The Dems rich supporters and the stench of fascism

Gerard Jackson
BrookesNews.Com
Monday 26 July 2004

Fascism has had a deservedly bad press even though very few people have any real understanding of its origins or so-called philosophy. Mussolini, the head of the first truly fascist state, had difficulty in defining it. It was neither communist nor capitalist. It was the middle way or, as they say today, the third way. But there is no middle way between tyranny and liberty.

Now a chief economic characteristic of fascism is that private property was conditional. One held on to one's house, land, factory, whatever, at the discretion of the state. In other words, private property existed in form only, not in substance. Oddly enough, this aspect of fascism completely escaped large numbers of wealthy Italians.

They figured that so long as they played Mussolini's game they were safe, in more ways than one. The fascist state did not believe in competition or free elections — and neither did a lot of Mussolini's capitalist supporters.

And this brings me to the capitalist Steven Kirsch who gave the Gore war machine $250,000 so that it could literally disenfranchise about 25,000 absentee residents of Seminole and Martin Counties. This was on top of the $500,000 he donated to Gore's attempt to overthrow the Florida election results.

Now I want to make it clear that I don't believe for one moment that Steven Kirsch is a fascist — goodness gracious no. I'm sure this upright man is as strongly committed to the principle that every "vote should count" as is the equally upright and honourable Al Gore, Theresa Heinz Kerry, George Soros, etc.

After all, Mr. Kirsch stated that he believes "Gore was the rightful winner of the Florida election." Let us quickly review Mr. Kirsch' political logic and its faintly Italian aroma. Despite Gore's mainstream media allies calling an early call for Gore on Florida Bush still won.

Because of the slim margin a recount was ordered and he won again. But according to Kirsch Bush did not deserve to win (after all, Bush is a Republican) and so Kirsch shovelled $500,000 green ones into Gore's wallet to help him rig the election in three counties heavily populated by Democrats.

Kirsch would have us believe that this was an honest attempt on his part to help Gore obtain votes to which he was genuinely entitled — even though he had to manufacture them. I want to make it absolutely clear that I believe Kirsch. There is no doubt in my mind that he saw absolutely nothing wrong with what Gore did. How could any honourable man think otherwise?

That Kirsch is utterly committed to the concept that every vote should count is beyond question. Why he even insisted that they should be counted not once but as many times as it takes to produce the kind of result that would have even embarrassed

Mussolini. Like every dedicated Democrat, Kirsch understands that America's electoral system requires a degree of finely tuned discrimination and that's why he supported Gore's scheme to throw out the military vote.

Hundreds of service personnel who had put their lives on the line to protect their country, and by definition, Kirsch' cars, mansions, shares, fat bank accounts, etc., were rewarded by having their right to vote stripped away from them by slimy Democratic lawyers. But hey, we couldn't have rednecks voting in the evil Bush, even though they were protecting the country, can we, Mr. Kirsch, not to mention Soros?

Of course, Kirsch could have argues, if he had the courage of his convictions, which I very much doubt, that he's entitled to spend his money as he sees fit, just as Soros and Heinz have the right to spend their money. No they're not.

They cannot pay to have someone killed. They cannot pay to have someone beaten up. They cannot pay to have a competitor's business burnt down. They are not allowed to bribe judges, politicians, jurists and government officials. So what made the self-righteous leftwing Kirsch think he had the right to pay to have people stripped of their votes?

What did Kirsch hope to gain from actions? Certainly not money. So what then? Fortunately I’m not privy to Kirsch' inner thoughts, the stench would probably be too much to bear. B

ut I must presume from his actions that Kirsch sympathised with Gore's policies, policies that had a very strong whiff of fascism about them. In fact the more I think of the likes of Kirsch and Soros the more I'm reminded of D. B. Norton, the villain in the 1941 classic Meet John Doe.

Kirsch was not alone in funding Gore's attempt to overthrow the electoral system by manufacturing votes while simultaneously stripping thousands of citizens of their votes. There was Jane 'Hanoi' Fonda, Sen.-elect Jon Corzine, Slim-Fast chief Daniel Abraham, Hollywood producer Steven Bing, Houston trial lawyer John Quinn, producer Joanne Saltzman at WABC and Peter Buttenwiser. And now the same contemptible crew are at it again.

The fundamental difference between this bunch of filthy rich Democrats and Mussolini is that he was at least honest. He never concealed his contempt for democracy and the Rights of Man.

Gerard Jackson is Brookes' economics editor