Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Thursday, March 01, 2007
David Strom :: Townhall.com Columnist
The Growth of a 21st Century Fascism
by David Strom
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


A new fascist movement is on the rise, and proponents of individual liberty are losing ground.

Left-wingers often accuse conservatives of being fascists, but the reality is that fascism is simply another form of collectivism, like socialism and communism. The differences, such as they exist, are marginal between these collectivist ideologies when viewed from the perspective of Liberalism. Fascism idolizes the state, socialists idolize “society” and communists idolize “humanity” as a whole.

What holds these ideologies together is much stronger than what divides them: they are all dedicated to the proposition that the rights and desires of individuals are properly subsumed by the needs of the whole. Individualism is selfishness, rights are collective, and the “good” of the whole is the true measure of society.

Collectivism has been like a chronic disease in the body politic ever since the birth of Liberal Individualism in the 18th Century. For Locke, there was Rousseau. The American Revolution contrasted with the French Revolution and its guillotine. America had George Washington and Europe had Napoleon. Lincoln saved the Union as Marx was promoting Communism in Europe. . For the last 300 years we in the Western world have been living in the midst of a struggle between the forces of Liberal individualism and the forces of collectivism.

Communism and fascism dominated much of 20th Century history as the alternative to Liberal individualism and free markets. Democratic socialism is still eating away at European societies, which grow poorer and more sclerotic every year as they continue to declare the superiority of their model to American individualism.

Even here in America, the home of Liberal individualism, there is a constant assault on individual liberty. The steady growth of economic regulations, income redistribution, speech codes (New York just banned the use of a racial slur in public!), the ever growing tax code, and ridiculous limits to what we can eat, drink, or smoke.

Still, compared to most of the developed world, American is remarkably free for the moment. And that’s a nagging problem for the believers in collectivism.

So today we are witnessing the rise of a new version of the same old collectivist ideal; instead of the State or Humanity being elevated above individualism, it’s an idealized version of the environment or the “Earth.” Call it Nature, call it Gaia, or even call it Climate, the ideologists of collectivism are just trying to sell us a new reason to subsume our individual liberty to a collectivist whole.

The “crisis” of global climate change is a ridiculous on its face. The very concept is bizarre and illogical, if for no other reason than simply because there is not a default “standard” climate to compare any particular momentary climate state to. Compared to what, exactly?

Today’s climate is quite different from that of even a few hundred years ago, and once you go back a few thousand years—a blink of the eye in the lifespan of the earth—much of the earth that is farmland and cities was buried under thousands of feet of ice. If you could run the history of earth’s climate as a movie, it would be a constantly changing before your eyes. No one minute looking much like the next. Different climate, different species, even different arrangements of continents and oceans would dominate at any given moment.

Simply put, there is no permanent “state of Nature.” Nature, Climate, the Earth, or “climate”—whatever you want to call it—is not some permanent unchanging ideal. It’s so dynamic that even in the span of a few years or decades changes can render a landscape unrecognizable, fundamentally altered.

“Climate change” is not something induced by human beings or a “crisis” to be avoided; it is simply the reality of living on earth. To the extent that human activities may contribute to climate variability, the same can be said of termites, trees, and even the slow action of plate tectonics. It’s true, but what’s your point? Literally everything changes the state of the earth, all the time. Fighting change is like fighting gravity; good luck! Call me when you succeed.

The steady drumbeat of fear mongering has nothing to do with a “crisis” of climate change, because climate change is not a crisis. It was reality before human beings existed, and will be long after we are all buried.

However, it has everything to do with promoting the solution to the crisis of climate change: the demotion of individualism and liberty and the promotion of collective solutions and collectivism in general.

The “solution” to the climate change “crisis” is exactly the same “solution” that was proposed to solve the “population bomb” crisis in the 70’s. It’s the same solution that was proposed to solve the “crisis” of capitalist “exploitation.” It’s always the same collectivist solution, whatever the “crisis:” the relinquishing of individual rights in order to promote the greater good.

We are told that combating the “crisis” of global climate change will require a wholesale revision of how we live. We will need to live “sustainable” lifestyles, as if there could be such a thing in a constantly changing world. (Imagine trying to sustain any lifestyle for more than a few decades; we call such sustainability “stagnation.”)

In reality “sustainable” is just another word for “controlled.” And controlled by whom? Not by you. In a “sustainable” economy everything would be controlled by the same elite who pushed collectivism on you in the first place. The people who warned you about the crisis are the very people who you need to follow in order to solve it.

In today’s rebirth of fascism the leaders of tomorrow are the academic-media-political elite who run the major Universities, the government bureaucracies, and of course the all important media.

The elite is those who know better than you what is good for you.

It may sound alarmist to decry a new birth of fascism. After all, we are hardly talking about an impending coup or anything like that.

But actually I am worried that it is already too late to start fighting back.

The ranks of academia are already being scrubbed of global warming “skeptics,” who are derided as “deniers.” The American Meteorological Society is already being encouraged to decertify meteorologists who don’t believe in global warming. Nuremberg-style trials for global warming “deniers” have already been proposed. And US Senators from both the Republican and Democratic Party have actively campaigned—successfully I might add—to prevent some private enterprises from contributing to organizations which oppose global warming alarmism.

The campaign to suppress debate on the global climate “crisis” is well on its way to succeeding. The “consensus” that a crisis exists is being built right now.

And once there is “consensus” that a crisis is upon us, how can we effectively defend individual liberty? Individual liberty is being portrayed as simply a right to destroy the environment. Can anybody have a “right” to destroy the environment? Goodbye liberty.

No, it’s not too early to worry about the creeping 21st Century fascism; instead, I worry it is already too late to beat it back.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

David Strom is the President of the Minnesota Free Market Institute. He hosts a weekly radio show on AM-1280 "The Patriot" in Minneapolis-St. Paul, available on podcast at Townhall.com.

Be the first to read David Strom's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

The argument takes an odd turn
Most of this was a common, if somewhat simplistic account of a conflict through history. It made me curious if when he spoke of fascist limits on smoking he was thinking of marijuana (to the point that we forbid it from dying people who use it to relieve pain) or just cigarettes. And with speech was he objecting to limits on pornography or just racist speech. Perhaps he is in fact a Libertarian who favors freedom across the board, but polite enough to only mention the violations on the left when posting on a board aimed at the right.

But then whne he got to the argument about global warming it turned to the bizarre. The argument seemed to be that there could not be anything bad about global warming (even apparently if it led to the death of millions and wiped out property valued in the multiple billions) because there have been similar ecological features in the past. There may be good arguments against acting to address the threat of global warming, but that is not one of them.

I suppose there is another argument here to the effect that it doesn't matter if our behavior leads to the deaths of millions because we have the individual right to act as we want. That is a consistent argument. But it is not the most compelling case for individual rights.

No odd turns
No, you moron, the gist of his piece is that environmentalism is largely a sham. A reinvention of collectivist/statist politics; a continuation of Marxism, which it certainly is. That is why environmentalism is so commited to by the left, which seeks to destroy the freedom essential to Capitalism. Typical of the Left, to wrap such a vicious proposition in humanitarian garb, in order to convince the populace that it is in their best interest to let the state impoverish them. Unfortunately, these conservatives and Republicans are such weak defenders of freedom that there's no hope there for a principled defense against environmentalism or any other form of "collectivism".

Global warming and the growth of Fascism
Fascism, defined as simply government control of the economy through regulations in conrast to government or "public" ownership of all property directing the economy, is certainly speading globally in this young 21st century. Here in the US it is called "Liberalism" but the end result is the same. The EPA now controls through regulations the fate of any manufacturing company or complete industry even though its "science' is mostly made up to justify the regulations. Now its proponents see a monentious opportunity for power by using the scare of global warming to completely regulate society.

There is little to nothing we mere mortals can do to change global weather, and as a collective community or government, even less will be done. Remember, it is the nature of government to create problems, not to solve them. When was the last time our government actually solved a problem or completed a project successfully? Today those promoting more regulations feed upon the scientific ignorance of the public, telling the big lie enough times that people will believe it. Sounds familar doesn't it?

We mere mortals will survive whatever inconvenient weather is thrown our way, not by government regulations, but by our own creative genious, At least, that is what free people will do for our community, while those others waiting for a government solution will either freeze or drown. Right now solutions to the claims of climate change proponents exist, such as clean safe nuclear power, but human progress is restained by the excesses of luddite environmentalists. Our problem is not that there are no answers, it is that we are governed by the least competent among us.

Threats
People really don't understand how to evaluate threats so that makes it easy for politicians to use fear to pass an agenda. Those on the Left surely exaggerate the threat of global warming because it provides them an opportunity to implement their agenda: greater government control of the economy, rationing, limits on industrial production and so on. Even if taking these steps don't limit or stop global warming the Left wouldn't care because global warming is just the excuse they need to justify their agenda.

On the Right we have the largely fictitious fear of Islamic terrorism. Al-Qaeada lacks the resources to compete with al-Sadr's Mahdi Army, but there are those who think these terrorists pose a mortal threat to the United States. Iraq didn't have the capability to feed its people, yet people were concerned Iraq was a threat to the world's sole superpower. Of course the fear of terrorism is what the Neocons use to implement their agenda: control of the Middle East and the establishment of a permanent military presence in Iraq. Islamic terrorism isn't a threat to this country anymore than car wrecks are a threat; however Islamic terrorism as a threat is politically useful in justify an agenda of global hegemony.

It's time Americans stop letting politicians use fear to get their agenda implemented on the expense of America.


too easy
Mr Strom, I suggest you read at least a couple of scholarly books about fascism before employing the term with such carelessness.

oh and by the way
judging by your picture, it wouldn't be such a bad idea to put some kind of upper limit on the amount of food you intake.

iska
You might take your own advice. In both Italy and Germany, Fascism began in the 1920s as an outgrowth of Communism. Specifically, a form of socialism created by nationalists in those countries who liked everything about Communism except for the fact that it was (a) internationalist and (b) run from Moscow.

The leaderships of both the Italian Fascists (who actually invented the term, derived from the Latin "fasces") and the German National Socialists began as breakaway elements of their respective countries' Communist parties. This is why I have personally always considered fascism to be the psychotic illegitimate offspring of communism.

Most reasonably well researched books on the subject will describe the genesis of fascism, with those describing its rise in Germany detailing the infighting that occurred in the 1924-28 timeframe between the northern elements of the then-nascent NSDAP based in Hamburg (who wanted essentially a Soviet-style "people's state") and the southern elements based in Nuremburg (who were obseesed with a mythical pre-Christian "pan-Germanism"). History shows us who won.

And the great danger of socialism is how easily it can transform itself into fascism, with all that that implies. All it takes is a few leaders who are convinced of their own perfection, and the imperfection of the rest of humanity.

And the "imperfection of humanity" is one of the bedrock beliefs of the environmental movement today.

And they, of course, have a cure for it.

Oh yes, indeed they do.


cheers

eon


oops
"obseesed"=obsessed

Wrong line of keys. Sorry.

(On the plus side, it's the only typo in the post, so I guess I'm improving a bit.)

cheers

eon

growth of 21st century fascism
iska

You are a fool

DEAR ISKA
Don't worry about the author overeating. He bought "food offsets" to allow him to eat as much as he wants.

Dorv posted
that, "Fascism, defined as simply government control of the economy through regulations."


Not exactly. Socialism is government control of private enterprise and private property.

Fascism is more of a philosophy which holds that the state is superior to the individual and is accompanied by an authoritative central government using coercion to control the people.

Communism is a theoretical system of a classless and stateless socio-economic system in which there exists common (not state) ownership of production and property. Communism has never actually existed, although the hippies of the 1960's experimented with "communes".

To confuse socialism and fascism is common. Socialism demands that freedom of the individual emminates from the state, whereas the current American model of government shows that the state's power emminates from the people. (not a new idea, either; see the history of Scotland)

Because socialism demands people surrender their freedom to the state, it thus requires a fascist philosophy to operate in.

Rick V
I did not miss that his argument was that global warming was a sham. But the support for that claim was the ludicrous pair of arguments that I commented on. Perhaps that is unfair to take his argument to be what he says in defense of his conclusion. Perhaps the real argument is "Since we all know that environmentalists are evil I can waste my column space spouting nonsense."

So, for example, he says: "The “crisis” of global climate change is a ridiculous on its face. The very concept is bizarre and illogical, if for no other reason than simply because there is not a default “standard” climate to compare any particular momentary climate state to. Compared to what, exactly?"

Is it unfair to take him to think that is a serious argument? As I noted above it is a rather stupid argument. But was it uncharitable to think that he meant it as a good argument? He devotes 3 more paragraphs to the argument without making it any less silly.


Some suggested reading


Mr Strom brings up some good points. Some of the postings are also of value. However, notwithstanding all of the points addressed in the postings, there is yet another perspective, one that massages the headline of a “New World Order,” (it isn't really new at all) and some information pertaining to George Soros. I know, you're gonna' ask, "What does that have to do with Strom's article?" I think you'll find them interesting as well as analagous. Those sites are listed below.

Enclosed also is a news blip from the Baltic News Service that pertains to suggested readings.

Tuesday—September 7, 2004
Soros Conspiracy Theorists in Latvia
NGO (Non-Governmental Organization) conspiracy theorists in Riga suggested that billionaire George Soros attempted to overthrow the ruling government coalition via nongovernmental organizations.
On August 19th, Interior Minister Eriks Jekabsons announced that the security police would begin to analyze Delna, the local chapter of Transparency International, and that billionaire financer George Soros was possibly behind its actions.
On August 27th, an interview followed with Deputy Prime Minister Ainars Slesers in the Russian-language tabloid Vesti Segodnya. Slesers said Soros "wants to control the power in Latvia." He also claimed that Delna and Latvian Television were effectively instruments under Soros' control. "The goal is obvious - to overthrow the Cabinet of Emsis," he said.
Andris Aukmanis, the head of Soros Foundation Latvia, said this was the first time government officials had openly attacked Soros.
Artis Pabriks, Foreign Minister, recipient of a past Soros grant, called the conspiracy "very original."


http://www.matriots.com/apn/224/banks1.htm

http://www.matriots.com/apn/224/soros.htm


Correction...suggested reading

Well Put and More Info
David Strom makes some very good points in such a short article. There is excellent research at http://www.freedomforceinternational.org/freedom.cfm?fuseaction=issues about the collectivism issue. It's well researched and documented. Click on the PDF links at the middle of the page.

The sky is falling, the sky is falling
seems to be the liberal mantra about this belief about Global warming, and yet these same people seem to have their heads in the sand about the very real threat from the Islamo/facsist who are working to destroy the entire western world.

RE: BROROBIN post
Checked out ur suggested site. Excellent. Fits perfectly into concept of "New World Order" and George Soros' business acumen. An argument can easily be made that the global warming issue is nothing more than subterfuge designed to mask an agenda other than global warming.

The Solution is simple
However, it will never be put into practice. Even in the face of highly dangerous ideologies, the modern West prefers to say "reasonable minds can disagree".

Wrong. While there is ample room for disagreement on some matters, anything that threatens to destroy (or "radically rehsape") society should be resisted with force. Leave a few "excellent cadavers" in the streets, and the threat may be beaten back. The enviro-wackos already have handy footsoldiers in the form of ELF and others. Perhaps it is time to stop talking and start doing?

But then again, no. This is the West, and that just isn't polite.

How To Tell If It's Fascism
Lawrence Britt's article listing "The Fourteen Characteristics of Fascism" is online and informative.

Tough to take
Let me start be saying, “two wrongs don’t make a right” and you can’t “mix apples with oranges” by treating them alike. Global warming is not a political issue but moving it into this realm discredits it altogether. The formula for the naysayer: find a perspective to divide the people. Associate global warming with political idealism, be it liberalism/conservatism or collectivism/individualism, and all is lost. The same holds true when dealing with other sensitive issues like abortion, stem cell research, gay marriage, gun control, animal rights, euthanasia…. the list is endless. These topics will never be resolved to everyone’s satisfaction as long as they remain part of the political landscape.

Most important, however, is the author manipulates time to his own advantage. He compares the change we see today in our global climate with nature’s inevitable change. That line of reasoning is fundamentally flawed. The earth’s climate certainly changes but it’s based on a 25,000 year cycle. With the help of modern man, we have compressed that cycle from centuries to decades. Scientists (not politicians or right-wind bloggers) have proven that today’s climate change is unprecedented based on the history of ice core samples from the Antarctica ice shelf. That record spans 650,000 years!

The scientific community’s ringing the claxon here. We must all avoid the temptation to use politics as a smokescreen. Bottom line, many of us are afraid of what the future holds and rather than facing that fear, we hide from it. This article does us all a disservice, which the suthor should be ashamed. He calls others having a different perspective arrogant yet he is no better given his simple-minded, self-serving claims. Humanity has a new weapon in his arsenal for achieving his eventual destruction. I guess we can actively participate in our annihilation or allow nature (some would say God here) to do it for us.

Article on Fascism
Here is the article that Lilly mentioned:

http://www.rense.com/general37/char.htm

NicK writes
The earth’s climate certainly changes but it’s based on a 25,000 year cycle
==========================
Actually it is based on many cycles and when they happen to come close to happening at the same time, the effect is magnified. Remember that man only contributes less than 1/2 of one percent of all greenhouse gas production. Nature steps up its production and decrease from many complex systems. One of the biggest is the methane from ocean beds, termites and livestock that breaks down in to CO2 as well as other things so while it is 21 times more powerful than CO2, it lasts only 10 years but, again, the breakdown includes CO2 which lasts much longer.

Here are some of the cycles that affect climate and warming plus other things that affect warming
quote:
(1) Astronomical Causes

* 11 year and 206 year cycles: Cycles of solar variability ( sunspot activity )
* 21,000 year cycle: Earth's combined tilt and elliptical orbit around the Sun ( precession of the equinoxes )
* 41,000 year cycle: Cycle of the +/- 1.5° wobble in Earth's orbit ( tilt )
* 100,000 year cycle: Variations in the shape of Earth's elliptical orbit ( cycle of eccentricity )



(2) Atmospheric Causes

* Heat retention: Due to atmospheric gases, mostly gaseous water vapor (not droplets), also carbon dioxide, methane, and a few other miscellaneous gases-- the "greenhouse effect"
* Solar reflectivity: Due to white clouds, volcanic dust, polar ice caps



(3) Tectonic Causes

* Landmass distribution: Shifting continents (continental drift) causing changes in circulatory patterns of ocean currents. It seems that whenever there is a large land mass at one of the Earth's poles, either the north pole or south pole, there are ice ages.
* Undersea ridge activity: "Sea floor spreading" (associated with continental drift) causing variations in ocean displacement.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html
==============================

Even the KYOTO scientists admit we can't change what is happening more than a year or two out of a hundred from what I have read of their studies. Also, that belief by them is due to the fact that nations like China (that is cleaning up too at their own pace) will always produce more and more as long as they are growing their economy no matter how efficient they become.

As long as the population of the earth is growing, greenhouse gases will increase if for no other reason than the fact we exhale CO2 and require more energy use the more people we have.

Global warming is not nearly the threat an ice age is to human life. Ice ages destroy life while global warming mainly causes "moving" to previous areas too cold to support an expanding population. As the world's population grows, we need those new crop lands that are developing in areas previously too cold.

Will we have seaside cities in jeopardy? Of Course. Oceans have been 100 ft higher in the past than they are now and can do that again. But, we would be in much more trouble from an ice age which can actually start overnight due to the things that cause ice ages which can be as simple as the shielding of the sun from huge volcanic action like that which follows the eruption of a super volcano where dust stays in the atmosphere all the way around the world for years and in days drops the temperature significantly.

Look at the one volcanic eruption (and not a super volcano) that cause the "year without a summer," and massive crop failures.
quote:
1816: A Year Without A Summer

No subject in the weather history of New England arouses so much interest today as does the Summer of 1816. Was there actually "a year without a summer," when "no month passed without a frost, nor one without snow," and when "no crops at all were produced"? This account, taken from The Vermont Weather Book by David M. Ludlum, uses the records kept by individuals during this period.
---------------------
Quote:
The 1815 eruption of Tambora was the largest eruption in historic time. About 150 cubic kilometers of ash were erupted (about 150 times more than the 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens). Ash fell as far as 800 miles
snip-------------------
The 1815 eruption of Tambora caused the "Year without a Summer." Daily minimum temperatures were abnormally low in the northern hemisphere from late spring to early autumn. Famine was widespread because of crop failures.
http://volcano.und.nodak.edu/vwdocs/volc
_images/southeast_asia/indonesia/tambora.html

Copy and paste both lines as one link.

This is just a small example of what nature can do. Had this eruption continued longer or there been a series of these in a few places, we could have seen another mini-ice age and millions dying of starvation and cold and other problems related to the rapid cooling that caused fertile areas to no longer produce crops.

We should worry more about the nitric an sulfuric emission that cause acid rain and mercury and other poisons that we emit. We waste money on what we can't control significantly instead of spending it on what we can control significantly.

The author is correct, this is a scam. Even KYOTO was more about buying and selling credits than reducing emissions in order to redistribute the wealth of productive, industrialized nations to other nations that weren't as productive.

Yet, when Ireland, was a welfare nation and then became successful and became the 2nd wealthiest nation through industrialization, immediately KYOTO wanted them fined for being so successful their emissions from all the new factories increased even though they were modern and more efficient than those in some other nations or because workers could now afford more cars.

Global warming is real, but we can't control it enough with all the money and all the nations trying to change it more than a few years and yet, that waste means people that are in poverty might not have to be if that money spent on warming was spent on developing their industrial base so they could have more and better jobs.

Spot on Mr. Strom - great article
America is about freedom. Global warming is a scam about taking away our freedom. Arrghh.

Liberty - I'm with you on the North American Unification, etc. The frustration at the ignorance of some fellow citizens is about unbearable, but that ignorance is to be expected. The publik indoktrination system has done very well in creating their brown shirt army.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.