Feb 1, 2020, 1:54 PM

  1. Fascism was a nationalist(european) reaction to counter global (jewish) communism.

  2. Fascism was conceived as french socialism, and the nazis came closest to implementing it – although today’s france is not far off. The period saw the decline of religion (darwin within memory) and rapid change, so in european tradition, fascism was another attempt at a secular theology of state, given the strange european desire for authority that is alien to anglos.

  3. China is perhaps the best example of a fascist state practicing monopoly authoritarianism, nationalism, insulation from ‘corrupting’ influences, information control, state corporatism, militarism, and extremely tight coupling between state, finance, and industry. (note that the chinese like the germans are very happy with this situation).

In other words, Fascism won the 20th century. Period.

  1. I use the term “Market Fascism” in the sense that there is zero tolerance for extra market coercion anywhere under P. This was meant as a tongue in cheek response to Islamic Fascism vs “the white law”, and to cue the audience to the severity with which free riding, rent seeking, baiting into hazard, and all the other leftist techniques would be illegal – leaving only exchanges as a means of cooperating.

  2. One of the most contra-jewish-libertarian properties of fascism is that profit at the expense of the commons or people was not permitted. We confuse this with autarky, but it was more that abitrages were not permitted – which is what americans want as well. And if a resource would be short in the country by higher profits out, that sale would be prohibited. The other contra-jewish-libertarian property is that they ended interest for consumers, and that the success of state-private industrial alliances are always beneficial since capital intensive industry is always taking a credit risk that only the state can reduce. This is why I would prefer the USA and UK were investing in battery research and factories and keeping the profits rather than externalizing them to the private sector. This is a principle problem with that is not true elsewhere. We fund all this basic research with public money but it is then privatized. In other words, why is consumer interests and privatization of public research returns handed out to the investment class rather than diminishing tax burdens of the people?