolini said about himself:

It was inevitable that I should become a Socialist ultra, a Blanquist, indeed a communist. I carried about a medallion with Marx’s head on it in my pocket. I think I regarded it as a sort of talisman… [Marx] had a profound critical intelligence and was in some sense even a prophet. – Talks With Mussolini, Emil Ludwig, Pg. 38

Here’s what the other founder of fascism Giovanni Gentile said about it:

It is necessary to distinguish between socialism and socialism—in fact, between idea and idea of the same socialist conception, in order to distinguish among them those that are inimical to Fascism. It is well known that Sorellian syndicalism, out of which the thought and the political method of Fascism emerged—conceived itself the genuine interpretation of Marxist communism.

Here’s what the most prolific scholar of fascism A. James Gregor said of it:

[Italian] Fascism was a variant of classical Marxism, a belief system that pressed some themes argued by both Marx and Engels until they found expression in the form of ‘national syndicalism’ that was to animate the first Fascism.

So your own ideological godfathers and leading scholars of the ideology agree with me and not you. You’re a dishonest charlatan.

He continues:

Intriguingly, since he also (mis-)perceives Marxism as overwhelmingly economic

The reason this fascist wants to say that Marxism is not principally economic is precisely because that is where the intense similarities lie, and he wants to distance his ideology from it. It’s the same method that Marxists use to distance themselves from fascism. But when you read Marx’s main two works The Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital, you will see that it’s almost exclusively an economic doctrine of anti-capitalism and not much else.

Here’s a synopsis of Communist Manifesto:

“Class relations,” “economic forces driving history,” “proletarian revolution to overthrow capitalism,” etc.

And here’s a synopsis of Das Kapital:

“An analysis of capitalism,” “economic structure of society,” “economic organization,” “critique of capitalism” and its defenders, etc.

Does any of that sound like much more than economics to you? Marx identified himself as both a philosopher and ECONOMIST. He was obsessed with economics and wrote almost exclusively against capitalism in economic terms. Whatever social shit he wrote, he also linked that back to his economic fixation with anti-capitalism. So when Engels writes against the “nuclear family,” he does so because he believes the nuclear family is part of “the capitalist system” and must be dismantled. It all comes back to anti-capitalism.

The sperg continues:

he routinely commits the same ‘economic spergery’ and ‘rigidity’ of which he has in the past accused others (‘you agree with me on everything but economic issue X, therefore you’re my enemy and worse than liberals and libertarians’)

I’m simply insisting that someone who calls themselves an “anti-communist” actually be one and not a crypto-communist as fascists are. If fascists want to do economic spergery as they often do (anyone who doesn’t profess hardcore socialism is deemed an enemy) and insist that anyone who is “pro-White” adopt their gay socialist economic leftism, then why should I not return the favour in reverse? Either way, this relationship won’t work out.

and his arguments for capitalism verily demonstrate his own crass materialism

Arguments you’ve yet to cite or even refute.

The birth rates of North Korea and eastern Germany, for instance, are significantly higher than those of South Korea and western Germany

So you are confirming that you are a communist who favours North Korea and commie East Germany over their more capitalist counterparts… and exclusively over birth rates? Birthrates ebb and flow and generally the more prosperous a country the lower the birthrates, should we take that as an argument against prosperity and for poverty? North Korea today has a below replacement level birthrate:

Socialist countries were generally the most favourable to women’s rights/education/advancement and were some of the most pro-abortion countries in the world, so an economic system alone won’t change that. That’s mainly in the realm of social policy.

but Marrothbard will preference the latter over trivialities such as higher GDP per capita. Anyone who chooses GDPPC over birth rates and racial homogeneity demonstrates that he has nothing to do with the Right: he demonstrates, au contraire, his extreme economism driven by completely misplaced priorities

Firstly, it’s a false dichotomy. I don’t have to choose between a “low birthrate capitalist country” and a “higher birthrate socialist one”. I can choose a higher birthrate capitalist one or strive for it. And it’s just a complete lie and you can’t quote me saying that anywhere because I haven’t said it. If I had to choose between a country with a lower GDP (that doesn’t mean it’s “socialist” it just has a lower GDP) but was racially homogenous or a country with higher GDP but racially not homogenous I’d chose the former. So you’re just a liar.

He writes:

Were Marxism purely economic, his attitudes to it immediately become laughable and unwarranted: declaring economics- those of an ethnostate that you will never get your master motive is such a moronic choice of a hill to die on

Marxism is mostly economic as I showed earlier, you child. I’m not dying on any hill least of all the fictional hill you’ve invented and attributed to me, you dipshit.

Totalitarianism, which he fallaciously posits necessitates submission to Leftist and liberal states, demonstrating a total lack of logical and political-philosophical understanding.

Totalitarianism can come in many forms, also leftist forms, so genuflecting to totalitarianism in general is misguided, but typical of fascist blockheads like this. Fascism is indeed totalitarian statism paired with economic leftism. And if you believe fascist doctrine, then yes, you MUST submit to leftist and liberal states too since they are STATES and the STATE is supreme in your doctrine. If you don’t obey these leftist and liberal states, then you’re implicitly acknowledging that states are NOT supreme and can be opposed by “individuals” (citizens). Your entire ideology is thus refuted by your actions!

Let’s quote Mussolini:

The Fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with the State. It is opposed to classical liberalism [which] denied the State in the name of the individual; Fascism reasserts the rights of the State as expressing the real essence of the individual… And if liberty is to be the attribute of living men and not of abstract dummies invented by individualistic liberalism, then Fascism stands for liberty, and for the only liberty worth having, the liberty of the State and of the individual within the State. The Fascist conception of the State is all embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value.

Thus understood, Fascism, is totalitarian, and the Fascist State – a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values – interprets, develops, and potentates the whole life of a people (14). No individuals or groups (political parties, cultural associations, economic unions, social classes) outside the State (15). …The maxim that society exists only for the well-being and freedom of the individuals composing it does not seem to be in conformity with nature’s plans. If classical liberalism spells individualism Fascism spells government. The citizen in the Fascist State is no longer a selfish individual who has the anti-social right of rebelling against any law of the Collectivity.

If you take all that garbled bafflegab literally, what Mussolini’s saying is that the State is God and you, mere mortal, are its slave. “Nothing outside the state,” is the motto of fascism, which means, that everything and everyone is consumed by that mammoth beast of a state. Where in the world would “private property” fit into that? Private property is outside the state, which cannot be so, under fascism. You have no rights and certainly no right to “rebel against any law of the collectivity (aka the state),” which is a crystal clear edict from Lord Mussolini that rebellion against states is invalid (according to him).

If these totalitarian principles don’t apply to ALL states, including “leftist and liberal” ones, then why should they apply to ANY state? Why does a state run by bald-headed adulterer Mussolini get this privilege of tolerating no rebellion and opposition but no other type of state does? If the principle is not universal, then it’s not worth the paper it’s written on. When a law says “thou shall not kill another person,” that can’t be interpreted as “thou shall not kill… except in X Y Z circumstances where it is ok to kill”.

The sperg continues (yes it goes on and on):

In addition to rejecting everything Right-wing and nationalist

You failed miserably to prove any of that outside ridiculous strawmen you invented.

he is also on record as believing in all of the following, all of which can be reliably sourced, and which demonstrate remarkably that he is more Marx-rothbard than Marrothbard: the schizophrenic, feces-packed cloaca of a dyed-in-the-wool Left-liberal who exhibits signs of literal drug addiction or mental illness

So now the crackpot dives into a litany of ad homs because he’s got nothing left in the chamber.

including obsessiveness, e.g. about the pack of trivialities collectively known as
Communazism

Communazism: let’s ask Goebbels about that one.

“We want the Germany of labor. What does that mean? We want a Germany in which labor and accomplishment are the highest moral and political values. We are today a workers’ party in the best sense of the word. Once we have taken over the state, Germany will become a state of labor, a workers’ state.” – source

“Lenin was the greatest man, second only to Hitler…the difference between Communism and the Hitler faith is very slight…” – source

“It would be better for us to go down with Bolshevism than live in eternal slavery under capitalism.” – source

So Goebbels admired Lenin, said the differences between communism and Hitlerism were “very slight,” and that he’d rather go down with Bolshevism than Capitalism. Yeah, he sounds very anti-communist doesn’t he? Hitler also admired Stalin including his economic system.

Here’s a few more quotes from actual experts and historians:

“[Hiter] had become a vehement critic of the system of free enterprise and a confirmed adherent of the system of a planned, state-controlled economy.”
— Dr. Rainer Zitelmann, historian
ㅤ
“[Hitler’s] concept of organized economy was close to genuine socialism”
— Dr John Toland, historian
ㅤ
“It is now clear beyond all reasonable doubt that Hitler and his associates believed they were socialists, and others, including democratic socialists, thought so too.”
— Dr George Watson, historian
ㅤ
“Another source of the Nazi Party’s popularity was its liberal borrowing from the intellectual tradition of the socialist left. Many of the men who would become the movement’s leaders had been involved in communist and socialist circles.”
— Götz Aly, historian
ㅤ
“One final point of similarity between Nazi and Soviet policies should be noted, although its meaning is far from clear. Both governments reorganized industry into larger units, ostensibly to increase state control over economic activity”
— Peter Temin, economic historian
ㅤ
“Government finances for state-owned enterprises rose from RM 4,000m. in 1933 to RM 16,000m. ten years later; the capital assets of state-owned industry doubled during the same period, and the number of state-owned firms topped 500”
— Richard Overy, historian

“Those [capitalist] firms and organizations that regularly engaged in large-scale political funding continued—right down to the last election prior to Hitler’s appointment as chancellor—to bestow the bulk of their funds on opponents or rivals of the Nazis.”
— Henry Ashby Turner, historian
ㅤ
“The [Nazi] government tells these seeming entrepreneurs what and how to produce, at what prices and from whom to buy, at what prices and to whom to sell. The government decrees at what wages labourers should work, and to whom and under what terms the capitalists should entrust their funds. Market exchange is but a sham.”
— Dr Ludwig von Mises, economist

“the state, not the market, would determine the shape of economic development.”
— Ian Kershaw, historianㅤ
ㅤ
“The [Nazi] government did place restraints on foreign exchange, imports and exports, prices, wages, and the allocation of labor. It determined the quantity and nature of what should be produced. Profits were limited and directed by the government back into reinvestment for expansion or for the acquisition of government bonds”
— Jackson Spielvogel, historian
ㅤ
“The economic tendencies of fascist states… … would be more correctly described as anti-capitalist than capitalist.”
— Alan Milward, historian

The case is closed on this one, kid. Communazism is not the figment of some boomer’s imagination, as fascists love to claim, it’s very much a real thing that can be proven with the words of Nazis and fascists themselves. They’re not called Beefsteak Nazis for nothing (red on the inside, brown on the outside).

The sperg continues:

and paranoia, e.g. obsessively defending against imagined Marxist infiltrators, and just plain mental illness, including a grossly exaggerated sense of self-importance.

The reason he doesn’t want me to sniff out “Marxist infiltrators” is because he is a classic example of such infiltration. Really, he’s a confused Marxist who doesn’t realize the extent of his ideology’s tie-ins with Marxism or if he does realize it he wants to cloak it in bafflegab to psyop you into embracing it.

Marx- rothbard believes, to pick but a few examples that:
The Axis were the real aggressors in WWII (and, by extension, Leftists and liberals were merely innocent victims of their aggression-precisely the Leftist and liberal version of WWII)

They were undoubtedly the initial aggressors as I discussed here about Hitler’s Lebensraum:

The only people who deny this are fascists and Hitlerists who have concocted a fictional revisionism designed to rehabilitate Nazism so they can pass it off as the only “solution” to anti-White leftism. Moreover, his labeling of “leftists and liberals” as the Axis’ opponents falls short. If he’s referring to Stalin, well Stalin was once an ally of Hitler, and he was a fellow brother-socialist with Hitler. Mussolini was a leftist-socialist-authoritarian. FDR was no capitalist, he was a socialist-leaning Keynesian who was praised by Hitler and Mussolini for his New Deal interventionism. They considered him at that time one of them. Oswald Mosley also met with FDR. FDR also praised Italian Fascism.

FDR was also privately anti-Semitic and he and Churchill were more or less “White nationalists” in their day. So who are the “liberals” in this picture? Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini and FDR were all economic leftists and Churchill was the only free market guy in that equation. On social policy all of them had a mixture of left and right policies, including Stalin who banned abortion and homosexuality, so these labels are meaningless here. “Left-Liberal” appears to be a catch-all insult that fascists use for anyone who doesn’t support fascism. It’s equivalent to the way leftists use the label “fascist” for anyone right of center on social issues.

This has laughably led this supposed anti-Marxist to oppose the Axis invasion of Marxism’s own ‘motherland’, the USSR

I oppose it because it led to the deaths of 30 million Europeans and crusader Hitler was not even a genuine “anti-Marxist” as he claimed, he was a crypto-Marxist who just wanted to replace Stalin’s version of Communism with his own modified ethnically exclusive version, while ethnically replacing Slavs from their lands to facilitate Germanic ethnic expansion. He kept Stalin’s collective farm system in place in Ukraine, for example, what a heroic saviour from Communism! Only a truly homicidal lunatic would support that endeavor.

This is what Nazi Germany had in store for the Slavs as Rosenberg confessed:

“From the point of view of cultural policy, the German Reich is in a position to promote and direct national culture and science in many fields. It will be necessary that in some territories an uprooting and resettlement of various racial stocks [Voelkerschaften] will have to be effected.”

“In his “Instructions for a Reich Commissar in the Baltic Countries and White Russia” (officially referred to together as the “Ostland”), Rosenberg directs that the Ostland be transformed into a part of the Greater German Reich by Germanizing racially possible elements, colonizing Germanic races, and banishing undesirable elements.”

So the sperg supports homicidal imperialism and ethnic replacement policies and tries to sell it to you as “based right-wing nationalism bro!”

Sperg goes on:

Power is intrinsically bad, and that governments are intrinsically prone to mass murder statements that logically lead to anarchism and libertarianism

Never said that “power is intrinsically bad,” more fan fiction. Totalitarian governments are prone to mass murder and repression, as all of history has shown (Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, Castro, etc.), but I don’t take that to mean that a government isn’t required to have a functioning society and can’t be made into something good. Governments are what you make it. It’s the type of people running it and their values/intentions that make a gov good or bad, not necessarily the thing itself, although I believe a certain level of checks and balances are needed to keep the state from abusing its power against citizens. I’m not a totalitarian but neither am I an anarchist or doctrinaire libertarian. I’m somewhere in between those two extremes.

Jews are not intrinsically bad. Only Left-wing Jews are bad. But this is only because they are Left-wing, not because they are Jews.

Why would I argue that Jews are “intrinsically bad”… like they’re racially pre-destined to be bad? I have no scientific evidence to prove that, so why would I assert it? I think their culture and religion has bad elements in it that lead them to do bad things, certainly tribal things that harm us when left unchecked, but that’s different from saying they’re genetically evil or whatever you’re implying. And that’s not even a true statement. I have also said that right-wing Zionist Jews are bad insofar as they don’t care about Whites, use us for their own gain and are not our “allies” as some civnats assert. So you’re lying about my positions here again. Take this video:

But if hypothetically most Jews (who are a small minority) were not left-wing and promoting left-wing social agendas and were just minding their own business, then what genuine reason would I have to dislike them? Just because they are Jews? That’s the exact kind of meme Hitlertard anti-Semitism that groups like the ADL want us to embrace because it’s so easy to discredit since it has no logic behind it.

No part of their ‘badness’ is because of their Jewishness, only their Leftism a classic case of liberal- conservative, Trumpian Zionist reasoning that aids Marx-rothbard’s preoccupation with spewing defences of Israel, cloaked under the farcical excuse

Again false as I’ve said there are bad parts of their culture and religion, such as the “chosen people” and “tikkun olam” bullshit. I’m just not willing to make the bold claim that it’s some genetic thing, which neither you or I can prove with science, so you’re the idiot here making claims you can’t prove to “one up” my measured and rational anti-Semitism with your unprovable unhinged 4chan version of it.

(a repetition of his one-time obsession with pro- Ukrainianism, one replaced as rapidly as he took it up because Azov = Communazism, also characteristic of drug-fuelled obsessiveness and/or clout- chasing)

The unhinged butt-blasted sperg has little left in the tank so all he’s got now is laughably false accusations of drug-taking and clout-chasing, despite the fact that my stance against both Putin and Hitler are unpopular among the blockheads of the e-right, so that’s total proof I’m doing the opposite of clout chasing and am pursuing the truth because I think the truth matters more than illusory internet clout. And his anti-Ukrainian bias comes out too, so he’s a Zigger in addition to a Hitlertard. The two often go hand in hand.

of merely correcting a pre- existing pro-Palestinian (earlier, pro- Russian) bias

I never had a “pro-Russian bias” and have supported Ukraine since 2014.

Belief in Communazism led him to abandon the Ukraine; belief in Islamofascism led him to take up Israel in its stead

I haven’t abandoned Ukraine, more lies. I recently did a debate destroying some zigger on the issue. And I don’t “support” Israel in any real sense either. A “supporter” of Israel would not make the kinds of statements about them that I have. This asshole has to lie his ass off about my positions, misrepresent and just make shit up because he can’t refute my actual positions which trump his own garbled bafflegab crypto-Marxism.

That the State is already too powerful where private interests are concerned, easily refuted by the statistical fact that tax avoidance is rampant and immensely costly to governments worldwide, precisely because it is those said private interests who are, conversely, too powerful where the State is concerned

This is of course your Marxist perception, but the State is handily in control of things not “private interests”. If private businesses had more power than the State, they would stop paying taxes tomorrow and they would abolish all regulations that inhibit them. All they can do is find legal ways to shelter their wealth. Big companies do pay all kinds of taxes beyond what is called “federal income tax”. They have state or provincial taxes, payroll taxes, property taxes, excise taxes, etc. Why pay any of that if they’re above the state? The reason why some corporations get away with paying no “federal” income tax is because despite what their financial statements say, they either ran at a net loss that year or wrote off net losses from previous years. This article explains this:

The state has the power to tax, regulate, imprison citizens, start wars, print currency, break up companies (anti-trust), etc. All powers that private companies do not have. During covid they forced all businesses to shut down, causing many to go bust including large companies, not possible if “private interests” run the state. Governments have broken up big companies using anti-trust laws, like Theodore Roosevelt did during the trust busting era, like Reagan did with AT&T, and they have nationalized businesses. They’re still launching anti-trust lawsuits against corps today.

I’m not saying that this shouldn’t be the case, but let’s not lie to ourselves that it’s not already the case everywhere.

The sperg is really mad now:

He is incredibly destructive, harmful, spiteful, and repellant: his ignorant ideological regression; his oversensitiveness to criticism; his incessant over-opinionation

What I’m really destroying is your ideology in real time bud. There’s no regression merely a realization of what fascism is, what fascists themselves say that they are and what all the scholars agree that they are: an offshoot of classical Marxism. You’re in denial about that because you’re a deluded idiot who is choking on his own perverse pseudo-intellectual bafflegab.

his paranoid, obsessive witch-hunt for imagined Marxist subversives-one particularly laughable when Haz/Maupin are openly courting libertarians, not the Right

No they’re courting MAGA types and preach unvarnished radical state socialism, which would have virtually no appeal to “libertarians”. And you’re not “the Right” you’re an economic leftist who cloaks his leftism in racialism.

his constant hammering of divisive wedge issues, which, far from increasing his reach as he so hopes, merely split an already small group into smaller and smaller ones over mere trivialities

If these are mere trivialities, then why are you so butt-blasted about them that you spam-post wall-text after wall-text attacking me about these same trivialities that you don’t care about? What’s funny is that you would have no issue with me hammering JQ, race, trannies or whatever else you agree with me on, but you have a massive pickle up your ass about me hammering these Putintards and Hitlertards on their flaws and bullshit because you are both. You basically just want me to get out of the way and let you retards hijack right-wing politics and turn it into a Hitler/Putin demon cult.

as evidenced, for instance, by his ever-declining views and likes

So first he says I’m a clout-chaser and now he says that my positions on these “wedge issues” are not good for clout, so which is it retard? You’re just pissing in the wind now aren’t you faggot? Evidently, I don’t care about likes and clout like some woman. I care about the truth.

his Al impersonation of Johnny Gat’, which borders on the criminal

A stupid hoax made up by this homosexual pole dancer you can see below. Very credible source indeed.

The pole dancer’s “evidence” for that is that me and Johnny Gat have similar positions on Ukraine. Wow, total proof bro. It doesn’t even make any logical sense why I would do that which would amount to me putting in tens of hours of work making two feature length documentaries just to give Gat the credit for it all? It’s so retarded but that’s what you get from 60-IQ criminally paranoid wignats.

This sperg wants to talk about obsessiveness while he clearly has some kind of Martinez Derangement Syndrome and is seething endlessly about me in comment sections.

If he is not being paid for this, he should be: he has done immense unpaid labour for the Right’s enemies

But once again you’re not even right-wing, you’re an economic leftist larping as the epitome of “right-wing” when even your own fascist compatriots say fascism is “authoritarian-left”.

This sperg also showed up on my Odysee channel trying to claim that apartheid South Africa was not truly capitalist because it created some state-enterprises, he says:

Having learned more about SA since this exchange, I feel compelled to remark in hindsight that this is clearly false. The Apartheid-era economy was totally dominated by state-run parastatals. These parastatals, such as Eskom, were privatized by the very same ANC who you think are for State ownership owing to your conflation of State capitalism with socialism. They are far less efficient now than then. Apartheid SA works against your narrative.

According to various sources these state-run enterprises were created to counteract global sanctions.

“Many state-owned firms were established during the apartheid era to counter the impact of international sanctions against the country” – Wiki

“When white rule came to an end in 1994 the government of Nelson Mandela inherited a siege economy, full of state-backed firms whose job had been to soften the pain of sanctions by pursuing self-sufficiency.”  – TIME

Ok so no country is capitalist then because most countries have some state-owned enterprises (SOEs) alongside a mostly privatized economy. This South African guy says at 12:00 of the video that “for white people South Africa had one of the purest forms of free market capitalism in the world”. 

Mind you, this was a country with “Anti-Communism” laws on the books, so if they were communists themselves, that’d be a major psyop. At worst, they were Keynesians.

Then he said that state-owned enterprises (SOEs) are inherently good (of course, he’s a commie after all) and that South Africa is doing worse after some privatizations of these SOEs.

The Apartheid-era economy was totally dominated by state-run parastatals. These parastatals, such as Eskom, were privatized by the very same ANC who you think are for State ownership owing to your conflation of State capitalism with socialism. They are far less efficient now than then. Apartheid SA works against your narrative.

Those parastatals are still state run today. A brief period of privatizations was reversed.

Wiki lists all these companies as SOEs today:

“DPE has oversight responsibility in full or in part for six of the approximately 700 SOEs that exist at the national, provincial, and local levels: Alexkor (diamonds), Denel (military equipment), Eskom (electricity generation), Transnet (railway transport and pipelines) South African Express, South African Forestry Company (SAFCOL) (forestry), South African Broadcasting Corporation” 

Eskom, state run energy, is listed today as a “public utility”:

They had to lay off thousands of people because of inefficiencies and losses:

“Between 2020 and 2021, two thousand employees lost their jobs at the power utility. 6000 more jobs are reportedly at risk in order for the company to continue operating” 

I looked up how well these SOEs are performing today and, despite Mr. Caesar’s claims, it’s a sad sight indeed. They’re all massively in debt, racking up huge losses, plagued with corruption and need constant bailouts:

By the end of the Zuma administration in 2018 corruption within South African state owned enterprises by individuals connected to government such as the controversial Gupta family had led to many enterprises facing deep financial difficulty.[4] Deepening financial issues, mismanagement, maladministration and government bailouts of enterprises such as the South African Broadcasting Corporation,[5][6][7] South African Airways,[8][9][10] Eskom,[11][12] Denel,[13][14] PRASA,[15] and Transnet caused increased public controversy. By the end of 2015–16 combined government guarantees on debts owed by state owned enterprises had reached R467 billion (equivalent to US$33.1 billion) and were expected to reach R500 billion by 2020 representing 10 percent of South Africa’s GDP.[4] The situation at Eskom was regarded as so serious as to lead the South African business newspaper Business Day to speculate that it could cause a national banking crisis.[12] In 2021 the South African Treasury reported that South African Airways had accumulated a total loss between 2008 and 2020 of R32 billion (US$ 2.1 billion) and received a total of R60 billion (US$ 4 billion) in government guarantees.[16]

That doesn’t sound like your beloved state-owned enterprises are being run efficiently to me.

Here’s what TIME Magazine had to say about these wondrous state-owned enterprises in South Africa:

“SCOOPING up gems from the beaches that form part of one of the world’s richest diamond deposits ought to be about as profitable as, well, scooping up diamonds from a beach. Yet South Africa’s state-owned diamond miner, Alexkor, has managed to make a hash of it. Over the past decade it has posted losses more often than profits and has needed frequent bail-outs…. As many as half of the diamonds it mines there fail to make their way onto Alexkor’s income statement, according to diamond-industry insiders. (The government says that only 10% are stolen.) … In this it is not unique. South Africa has more than 700 state-owned firms, though only a few count for much. The biggest include Eskom, the power monopoly, Transnet, the railway and ports monopoly, South African Airways (SAA) and Denel, an arms firm. Between them they account for at least 5% of the country’s economic output. Yet these behemoths are mighty drags on growth. During the global commodity boom before the 2008 financial crisis South Africa’s mines struggled to expand because underinvestment by Transnet had led to bottlenecks at ports and on the railways. Some reckon the country’s coal and iron ore mines could have increased their exports by as much as 50% had they had the means to get their minerals out to international markets. Chronic underinvestment by Eskom, meanwhile, has led to rolling power cuts that have slashed productivity in factories and mines (as well as irritating South Africans, who like light in their homes). Many state-owned firms are also racking up large losses (see chart) and guzzling subsidies. Petro SA, a national oil company that wants to build the largest oil refinery in Africa, will in fact gain a superlative even if that plan doesn’t go ahead: it is about to post a loss of about 15 billion rand ($1.1 billion), the largest ever by a state-owned company in South Africa.”

“SAA, meanwhile, has soaked up more than 30 billion rand ($2.3 billion) in bail-outs over two decades. In the process it has managed to smother domestic competition: ten of the 11 private airlines that opened after South Africa’s skies were deregulated in 1991 have gone out of business.
Instead of learning the obvious lesson—that the state is not good at running businesses—the South African government seems keen to double down. In mining, for instance, ministers talk about having a state-owned firm take over existing mines that are cutting jobs or going out of business because of low commodity prices. Instead of “unpatriotic” capitalist mines, the government would like more state-owned ones. “We think we should give it a push and see if it works,” says Ngoako Ramatlhodi, the minerals and energy minister. His policies reflect a wider shift in the government’s move away from markets and towards a “developmental state” in which the government owns “strategic” industries and uses them to pursue goals other than profitability.” 

So not only has South Africa not moved towards privatization, it is still moving away from it. Despite all these failures, the South African state is doubling down on their SOEs and are modeling themselves now on China:

Most new plans for the economy are now drawn up by two communists, Ebrahim Patel, the economic development minister, and Rob Davies, a trade minister who doesn’t seem to think much of trade. Their model is China. An ANC policy document gushes that the economic “leadership of the Communist Party of China…should be a guiding lodestar of our own struggle.” Many in the ANC like the idea that the ruling party should control businesses directly, and China’s recent troubles probably won’t change their minds.

SA President Cyril Rhamposa admitted the SOEs are a disaster:

During last night’s State of the Nation Address, President Cyril Ramaphosa acknowledged that state-owned enterprises (SOEs) and local government are the state’s greatest weaknesses. Many SOEs are struggling with significant debt, under-investment in infrastructure, the effects of state capture and a shortage of skills, the President said.

But I bet our fascist friend will say that this is only because they’re being run by black people. White Communism is so much better, he will say. It is marginally better, I will say, but not desirable.

At least when in the private sector, the inefficient businesses go under, better ones pop up and taxpayers don’t have to foot the bill for incompetence or poor business decisions, whereas inefficient state run enterprises just get a bailout every year.

What I first noticed about the article is that it is mighty low on actual quotes from me and heavy on Steuben’s own polemics. He only quotes me briefly once at the beginning and then the rest is his own commentary. This tends to be the case when people are trying to rebuff what I’ve been saying about fascism. They don’t quote me in full context or they misrepresent my actual positions, usually resorting to making straw man arguments or assumptions about what I support. Normally this takes the form of putting any critic of fascism in the “libertarian” camp when this is not necessarily the case. I’ve pointed out before that this is a Vaushian debate bro tactic from the fascios when confronted with evidence of their intense similarities with Marxists and their ideology’s deep roots in Marxism (Mussolini was a staunch Marxist socialist before creating his hybridized Marxist-Fascism).

I’ll do Steuben the service of quoting him at length and responding to each point.

Steuben writes:

Recently, Martinez Politics, whose commentary I usually enjoy, assumed a strong stance against fascism. Here are a few snippets from his Telegram posts on this topic:

Same end goal: “everything in the State, nothing outside the State” aka Communism.

Fascism says the State is supreme and you cannot rebuke it. There’s no reason to believe that only means specific states that you selectively choose to be loyal to, but all States. . . . But the people touting this Supreme Statist ideology don’t apply any of these standards consistently, but selectively/tactically, because they don’t actually believe in these principles at all. If they’re only applied selectively, then they’re not real principles but tactics.

It is surprising how many people on the Right have fallen into the inaccurate leftist Bernie Bro/Chomskyite worldview where they think corporations that have no power to

1) initiate force

2) tax the populace

3) print money

. . . is somehow more powerful than the State which has all of those powers.

A fundamental distinction should be made between what I will call capital-F “Fascism” and lower case-f “fascism.” Capital-F Fascism is indeed “everything in the State, nothing outside the State,” with a perfect synthesis of state and corporate power. By contrast, lower case-f fascism is more of an aesthetic than an ideology. It is not particularly concerned with the dismal science of economics, which it correctly sees as merely a means and not as an end in itself.

I don’t really get the esoteric point being made here. Fascism is a pretty comprehensive ideology so there’s no need to split hairs about variants of it. Fascism actually is concerned a lot with the “dismal science of economics”. Mussolini seemed consumed almost exclusively by economic questions in his earlier days as a journalist and activist. He was a labour union organizer and strike leader. He advocated for Italy to enter World War I because he, like his prophet Karl Marx, believed the war could bring about revolutionary conditions that would facilitate a socialist takeover of the State. Everything he did was geared towards bringing about the economic order outlined in the Communist Manifesto.

This from Wiki:

Mussolini initially held official support for the party’s decision and, in an August 1914 article, Mussolini wrote “Down with the War. We remain neutral.” He saw the war as an opportunity, both for his own ambitions as well as those of socialists and Italians. He was influenced by anti-Austrian Italian nationalist sentiments, believing that the war offered Italians in Austria-Hungary the chance to liberate themselves from rule of the Habsburgs. He eventually decided to declare support for the war by appealing to the need for socialists to overthrow the Hohenzollern and Habsburg monarchies in Germany and Austria-Hungary who he said had consistently repressed socialism.[52] …. He argued that the fall of Hohenzollern and Habsburg monarchies and the repression of “reactionary” Turkey would create conditions beneficial for the working class… Thus he claimed that the vast social changes that the war could offer meant that it should be supported as a revolutionary war.

So even his split with the Italian socialists on this issue was not rooted in an abandonment of socialism but a commitment to it. Mussolini said Karl Marx was his prophet:

“It was inevitable that I should become a Socialist ultra, a Blanquist, indeed a communist. I carried about a medallion with Marx’s head on it in my pocket. I think I regarded it as a sort of talisman… [Marx] had a profound critical intelligence and was in some sense even a prophet.” 

Source: Talks With Mussolini, Emil Ludwig, Pg. 38

Steuben writes:

It is epitomized by the anarcho-fascist commune of Fiume, in which the government’s functions included poetry and fireworks; or by the Futurist Manifesto’s values or speed, youth, and militarism. This fascism could be summarized in a single word: life.

What Steuben is doing here is trying to extricate Fascism from its roots in Marxist economics and make it all about philosophy. But philosophy is a vague side point when it comes to politics. No amount of philosophizing will erase the fact that Fascism is, at its core, an economic and political doctrine of Total State authoritarian economic socialism, the same system brought about in the USSR under Lenin and Stalin.

Steuben writes:

Capital-F Fascism is a means, and lower-case fascism is the ultimate end. The end goal of Communism 1.0 was a materialist workers’ paradise in which death and dissolution are a means, and the end goal of contemporary “woke” Communism is dissolution and death, even if their stated goal is different. We can therefore rebuke the assertion that fascism and Communism have the same end goals. In fact, their goals are diametrically opposed.

The end goal of both Communism and Fascism was an egalitarian economic order of wealth redistribution and the elimination of economic classes, all Italians and Germans on equal footing. Both employed progressive discourse of “social and economic justice,” the same stuff you hear from modern progressives constantly whining about income pay gaps between men and women as well as Whites and non-Whites. Hitler appropriated that economic egalitarianism and applied it to one ethnic group (Germans) and Mussolini to one nationality (Italians).

Hitler said this in 1943:

“All the more so after the war, the German National Socialist state, which pursued this goal from the beginning, will tirelessly work for the realization of a program that will ultimately lead to a complete elimination of class differences and to the creation of a true socialist community.” – Adolf Hitler’s Speech for the Heroes’ Memorial Day (1943) 

Mussolini explained his political end goal of abolishing most free enterprise and private property in the 1943 Verona manifesto:

“On February 12, 1944, Mussolini’s cabinet approved a bill of “socialization” that spoke about the “Mussolinian conception on subjects such as; much higher social justice, a more equitable distribution of wealth and the participation of labor in the state life.” Mussolini claimed that Italian capitalists had betrayed him after they had gained immensely from fascism, and that he now regretted his alliance with them and rediscovered his old socialist influences. He claimed that he had intended to carry out a large-scale nationalization of property in 1939–1940 but that the outbreak of war had forced him to postpone it, and promised that in the future, all industrial firms with over 100 employees would be nationalized. Mussolini even reached out to ex-communist Nicola Bombacci, a former student of Vladimir Lenin, to help him in spreading the image that Fascism was a progressive movement.”

So by the 40s, both Hitler and Mussolini were making clear that the final destination of fascism and National Socialism was the complete State takeover of all private affairs, “nothing outside the State”. That’s not meaningfully distinct from Marxist-Leninism.

Steuben writes:

But despite the fact that one is a means and the other an ends, “Fascism” and “fascism” are not wholly compatible with one another. Julius Evola observed that many of the Italian Fascists who had been idealists in the beginning ended up as boring party apparatchiks. This fact would appear to support Martinez’s position. But it does not. Fascism was a means that went too far and became an end in itself. As with many issues, this issue can be easily resolved through Aristotle’s golden mean. Anything taken to an unnatural extreme becomes a warped parody of its former self. Additionally, a great amount of slack must be given to the Italian Fascists, who found themselves overwhelmed by hostile powers and who had less time to realize their dreams than the Communists ended up with.

This is overly verbose bafflegab. Fascism did become a parody of itself and ended up plunging Europe into a bloodbath because of the vainglory of Mussolini and Hitler who thought they could bend the whole world to their own selfish whims. That’s the inevitable outcome of unchecked State power. The fascists were not “overwhelmed by hostile powers” they were themselves hostile to any State that was not ideologically fascist, invading and seeking to overturn them. Fascists don’t believe in nation-states or sovereignty they only believe in the ideology. Those not of the ideology are “heretics” and any sort of violence is justified against them, similar to radical Islam.

Steuben writes:

Additionally, if fascism and Communism had had the same goals, it would have been much less likely that they would have fought — and continue to fight each other — so vehemently. The Communists would have allied with the Falange against the Republicans in the Spanish Civil War. Many of the Sturmabteilung had originally been Communists, just as many Alt Right fascists had originally been libertarian because they were disillusioned with the mainstream options presented to them. Nevertheless, the violence between the former two in the Weimar Republic was not a farcical misunderstanding.

This is a red herring. Remember that Hitler had severe bloody quarrels with other Natsocs and fascists, culminating in the Night of the Long Knives violent purge. Were those he purged not also Natsocs? Nazis assassinated Dolfuss of Austria, who was also a fascist, because he wanted to keep Austria independent of German rule. Mussolini nearly went to war with Hitler to defend the sovereignty of Austria. Stalin purged out scores of other Bolsheviks, culminating in the execution of Kamenev and Zinoviev and assassination of Trotsky, yet they were all communists. Ideologically similar groups often do bloody battle against each other, the same way gangs of a similar nature war over turf.

This source says that more than 50% of recruits to the SA in general were ex-communists and as many as 70% of new recruits to the SA in Berlin were communists, hence why they were called “Beefsteak Nazis”. Mussolini was a diehard Marxist socialist, Hitler was involved in the Soviet Bavarian Republic and attended the funeral of Jewish Marxist Kurt Eisner.

The Strasser brothers, both prominent members of the NSDAP who shaped the party’s ideology, were committed economic socialists of a Marxian bent. Goebbels said that next to Hitler, Vladimir Lenin was his greatest idol and that the difference between NS and Communism was “very slight”. Joachim von Ribbentrop, Germany’s foreign minister, said that Bolshevism was a “kind of National Socialism”. So if you have Nazis themselves attesting to their intense similarities with communists, then this debate is over.

Steuben says that, “The Communists would have allied with the Falange against the Republicans in the Spanish Civil War”. Let’s hear what Hitler himself said about this:

“Early in November 1937 Hitler told his staff that an outright Franco victory in Spain was not desirable: ‘Our interest is in maintaining existing tensions in the Mediterranean.’ That Franco was fighting the Communist-backed Republicans was of only secondary importance. In April 1938 Hitler would muse out loud to Reinhard Spitzy, Ribbentrop’s private secretary: ‘We have backed the wrong horse in Spain. We would have done better to back the Republicans. They represent the people. We could always have converted these socialists into good National Socialists later. The people around Franco are all reactionary clerics, aristocrats, and moneybags — they’ve nothing in common with us Nazis at all!”” – David Irving, Hitler’s War & the War Path

So Hitler himself secretly wanted to align with the Reds against Franco because Franco wasn’t economically socialistic enough for his Marxian tastes. But pragmatism brought him to support Franco, which he regretted later when Franco refused to appease Hitler’s war aims in the Second World War. The Soviets didn’t align with the Falange probably only because they incorporated Catholicism into its doctrine, but on economic questions, the Falange was indistinguishable from the Reds they were fighting. Steuben also fails to mention the Molotov-Ribbentrop non-aggression and commerical trade pact of 1939 and Italo-Soviet friendship and trade pact of 1933 which aligned fascism with the USSR. If they were diametrically opposed, why the friendliness and collaboration?

Here’s a quote from a commenter on Steuben’s article illustrating my point:

As a Fascist at heart I agree with most of it. As a teenager I was a Socialist, of the eco-type who wanted only to provide support for the poor and stop the ravaging effects of global capitalism on the natural world. Nothing about that has ever changed. Then, as I grew up, I simply added to that list a desire to protect the native European peoples and their cultures, and voila, I was now a Fascist. The step from well-meaning Democratic Socialism to Fascism is much smaller than anyone dares admit. Looking through the early 20th century with clarity, it’s plain to see how Mosley came from Labour, Mussolini came from the Italian socialist party, the NSDAP came from the German Labor Party. Fascism is a labor movement.”

So what he’s saying here is that fascists like himself remain economic Marxists and merely add a patriotic national sentiment to the discourse aka National Marxism.

Steuben writes:

Next, I completely agree that most fascists use Fascism selectively. I simply disagree with Martinez about whether this is the correct course of action, because fascism — or life and truth — should be our guiding principles, and not Fascism as a party program.

So if fascists use fascist doctrine selectively, then it’s not a doctrine of “truth” but cynical falsehood applied only when it’s convenient to do so. It’s like saying: “I believe in your free speech….but only when you agree with me”. I pointed this out about the fascist maxim of “States have rights over individuals (i.e. citizens)”. If applied universally, this would mean that right-wingers have no right to oppose our modern leftist States on anything they’re currently doing, like imposing transgenderism, diversity, hate speech provisions, wars, covid tyranny, etc. Fascists have no response to this philosophical quagmire because it nullifies the central premise of fascism, namely that the State is supreme and the citizen has no rights unless he agrees with the State (aka citizens can’t disagree with the State without severe punishment). If that logic doesn’t apply to all States, then it shouldn’t apply to any State.

Steuben writes:

For example, I have personally seen an anarchist punk skater become a bootlicking toady praising Ashli Babbitt’s executioner. I was initially shocked, but there is really no contradiction or hypocrisy. The enemy is a conduit of chaos, with dissolution as his ultimate goal. When they are out of power, they will be punk skaters; when in power, they will indulge in unmitigated anarcho-tyranny and statism. We should copy this winning strategy in the pursuit of fascism: While we are out of power, we should be libertarian in our methods; once in power we should, at least initially, be Fascists.

So when you’re out of power you will preach libertarian ethics? I don’t see many fascists actually doing this though, they ridiculed anyone on the Right who wasn’t gung-ho for “total Statism” in the face of covid tyranny and the scientific dictatorship being imposed by the WEF, UN and our national governments. They mocked the Canadian truckers and anti-vaxxers who opposed the “power of the State” to trample over the “liberal rights” of citizens. So by their own logic, the Great Reset tyrants have every right to jab your kid with Pfizer’s toxic brew because “the State has rights over individuals”. I don’t even disagree with the general sentiment that when we have power we should use it against the Left. That’s pretty much common sense, but we find ourselves in a moral quagmire by feigning beliefs we don’t actual hold.

Steuben writes:

This naturally leads to the argument that in doing so, we will become what we are fighting against. But statism is not like Sauron’s ring of power, regardless of what the libertarians claim. Otherwise, all of the governments in history would have descended into evil. The anti-statist sentiment which defines America is a relatively recent phenomenon spawned by the Enlightenment’s hatred of monarchy, which by the 1700s had degenerated into a parody of traditional kingship. This overreaction had some merit in its day, but is now an anachronism.

All governments have descended into some form of evil, actually, and only recently was their power checked. The greatest genocides in history were conducted almost exclusively by States with unchecked power to imprison, kill and enslave. Stalin’s Gulags, Mao’s Cultural Revolution and Pol Pot’s killing fields are classic examples of the end result of unchecked State power. The end result of Hitler and Mussolini’s unchecked State power was the bloodbath of the Second World War. I’m saying this not as a rejection of Statism but as an observable fact. States have a monopoly on the use of force and can take that to extremes if they wish to. With that said, States can also do good by protecting its citizens from foreign invaders and criminals. It all depends on who’s running the State. States in the right hands are necessary to sustain law and order and impose a moral guide for society, but States must also be regulated and checked by men of good moral character to keep it from going off the deep end into barbarism and tyranny. If business power must be checked, so must State power.

Steuben writes:

Furthermore, nature abhors a vacuum, especially in regard to power. The odd allergy to state power is only found on the Right. The Left has no qualms about it, and thus has had great success. The attitude that power corrupts only serves to ensure that those who are inherently corrupt wield power unimpeded while those who are virtuous render themselves unable to exercise their virtue in the political realm.

I don’t disagree with that statement and right-wingers should probably let go of their allergy to using State power in the name of good. But none of that changes the fact that unchecked State power does not usually bode well for anyone. If there must be limits on business, there must be limits on the State. Libertarians want a minimal state, fascists want a total state, and I reside somewhere in the middle there. So both of them try to throw me into the other camp because I reject the precept of both libertarianism and fascism.

Steuben writes:

The third point I wish to address is the idea that corporations cannot perform traditional state functions, such as the use of force and the enforcement of taxes. At first glance this appears to be a strong argument. But who ultimately wields more power, the President and Congress or the various private interests they must court to get elected and remain in office? Why run for Congress when you can make a Congressman your pet poodle? George Soros has worked to ensure that state power is used almost exclusively against his enemies, and rarely against his friends and pawns. And the fact that mega-corps design tax loopholes has become common knowledge even among the most apolitical.

The President and Congress undoubtedly wield more power and can do what they wish once in power. They don’t need to go begging to corporations to pass legislation, they just do it. The corporations are the ones who have to grovel before the politicians to get favours. If the corps had more power than politicians, then explain why the US Justice department just launched an anti-trust lawsuit against Google. The EU fined Google under its anti-trust laws. Microsoft nearly got broken up. AT&T was broken up under Reagan. If the corps had the power advantage here, none of that would happen. Soros can throw his money around at politicians, but so can labour unions, foreign country lobbies, charities like ADL and ACLU, etc. They’re all lobbying to get favours and laws passed, but none of them directly control the government. They must beg the State, not the reverse. Soros’ organizations were banned from Hungary, so obviously Soros is not dictating terms to every State, if he was then he’d just ignore Orban’s State orders and keep doing what he wants. It just happens that most of the political class agrees with the ideas of Soros on many issues.

Mega corps don’t need to design tax loopholes they just exploit ones that are already there. They get their fancy lawyers to pour through tax law to find the loopholes, which the government can then plug up at any time if it wants to. Average citizens can also try to exploit tax loopholes to shelter some of their own money from the tax authorities, it’s not only corps that are able to do that. If the corps had full control of the government, they’d just abolish the corporate tax, capital gains tax, etc. and not have to worry about finding loopholes to avoid paying. Still, you have not described how the State with its power to tax, wage war, print money, imprison citizens, and initiate force is less powerful than corporations. Corps can only wield such powers through the State, so the real power lies with the State.

Steuben writes:

There is also the matter of a potential power vacuum between the state and business. A perfect balance between state and corporate power would be ideal, but such a thing would be too delicate to last, anyway. One must eventually predominate over the other, like one side in a game of tug-of-war. It is simply the nature of the dynamic.

The State already predominates over business, if it didn’t then there’d be no anti-trust laws, regulations or taxes, all of which inhibit business. They’d all be abolished tomorrow. A perfect example is the covid tyranny. States forced all private businesses to close down for a year, causing thousands of them to fail. The ones who failed to comply were hit with fines. If businesses had power over States, then they’d have ignored all the lockdown orders and continued doing business. The State would have been powerless to enforce lockdowns if business had the upper hand.

Steuben writes:

The question is thus whether the state will rule business or vice versa, and to what extent. The threat of business conquering government is the Achilles’ heel of any liberal democracy. As Oswald Spengler explained in The Decline of the West, “It is symptomatic that no constitution knows of money as a political force, it is pure theory that they contain, one and all.” The state must rule business, or business will rule the state. It is a zero-sum game.

I don’t disagree that the State should have final say over business, but like I said, it already does in most countries other than extremely weak and lawless ones in the Third World. Business has influence on the State, just as labour unions, foreign countries, charities and voters do too, they’re all jockeying for influence with the State which has the powers to tax, print money, regulate, and initiate force. But the State has the upper hand over all the influence peddlers. Private citizens and private businesses must comply with State orders and laws, or they are punished, but the State doesn’t seem to have to follow its own rules. Only States can punish other States, like you saw at Nuremberg, but States rarely punish or regulate themselves. No Soviet mass murderer ever went to prison, unless put there by Stalin or one of his successors in a power struggle. You see that with the Intelligence Agencies and National Security State in many countries. They can get away with breaking the law (spying, assassinations, coups, war crimes) and few government law-breakers are punished, whereas even wealthy private citizens don’t often get away with murder, extortion, or other serious crimes. Justice even caught up with Epstein. There should be strong campaign finance laws and conflict of interest laws that separate the State and business as well as lobby groups of any kind.

Steuben writes:

It is therefore better to embrace a political order in which the state openly and honestly rules over business, but in which there are limits as to how it does so. Attempting to achieve a balance will invariably slide into the nearly absolute rule of the state by private business. The state being predominant is not a perfect option, but it is preferable, since government is nominally public and business is private.

We already have a political order where the State predominates. Maybe not to the extent you like, but that’s what we have. If we didn’t then why are the FBI and regulators telling Mark Zuckerberg what he’s allowed to have on his website? Hate speech laws and civil rights laws in Canada, Australia and Europe are directed by the State against private citizens and business, a clear case of the State being in control.

Here’s a very recent example of this:

Last week, a Manhattan jury awarded $11.25 million to 39-year-old Röbynn Europe, a black woman who sued her former employer, Equinox gym, saying she was unjustly fired for sexism and racism. Equinox claims she was fired for being late 47 times over 10 months, a fact that Europe acknowledged as true. According to the New York Times, Europe believed “her lateness was merely a pretext for discrimination.”

So the State has been weaponized by the privileged minorities against businesses. That is not a political order in which business predominates, but the State in favour of minority “rights,” in this case the right to be a lazy bum and not get fired for it.

Steuben writes:

One could counter that the current governments throughout much of the West are objectively evil, but this came about precisely because private interests of a Jewish nature were able to hijack the American government due to its weakness.

Jews can also hijack the government by directly entering the government, as they have done. By this logic we should abolish the government, so Jews can’t hijack it from within. Applying the term “private” to Jewish interests here seems superfluous. White nationalist organizations are also “private” since they’re not part of the State, but I doubt you’d argue against White nationalists exercising “private” rights to influence public discourse or policy. The issue with Jews is not one of public vs private, but of the battle of ethnic groups. Jews will infiltrate the State and use it to their own group advantage and they’ll do the same with business, and so should Whites. Preventing Jews from influencing Western States is a perfectly reasonable policy that I concur with. That has little to do with economic policy though, that’s in the realm of social policy.

Steuben writes:

A state should be an extension of the people. Our current government is indeed an extension of a people — the Jewish people, rather than its white founding stock. The US constitutional order abhors national government, and thus deracinated white business interests such as banks, railroads, and the industrial robber barons were able to corrupt it soon after its inception. The Founders’ naïve hope that ambition and private enterprise would check each other backfired and ultimately aggrandized those interests. As a result, these same greedy industrial interests hijacked the federal government in order to launch their war against the South, which permanently injured the states’ rights that the Constitution was ironically designed to protect. It was then quite easy for the Jews to insert themselves into this corrupt state of affairs a few decades later.

As far as I’m aware there was also Jewish influence in the American South, so framing the North vs South thing in Jewish terms is off base. The Jewish takeover of politics is the result of allowing Jews in politics. High-IQ Jews are able to take over any type of system, including authoritarian ones like the Soviet Union which they were predominant in. But they tend to thrive especially in the “liberal democratic” environment because it affords them the rights to organize for their interests. The remedy to this is not becoming communists who abolish business but becoming ethno-centrists aware that Jews do not share our interests and excluding them from the table of governance.

Steuben writes:

Furthermore, one of the best American presidents, Teddy Roosevelt, aptly wielded state power in domestic affairs in order to bust trusts, found the national park system, and pass the Meat Inspection and Pure Food and Drug acts while increasing US naval power abroad. It would be accurate to describe President Roosevelt as a proto-ecofascist. That Teddy is remembered as a beloved leader and not as a dark lord should thoroughly rebuke the claim that the use of state power inherently corrupts.

This example contradicts your previous claim that business is more powerful than the State. If it was, then Teddy Roosevelt would not have been able to bust trusts or pass regulations that harmed business interests. That’s proof that the State was in control and that big business power does not overtake the State. Roosevelt’s also known for aggressively supporting the Spanish-American war with the dubious sinking of the USS Maine. So once again we have unchecked State power taking its usual course towards war and expansion.

Theodore Roosevelt, as the U.S. rapidly built a powerful naval fleet of steel warships in the 1880s and 1890s. Roosevelt served as Assistant Secretary of the Navy in 1897–1898 and was an aggressive supporter of an American war with Spain over Cuban interests.

Steuben writes:

One could point to numerous examples of businesses having to kowtow to woke ideas such as diversity and equity, which had already been around in less virulent forms for decades in the form of human resources commissars. Isn’t this an example of government bullying business? Actually, no — it is woke businesses bullying other businesses that are not in lockstep with their agenda. Such enterprises simply fall outside the current Fascist synthesis of state and corporate power.

There are examples of both government and other woke businesses bullying other businesses to “go woke”. But that all started with the 1964 Civil Rights Act which forced businesses to kowtow to diversity and inclusion ideas, making it illegal to discriminate. That was replicated in Britain with the 1965 Race Relations Act and the Canadian Employment Equity Act, all of which are State-mandated diversity and wokeism. The Democrats and Labour were the ones who passed these acts in the US and UK, both of which lean towards anti-business economic socialism. Another recent example is the British government nudging the big CEOs to start diversifying their companies, which State enterprises in the UK like NHS and BBC already do.

To suggest that the State isn’t involved in imposing this is clearly wrong and it’s no surprise that fascists are the most enthusiastic deniers of the State’s role in this since they are ideologically pro-State and anti-business, hence their attempts to scapegoat leftism on business and absolve the State. Everything from gay marriage, transgender and LGBT equality laws, anti-racism, hate speech, feminist supremacy, foreign wars and mass immigration are achieved through the State and have clear benefits to politicians. I don’t deny that largely Jewish-run big businesses have co-signed these leftist agendas, often for ideological reasons and not purely economic factors since they’re willing to take temporary losses to push some of this stuff, but I don’t buy into the fascist argument that the solution is to abolish all private business and hand over unlimited powers to the State. If the State is run by leftists, then this achieves nothing. If it’s run by right-wingers, then we can achieve all the social stuff without banning private enterprise. By the same logic the solution is abolishing the State so it can’t impose any of this stuff on us. But I don’t think that’s the solution either.

Steuben writes:

A point which Martinez did not bring up but which I wish to address is the claim that “the bigger the government, the smaller the citizen.” There is actually some truth to this when Fascism abandons the Aristotelian golden mean and goes awry. All things else being equal, it is more efficient for issues to be handled at the lowest level possible — i.e., by the citizenry or local government. But civil society in America has all but withered today. Government overreach is one reason for this, but not the sole reason. One need only live for a brief time in a European country to observe the marked contrast.

Fascism negates localism and self-rule. It’s all about stiff centralization of power in a Federal Government. There are no provincial or states rights under fascism. If leftists control this type of State, there’s no opting out of their agendas.

Steuben writes:

The inverse of this dictum is also true. The lack of civil society requires a strong government to kick-start it, and then gradually back off. For example, the Third Reich enriched its people through sporting and cultural events following the social devastation of the Weimar era. A responsible nationalist government would do the same in the US today, and encourage people to be free and happy to the extent that state encouragement is needed.

You don’t need a fascist style of government to have sporting or cultural events. Even our left-wing States have ministries of culture that subsidize cultural events and projects.

Steuben writes:

I do not claim that Fascism is an ideal form of government. However, no ideal government can exist in the Kali Yuga — or in the post-modern/post-industrial world, if one prefers to discard Traditionalist metaphysics. But Fascism is at least functional, which is the best we can currently hope for. And while Fascism comes with the danger of falling into excess, the excesses of liberal democracy and unfettered capitalism have proven to be far worse, both in probability and magnitude. It is they who have become indistinguishable from Communism.

So you admit it’s not the ideal form of government and lends itself to overreach and tyranny, but advocate for it anyway because you can’t think of anything better. There are many more options than “fascism or liberal democracy,” narrowing politics down to these two options is a red herring. We don’t have unfettered capitalism today, we have some of the most regulated, taxed and socialized economies we’ve perhaps ever had. There are no income taxes, capital gains taxes, corporate taxes, property taxes, sales taxes and a regulatory agency for every industry under the sun in “unfettered capitalism”. What we have now are Keynesian mixed economies, which ironically is what some fascists claim to support, so we already have the “third position” they aspire to yet they’re still unsatisfied because they’re not even Keynesians they’re Marxists.

Steuben writes:

I am writing this partly out of respect for Martinez Perspective, and so would like to humbly and cautiously offer an explanation for his strong criticisms of Fascism. Recently, a number of individuals of the “zigger” community have become obnoxiously loud in praising Russia’s vanilla statism and casting Putin as a savior. This is particularly annoying given that Russia Today constantly runs anti-white propaganda, such as by attacking Daniel Penny for exercising his right to defend himself. The only justification offered is dismissive handwringing over geopolitics.

The strong support for Putin among fascists gives away the mindset they have. They want a powerful dictator with unchecked State power who wages war on his neighbors for Lebensraum. There’s very little difference between Putin’s Lebensraum and Hitler’s Lebensraum, one is cultural and the other ethnic. Fascism glorifies war as a form of national rebirth and rejuvenation, another maxim they use selectively since they’re always going off with Third Worldist rants about how much they hate American and Israeli war-making. They love Putin’s war-making because they believe it’s being done in opposition to the “liberal order,” even though Putin is himself a multiculturalist opposed to the neo-Nazism these people profess, giving away the accelerationist nihilism of these modern neo-fascist supporters of Putinism and Eurasianism. They don’t care about White people and will co-sign and vengefully justify any violence against White people done by governments not aligned with America and NATO.

Steuben writes:

A blanket dismissal of “statism” might trigger ziggers on Telegram, but it is not a serious position for a race-conscious white to take. There is no non-statist solution to the problems whites face today. If Martinez wishes to criticize Fascism, he is entitled to do so. Quite frankly, those who advocate Fascism and National Socialism today often tend to rest on other people’s laurels. But this will not be a serious debate until Martinez offers a statist alternative that better serves the interests of whites. Otherwise, he risks retreating into stale libertarian and conservative talking points.

I’ve never made a blanket dismissal of “Statism,” quite the contrary. Once again the fascios misrepresent my position to straw man it. If I rebuffed Statism en toto then I wouldn’t be supporting Ron DeSantis in his war against Disney, which is a case of the State lording it over woke business. I believe that the State in the right hands should impose a moral order, including over business, but that need not necessitate the fascist-communist program of “nothing outside the State”.

I believe that only through the State can we solve many of these social problems we face today, which would make me a “Statist” in the eyes of Libertarians. Immigration and the social order can only be solved on a wide scale via the State, but that doesn’t mean I want a Totalitarian State that can get hijacked by bad actors and turned against us.

I’ve also critiqued the apathy of Libertarians towards the plight of the West and Whites and their lack of moral direction. But because I also rebuff the hyper-Statism of the fascios, they put me in that camp in an attempt to hollow out the middle ground between Total Statism and Libertarian Anarchism. A competent and morally-grounded State need not be tyrannical or averse to the views of the common man. I don’t believe that the State has inherent rights over citizens, it only has the raw power to enforce its will insofar as citizens are inclined to obey it or powerless to oppose it. When the State oversteps its bounds, the citizens can and should rebel against it. If fascios don’t believe that then they should give up their current rebellious trajectory against our modern States and just obey like the good cattle that they are.