Communism, Fascism, Globalism — What's the Difference?

Monarchy: A system of government where supreme power is vested in a single genetic lineage — a dictatorship passed through family inheritance.

Communism: A system of government in which the State plans and controls the economy and a single, authoritarian party holds power — a dictatorship of the proletariat.

Fascism: A system of government marked by the centralization of authority under a dictator in which an economy is subject to stringent governmental controls and political opposition is violently suppressed.

Globalism: A system of government marked by the elimination of national sovereignty and the centralization of authority within international organizations such as the United Nations, World Health Organization, and World Economic Forum — all run by a small group of wealthy elites.

Monarchy, communism, fascism, globalism — what's the difference?  At the end of the day, we are talking about a system of government in which centralized power belongs to a small group of elites who use their control over economic, military, and intelligence-collecting institutions to rule over everyone else.  Whether it is a government run by Mussolini, a king, the self-described "proletariat," or an international cabal of central banks and corporations — it is a dictatorship all the same.

Let's not pretend that raw "democracy" is significantly different.  As early-twentieth-century sociologist Robert Michels laid out in his treatise, "Political Parties," an "iron law of oligarchy" guarantees that a small group of elites eventually rise to "rule over" any form of democratic organization.  Representative democracy, Michels argued, is a "facade" that legitimizes the continuing "rule" of some elite class. 

Administrators, bureaucrats, and political leaders love to talk about "democracy" because doing so buttresses their pretense that the people are actually in control.  Nothing could be farther from the truth.  It is the "ruling class" that hoards power, and the more any elite member speaks of "democracy," the more certain you can be that the elites are actively betraying the overall will of the people.  No matter how much this hurts, remember, you asked for it — because this is a "democracy"!

Note that a member of the "ruling class" or one of its controlled institutions (such as Wikipedia) could easily use the above paragraphs to vilify "populism."  Think about the doublespeak tightrope that the "ruling class" now walks:

Democracy: A system of political government controlled by the common people.

Populism: Political ideas and policies that are supported by the common people.

Crikey, that's a distinction without a difference!  All the "very best people," though, are always telling us that "democracy" is very important and that "populism" is very dangerous.  How could it possibly be that a "government by the people" is wonderful, but that ideas "popular among the people" are terrible?  Well, this kind of political doublespeak makes perfect sense if democracy in practice really just means "rule by a small group of elites."  If that's the case, then of course the small group of elites actually in control of the "democracy" have no interest in hearing what the common people really think.  To save democracy, we must deprive the people of their voice!  Quick, censor everyone on social media who dares to think and speak freely!

This whole globalist march toward a New World Order is taking us to a place where Klaus Schwab, Bill Gates, George Soros, their clones, a few royal families, a few multinational investment firms, a handful of central bank pirates, and a small club of international politicians can sit around a circular table adorned with a map of the world under their oppressive control.  Even then, with the whole world belonging to a few dozen people (sprinkled with a politically correct ratio of races, ethnicities, and made-up genders, of course), the ruling dictators will haughtily chortle, "This is what democracy looks like."  

They would be right.  In practice, "democracy" looks a lot like a small cabal of ruling elites forcing everyone else to obey their commands.  Whenever sane people reach the mistaken conclusion that they are actually in charge of their own government, they are quickly reminded that all dissent must be met with political persecution, lawless surveillance, unjust arrest, and censored speech — you know, the standard J6 treatment. 

Mass protests against vote fraud and in support of free and fair elections are arguably the essence of real democracy — unless "democracy" really just means rule by the Clintons, Bushes, Obamas, McConnells, Pelosis, the Federal Reserve, the Intelligence Community, and the wealthiest, woke-iest ESG-DIE-supporting elites.  In that case, real democracy must be punished as insurrectionist treason.  The people must be made to believe that they are governing themselves but can never be allowed to actually do so.  

The "ruling class" will spy on, harass, intimidate, imprison, and torture the whole American population, by golly, if doing so will allow it to preserve the illusion of a stable "democracy."  Any American who opposes being Abu Ghraib–ed on U.S. soil, after all, is only pushing some dangerous form of "populism" that should be ignored.  Much as an abuser justifies physical harm for the victim's "own good," the federal government has decided that the surefire way to save "democracy" is to beat the American people into submission.  Only when the people have been coerced into a state of compliance will they be given back their "privileges."  When the "ruling class" says that MAGA is a threat to "democracy," what it means is that any political movement operating outside of its control is a threat to the continued dictatorship of the Deep State.

What, then, is the opposite of monarchy, communism, fascism, globalism, and Deep State democracy?  

The answer is simple: freedom.  The only unique form of government is a political system that respects personal liberty and private property and intrinsically protects individual freedom from government intrusion.  The only system that truly values "the will of the people" is one that recognizes inalienable rights as belonging exclusively to each individual — immune from government infringement, no matter how compelling the government's reason.  Any form of government that treats rights and freedoms as mere "privileges" that can be watered down during times of emergency is, in fact, just another dictatorial system run by a "ruling class" of elites.  It matters little if you live within a "democracy" if you remain a slave inside the government's iron cage.  

State control versus individual freedom is the only contest that really matters.  It is the contest that will continue to define the twenty-first century.

It is no surprise, then, that the U.S. and other Western governments speak so little about inalienable rights and freedoms and so much about "hate speech," "disinformation," "climate change," and COVID.  Speaking about liberty reminds common people that there are limits to the powers of any legitimate government.  Inventing new things for people to fear, however, often clouds their reason just enough to steal their rights away.

What comes next?  If history is our teacher, then the answer is obvious: conflict comes next.  No matter how sophisticated the A.I.-powered surveillance State becomes, more people will resist.  No matter how coercive central bank digital currencies and social credit scores become, more people will choose to fight for their freedoms.  In fact, the more oppressive the overall system is, the more that people will commit themselves to fighting it, no matter the cost.

There are many recurring themes to humanity's story but none so consistent as this: wherever tyranny takes hold, movements for freedom grow powerful.  One of Mel Gibson's memorable speeches as William Wallace in Braveheart applies well today: "There's a difference between us.  You think the people of this land exist to provide you with position.  I think your position exists to provide those people with freedom."  No matter how much the government censors, the people will eventually have their say.

Hat tip to HAL.

Image: JSMed via Pixabay, Pixabay License.

If you experience technical problems, please write to