Fascism Is A Leftist Ideology

Author- Maria Santana

**Inspired by Dinesh D’Souza’s video for think tank PragerU. Here is the link provided below and the the title of the video is ‘Is fascism left or right’.**


When one mentions communism, the ideology is tied to Karl Marx. The same applies to capitalism and Adam Smith. But there is usually no clear name associated with the founding of fascism. Why is that so?

During and after the 2016 presidential election, people were misinformed with fascism. Find a millennial or someone from Generation Z and ask them what fascism. They will likely pull out their smartphone and the resulting Google search will provide a wrong definition. Why is that?

Every Republican president since the mid 1970s in the United States had been labeled a fascist. Even today President Trump is being labeled a fascist. I have never felt as if I were a character in an Orwellian novel. Clearly we are not currently living in a fascist state.

You may not know his name but you know his ideology. Giovanni Gentile, born in 1875, is the founder of fascism. It can be strongly contested that his name has been deliberately erased from history. Gentile was an admirer of Marx. He believed that a community is like a family. This represents the typical unity and togetherness always promoted by the political left.

Want evidence? At the 1984 Democratic National Convention former Governor of New York State Mario Cuomo said ‘America is like an extended family’. In 2012 at the DNC the slogan was ‘government is the only thing we ALL belong to.’

According to Gentile, there are two kinds of democracies – liberal and true. He thought that liberal democracy in the United States was individualistic. It was too centered on liberty and personal rights and therefore selfish. True democracy, as preferred by Gentile, must make a society as whole completely subordinate to the state.

Fascism was considered to be the best form of socialism by Gentile. The reason he thought this is he believed that fascism appeals to nationalism and class. Nazi Germany is an example of this where nazi means national socialists in German.

In fascism there is no difference between private and public interests. The administrative arm of the country would be the state. There has to be a societal submission to the state not just economically but in all aspects. How one should think or feel is included. Sound familiar?

In the United States, the state is involved in healthcare, banking education and energy. This is all thanks to the progressive left who support centralized government. The involvement of the state in those private matters show not only its robust growth of central government but also its power on limiting individual rights. This happened after the New Deal programs were passed during the global depression.

The reason Giovanni Gentile is not a widely known name in universities in the United States and the Western world is because he is purposefully excluded from political conversation. Many historians in the West that have liberal tendencies always associate fascism as right wing. For the political left to acknowledge the existence of Gentile would be for them to accept that they are the true themselves. So the next time you see Anti-fa with their holier than thou attitudes protesting fascism, remind them that they ought to protest against themselves.


Shots Fired On Gun Rights

Author- AnarchyMoon

Anytime there is a major shooting, the gun debate flares up like an old wound. It seems the arguing will never end, both sides with irreconcilable differences in belief. While we may disagree, that does not mean we cannot understand each other. For Libertarians, such as myself, our stance on gun control is as simple as being alive. You never know who, where, or when an attack on your life may happen and having a gun can make all the difference between survival or death. It serves as a major deterrent at times and a way to de escalate situations if handled properly.

There will always be people with guns, even if that is solely the police or armed forces. They are people too. If you take away the ability to have a gun, you give complete power to the government and take away a major asset in surviving. You’ve created a world of oppression which gives advantage to the aggressor. So what about the amount of deaths from guns? Aren’t you in MORE danger? While those statistics fail to account for lives saved with guns, clear comparisons with high gun ownership, and resultant decrease in other forms of murder, it can be argued you are statistically less safe.

To a Libertarian, where freedom means everything, statistics are as useful as piss in a can. Who cares if other people go crazy and shoot up movie theaters? I’m not insane and that’s why I need to have a gun on me. My ownership of a gun only makes me more safe, not others in danger. Why? Because as an individual I am not representative of a statistic. In a shooter situation, I’d want a gun to defend myself not regulation which tries to create situations without guns. You cannot account for every situation that may pose a threat, life is fragile and the tools we use to live can easily be turned into tools of violence. Instead of declawing the entire population (except for those who work for the government…) it’s more important to be able to handle and defend yourself no matter what situation you find yourself in.

It’s not about a safer world. It’s about a safer life knowing I have the tools and ability to defend myself to the fullest extent. To take away your guns is to tie your arms together and throw you to the lions. It is to suffer an abuse to your rights and your preservation. Even in Vegas you don’t want to take a gamble on safety. Of course no one is going to willingly embrace a death sentence like gun control.

Iceland Eliminates Its Down Syndrome Population

Author- Maria Santana

Iceland is known for its breathtaking scenery. But the dark side of Iceland has been covered somewhat by the Western mainstream media recently regarding their practice of eugenics. The Icelandic government is providing parents with the choice of terminating pregnancies of fetuses that have been afflicted with down syndrome.

Many Icelandic women opt to undergo prenatal testing for genetic diseases. If it is discovered that the fetus has the Down Syndrome trait, the pregnancy can be terminated off of that. Most of the babies that are discovered to have Down Syndrome have to be aborted since only one or two are documented as being born annually. A country with a population of approximately 330,000 as documented by the World Bank.

In Iceland 85% of women undergo prenatal genetic testing. According to the CBS special report on Icelandic eugenics, women also have ultrasounds, and blood drawn before considering aborting the fetus. Expecting mothers at the age of 35 or older are at a higher risk of having a fetus with Down Syndrome which is why it is encouraged to have children before that age.

It can be argued that these pregnant women, with or without consent of their partner, that a special needs life is not worthy. Perhaps it is the will of the parent to not want to raise a life afflicted with Down Syndrome. These fetal terminations in the eyes of pro choice advocates can be seen as sacrificial. The baby born with Down Syndrome will be spared of living a difficult life although sometimes there is evidence that suggests that some of those who have it can live a normal life.

Eugenics is nothing new and it is an old and continued practice across the globe. One of the first things that come to mind is eugenics as mentioned in Nazi Germany. Nazi scientists sterilized the handicapped and disabled Aryan people. People with undesirable genetic traits would even be aborted as well.

Today there is even such a thing as designer babies where parents can select the geno and phenotype of the fetus. Even fetuses today can have three parents.

This article is not to impose my moral views on abortion or eugenics but to raise questions. In the Western world people are terminating fetal lives because of convenience and/or other reasons. From the looks of it, Iceland is trying to have a perfect, designer population free of Down Syndrome and whatever else their government deems not aesthetic. But what happens when the birth rate in Iceland continues to plummet not just because of abortion? The country will have to continue its pro immigration policy to sustain its labor force.

Abolish The FDA

Author- William Baumgarth

The Federal Drug Administration is America’s leading administration in determining what drugs can and can’t enter the market. The administration was founded in 1906. In addition to determining what drugs can enter the market, the FDA has the same power for food, and tobacco.

The FDA is a dangerous administration, and costly as well. Their annual budget in 2012 was 4.36 billion dollars. The FDA puts lives at danger every day with their strict, and disorganized guidelines.

A report conducted by the General Accounting Office found that average drug approval times in four other countries were anywhere between 6 and 18 months shorter than the FDAs approval time. Imagine how many lives were lost in the process, because the FDA is so inefficient at approving drugs? How many people needed a medicine, badly, because they had a terminal illness, but were unable to get it because the FDA had not yet approved it?

The ironic thing is that the FDA doesn’t let terminally ill patients try out medicines, because it hasn’t been proved that they are “safe” yet. When you’re terminally ill, you’re already not “safe.” Why not let people take the chance? Why keep people “safe” when they are at a high risk of dying anyway?

If a person wants to take an experimental medication, it should be his/her own decision. The person should do their own research on the medicine, and then decide whether he/she wants to take it or not. If a person has taken a series of “FDA approved” drugs and none of them work, what is the person supposed to do? Die, because the FDA says that alternative medications may endanger the person’s life? It’s ludicrous.

The Prescription Drug User Fee Act of 1992 required that drug companies pay up to 500,000 dollars in order to get their medications approved by the FDA. This money could have went into additional research or something useful. What happens if a small drug company came up with a life saving drug, but did not have 500 grand sitting around to waste? How many lives would be lost because of this?

If the FDA is so effective, why are more people killed by FDA approved drugs than illegal drugs? It’s a tremendously dangerous and a complete waste of resources. An estimated 10 percent of America has a rare disease, there are thousands of rare diseases, and most of them have no treatment approved by the FDA.

The FDA also incentivizes people not to do their own research. Everything approved by the FDA must be 100 percent safe, therefore nobody bothers doing research on what medicines they’re taking. Often my friends will mention a medication they’re taking, whether it be for depression, anxiety etc. and more often than not, they don’t even know what it is! They just call it “my medicine.” When I try to ask them whether or not they know the chemical name, 9/10 times it will be a “no.”

Recently the FDA called for “low nicotine cigarettes.” Something that would be absolutely devastating for smokers. Smokers buy high nicotine cigarettes for a reason, so that they can smoke less. Nicotine on its own is not that bad for you, what is bad for you is inhaling burning plant materials, and sugars that are contained in cigarettes. By taking the action, the FDA would effectively be making smokers, smoke more cigarettes. Instead of just lighting one cigarette, I may smoke 2 or 3 now in order to “feel” something.

The FDA is the same group of people that banned raw milk. Even though people have been drinking raw milk since the beginning of time. It’s none of their business whether or not you want to drink raw milk. Personally, I’ve drank raw milk, and I did not experience death, or life threatening illness. Do you want your money going towards banning raw milk?

Private firms could determine the safety of drugs in a much quicker, and efficient way. Instead of having the FDA label drugs “safe” or “unsafe,” people could take medicines approved by private firms with good reputations. So if a company wants people to try its medication, they would send in an application to the private firm with a good reputation. If the drug is found to be safe, a label issued by the private firm would be allowed to be placed on it. At the same time, this wouldn’t stop people from trying drugs that aren’t approved.

I feel as if I have done a disservice only writing about one or two pages on this topic, as there is really a lot to it. The purpose of this article was to introduce you to the idea. I think the FDA must be abolished in the name of saving lives. Below I will attach more resources so that you can do your own research and read more into it.






Author- Right Pragmatist

The benefit of Donald Trump has always been unpredictable predictability (you read that correctly). The left, and never-Trumpers, would always jump on the chance to cry incompetence, or having access to the nuclear codes, and then he would proceed to do something benign or beneficial. This has been a big part of my support – even though at heart, he’s not a full conservative, I at least had a sense of where he was going next. As a Canadian anyway, I had an outside look at it all, separate from the cult of personality in the states (which isn’t a bad thing, mind you).

Lately though, I’ve been a bit confused. Presentation, strategy, and words seem to imply a position being taken that’s contrary to what was being campaigned on, even outside the standard, “politicians always lie,” paradigm. The past couple of days are requiring me to take a very deep look at long term effects, and what their true intention may be – and if those intentions are good, do they outweigh the cost? I’ve been presented with the four-dimensional intergalactic backgammon argument as well, but I’m not sure I’m quite there. Let’s go over where I’m at.

So the attorney general of Texas, Ken Paxton, set out an ultimatum saying that the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) needed to be rescinded based on constitutional grounds. If this was not met by 5 September 2017, it was to be taken to court, where it would have to be defended by US AG Jeff Sessions. Keep in mind that Sessions was extremely critical of former president Obama’s order, and that letting the case progress through court to be struck down would be a major win with the conservative, anti-illegal alien crowd. Sessions would get his groove back, Trump would start saying nice things about him again, and everybody would likely be happy.

Instead, Trump rescinds DACA himself (still, not a bad thing), but then heads onto the old Twitter account and states that if Congress could not legalize DACA within six months, he would “revisit the issue.” What could be interpreted from this, other than some form of soft – or even, permanent – amnesty for “dreamers?” The octuple-dimensional Hungry-Hungry-Hippos argument for this is that Trump is attempting to push Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell further to the right and actually get some legislature through, and the reward would be that the 2018 midterms would go a lot better for the Republicans than they would if held right now.

Not a terrible strategy, but things start to get muddied up. Soon after, the president comes out and makes a speech about he has a “great love” for the people protected by DACA. Even later, he puts out a tweet saying there will be “no action” taken on these people during this six month congressional deadline. Further still, we see Democratic House Majority Leader, the illustrious Nancy Pelosi, speaking of how she had a phone conversation urging Trump to put out a “reassurance” for these people. So the tweet, really, was hers. Apparently Pelosi is the only one who can control what Donnie tweets. Interesting.

Trump and Pelosi have not always had a bad relationship, in fact it has been relatively amicable until the election cycle. Verbosity aside, Trump has brought up on a few occasions that their history has been good, and that he thought that they would be able to work together (he said the same about Chuck Schumer, but that’s another story). This is important, due to a meeting had yesterday with many House officials, and Secretary of Treasury Steven Mnuchin, in regard to raising the debt ceiling. After many legitimate (but not perfect) offers were made by his party, the right were cast aside for a 3-month speaking bill proposed by the Democrats (the only benefit to this would be that maybe registered Democrats would be disgusted by their party siding with Trump, and split the vote. Maybe.). Couple that with Trump’s rave review of Heidi Heitkamp in North Dakota, and you really get flabbergasted.

I’m not “rescinding” my support for Donald – make no mistake, I am critical of even my fondest leaders. But this is a situation where criticism gives way to outright disgust, when complete disregard for one’s party leads to sleeping with the enemy. It seems as though it’s a psychological motivation, to work with people he likes, and shut down people he doesn’t like. This is a John McCain-esque move, and it’s dangerous. Last time we had one of those situations, we saw that Obamacare remained fully intact. I do not want to see the Republican Party turn into an unconstitutional bill, and I definitely do not want to see them turn into a haven for international criminals. Time will tell.


Democrats and Republicans are Both For Bigger Government

Author- William Baumgarth

Will the size of the state ever actually decrease? From the looks of it, it never will. Everyday there’s a new reason to give the government more responsibility and more power.

The Democrats are not afraid to tell you that they are big government advocates. In a Democrat’s worldview people are stupid, irresponsible creatures that need to be told what to do. Whenever a problem occurs, a Democrat is sure to find a reason as to why the government should get involved. The reason the Democrats were so heartbroken about the election is because government is their god, and their god this time around was someone they disliked.

Democrats believe that the government can fix all and every problem. And while the majority of them may believe that the government is incompetent, that doesn’t stop them from assigning it new jobs everyday. They are advocates for an ever-expanding welfare state. Can’t afford a cellphone? The government will pay for it. Can’t afford a house in an exclusive neighborhood? The government will pay for it. Can’t afford the internet? The government will pay for you.

I wonder what it is that the Democrats think that the government can’t do, because they think the government can do anything.

The Republicans I expect better from. The only reason that they’re elected is to combat the Democrat’s want for an expanding state, and welfare state. More often than not, however, the Republicans want the state to grow in size as well. Republicans are too afraid to take away welfare programs. So once a welfare program is implemented, it is impossible to take away. Let’s look at Obamacare for instance. Instead of just repealing the program, Republicans want to replace it.

Republicans fall into the same trap that Democrats do so often that it is sickening. They are both the pro-war parties. Nobody cares about meaningless wars anymore, it has become something of a norm. While they may not be the ones implementing welfare programs, they are for sure not scared to spend the public’s money in meaningless ways either. Some things that Republicans like to spend money on include dropping missiles in Syria, and increasing the military budget, which is already absurdly high.

Republicans love big government, but they have different reasons as to why. While the Democrats more or less, are trying to help people (I use this term very lightly) at least in theory, Republicans like to use money to punish people. For instance, they advocate for surveillance programs, a bigger police state, the never ending war on drugs etc.

Republicans use a smaller state as a front. They promise to reduce regulations, but they never get to it. They promise to not increase the size of the welfare state, but then they concede to the Democrats. They promise lower taxes, but then when it’s time to get to lowering the taxes they claim that it will hurt the budget. Do you ever see them get behind actual small government advocates such as Rand Paul? Never.

Neither side has a problem subsidizing programs that they like. Neither side has a problem using money in irresponsible ways, because it’s not their money. Both sides are fine with bailing out big banks and corporations that make bad business decisions. Both sides are only interested in saying what will win votes, and then embarking on their own missions once they get elected into office. They both love sending our tax dollars overseas to corrupt countries that split it between their leaders. Both are pro war chicken hawks who spend OUR money on wars that we DON’T want. They are two sides of the same coin.

We need Republicans like Rand Paul, people who have proven track records to be pro small government, and vote as such. The words that come out of someone’s mouth are different than the actions he takes.

Make Assisted Suicide Legal

Author- William Baumgarth

Assisted suicide is a controversial topic. Assisted suicide is just as it sounds, getting help in order to die.

I’m a strong believer in the notion that every life is precious and must be protected, however, I am opposed to legislating my morality onto others. The government in my eyes has one role, and that it to protect the individual, and the individual’s property rights. If a human being wants to take his/her own life, that is their decision and nobody should be allowed to intrude on it.

Assisted suicide is currently legal in several states, including: Oregon, Montana, Washington, Vermont, California, Colorado and Washington D.C, but these are restricted to terminally ill patients. It is performed in a medical clinic, and administered using a deadly poison.

It is not the government’s role to save people from themselves. If a person is determined to die, they will find other methods to end their life. With assisted suicide, you’re ensuring that this death is bestowed upon the person in a painless fashion. If the person who is determined to commit suicide, has a failed suicide attempt, because he/she did it alone and didn’t want to get anyone else in trouble, he/she can end up in more pain doing a botched job.

In fact, you should give the person a choice of chemicals that will take their life, leave the details completely up to them. This is individual responsibility at its finest.

I’m not saying that doctors should HAVE to administer the poison either. I know that if I were a doctor, I wouldn’t want to assist people with their suicides. Therefore, I believe we should privatize assisted suicide. If a husband is asked to help his wife with suicide, and there is clear documented evidence of such, the husband should not face any criminal charges for doing so. Therefore any person could assist in a suicide, as long as the party who wants to commit suicide grants this person permission.

There must be clear documented evidence, and the person must be in his/her right mind at the time of the request. If there is no such proof, the suicide isn’t actually suicide, it is murder. How could we do this without regulation? It’s simple, the individual clinics would not wish to receive murder charges, therefore they will do everything in their power to provide accurate documentation. It’s self regulation rather than government regulation. Consent must be proved and provided.

Assisted suicide could not be extended over to children and the mentally disabled, because these people are incapable of giving consent. If the person who has a mental disability such as Alzheimers has written in their will that she/he wishes to die if he/she develops a mentally disabling disease, prior to getting the disease, he/she shall have their wish granted.

It is not a role of government to save people from themselves, or legislate morality.  I am very opposed to suicide because I am religious. I believe that no matter what circumstances, a person should live, but I refuse to impose that belief onto others. So let us, as a society, understand that not everything we find to be immoral, should be illegal.