Guest Post: Public-Private Partnership - Another Phrase for Fascism

Tyler Durden's picture

Submitted by James E. Miller of the Ludwig von Mises Institute of Canada,

The word “privatization” is a loaded term these days.  Unions and big government worshippers scoff at the idea of any public services being in the hands of ruthless, greedy capitalists.  The left has the distorted view that people in the private sector are driven primarily by their desire to cut costs and throw workers out on the street.  To them, government workers are angels sent from heaven to do God’s work like picking up the neighborhood trash or maintaining a public pool filled with the bodily discharges of kids whose derelict parents decided to drop off and go shopping for a few hours.  On the right, conservatives who supposedly hold high regard for market forces and Ronald Reagan’s classic declaration “government is the problem,” typically have a favorable view of privatization schemes.

Given that government creates no wealth and only consumes capital, privatization of services would seem like an obvious choice; especially for cash strapped states and municipalities.  The rational behind privatizing public service is that the private sector is almost always more efficient in operation than bureaucracies unconcerned with earning a return on investment. Even leftists will grudgingly acknowledge the super quality markets tend to produce to a point.

So if common sense dictates allowing businesses with a vested financial interest in their own success to pick up the slack in delivering public services, why should free marketers be wary of such ventures?

There just so happens to be two different forms of privatization.  The first type is genuine privatization; that is the political class and bureaucrats completely removing their hands of any dealings with the offering of a service.  Supporters of the free market should applaud this type of privatization as it means entrepreneurs and investors can freely enter into the industries the government has just vacated.  As long as consumers demand the service in question, the opportunity will exist for businessmen to devise new and profitable ways in ensuring its delivering.

The other type of privatization shouldn’t be so appealing.  That’s because it isn’t true privatization but a deceptive form of political patronage. These rackets are commonly known as “public-private partnerships” and tend to garner bipartisan support due to the crooked dealings which are almost always their sole impetus.

According to the National Council for Public-Private Partnerships, PPPs are

a contractual agreement between a public agency (federal, state or local) and a private sector entity. Through this agreement, the skills and assets of each sector (public and private) are shared in delivering a service or facility for the use of the general public. In addition to the sharing of resources, each party shares in the risks and rewards potential in the delivery of the service and/or facility.

In other words, PPPs result in the government still maintaining the final say over the delivering of the service.  Taxpayers now have the noose of being forced to guarantee an “acceptable rate of return over the term of the partnership” to the contracted company around their neck.

Even though public-private partnerships are championed as cutting age methods to modernize the state, underhanded bribes on the taxpayer dime go back at least a century.  Perhaps the biggest, most powerful public-private partnership around is the Federal Reserve System.  The New York branch of the Fed, which has been given a monopoly on the supply of what has become the world’s reserve currency, is still technically a private entity that just so happens to have the guns of the state defending its open market operations.

Today, public-private partnerships are still offered as a way to mask ever-intrusive government.  Recently Senator Rand Paul introduced a measure in the U.S. Congress to “privatize” the crotch fondlers in the TSA.  “Privatize” is put in quotations because the bill would “require that the mostly federalized program be turned over to private screeners and allow airports — with Department of Homeland Security approval — to select companies to handle the work” according to Politico.  Private screeners would still be under the guidelines of the Department of Homeland Security and be paid with tax dollars even though they would be employed by a non-government firm.  Ironically, Rand’s father, Texas Congressman Ron Paul, pointed out the flaw in his son’s proposal last July when he wrote:

What we need is real privatization of security, but not phony privatization with the same TSA screeners in private security firm uniforms still operating under the “guidance” of the federal government.  Real security will be achieved when the airlines are once again in charge of protecting their property and their passengers.

President Barack Obama has proposed public private partnerships numerous times during his time in office; namely in childhood education and infrastructure development.  Last year when Obama pushed for an infrastructure bank to pool together capital already swindled from taxpayers to form a quasi-banking institution which would take out loans in order to pay for the rebuilding “roads, bridges, and ports and broadband lines and smart grids,” both the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and AFL-CIO were in favor of it.  Along with the banksters who stood to make a hefty profit by charging above-market fees to finance such deals, the support of the CC and AFL-CIO should be a no-brainer considering unions and construction companies would most likely be paid to do the “shovel-ready” legwork.  It was a PPP even the left could get behind since a portion of the funds went to their supporters.

Public-private partnership schemes haven’t been limited to just America lately.  In Canada, the province of Ontario has recently considered granting a private company, Teranet Inc., the rights to operate its online service which delivers such things as birth certificates and driver license renewals.  According to the World Bank, many European and Central Asian countries are opting for public private partnerships after tax receipts plunged in the wake of the financial crisis.  PPPs are still popular among various governments for precisely one reason.

There is actually another, more accurate term for public-private partnerships.  It’s called fascism; plain and simple.  Private business may act as an administrator but the state still pulls the reigns.  From a political perspective, public-private partnerships are quite ingenious.  Politicians remain in control while convincing voters they believe in the efficiency of a robust private sector.  And when issues arise over the performance of a service, whatever private firm granted the monopolistic privilege of delivery can be treated like a scapegoat despite having to operate within government established guidelines.  The state escapes criticism as the public ignorantly clamors for more protection from those evil hearted businessmen.  To the ruling establishment, public-private partnerships are “heads I win, tails you lose.”

What the non-exploitive supporters of public-private partnerships tend to forget is that it isn’t just the administration of the service in supposedly private hands that adds to its betterment.  Why the market function so well is that it is driven by competition from businesses that don’t rely on assistance from the band of thieves who occupy the offices of the state.  Government assistance gives some businesses an upper hand on competitors which can lead to diminishing innovation.  Why compete when Uncle Sam has your back to ensure a decent rate of profit?  Then there are government grants of monopoly which give the chosen company absolutely zero incentive to cut costs.  All of the advantages of private ownership become effectively nullified in public-private partnerships to the detriment of the taxpayer.

In our world of unceasing centralization of power, lawmakers are finding more deceptive ways to mask their lust for dominance.  Public-private partnerships are the embodiment of what Mussolini dubbed “corporatism;” that is the “merger of state and corporate power.”  Under corporatism, the ruling class is able to expand unbeknownst to the Boobus Americanus and its equivalent in other countries.  The Average Joe still has his wallet forcefully stripped of its contents but now the state’s cronies get to partake in the plunder.  Meanwhile the same big businessmen who benefit from government privilege still maintain their praise for free markets while working with politicians to forcefully subdue their competition.

Murray Rothbard was quick to recognize why such parasites of men are dangerous for the blurring of the line between public and private when he wrote:

What’s needed is a corporate spokesman who embraces the government-business partnership with enthusiasm and joy – a kind of Big-Businessman-as-Philosopher. When such a champion emerges, Mr. and Ms. America, keep a sharp eye on your wallets – you are about to be fleeced.

Distinguishing between genuine privatization and outright fascism is the only way to make sense of the state’s manipulation of words and their meaning.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Dr. Engali's picture

Good Lord Tyler,the posts are coming fast. I'm going to be up reading all night. I guess I better fire up a cigar and have another glass of wine.

Western's picture

Here in Canada we have "Crown Corporations". They are private corporations with the provincial or federal government as the sole shareholder, often administered by a ministry or some other public service goon team.


I have to deal with these hacks on a weekly basis;

Michael's picture

The United States Federal Government needs to end its Public/Private Partnership with The Federal Reserve Corporation.

The Federal Reserve Corporation has managed to fuck up The United States multiple times during the past 15 years.

From the Dot-Com/NASDAQ bubble and bust, what some $7 trillion lost and covered up by Building 7 on 9/11?

To the most epic US housing bubble and bust, it performed beyond my wildest imaginations, even more so than that previous bust did.

Now what do I even call this current bubble, what the Federal Reserve Corporation is trying to pull off?

I think I'll call it, "The Credit Money Bubble of Epic Proportions", for now.

It'll will be a performance of a millennium we will remember, for at least the rest of the millennium.

Dr. Engali's picture

"The Federal Reserve Corporation has managed to fuck up The United States multiple times during the past 15 years"


You give them too much credit. They managed to fuck up the country multiple times for 99 years.

dognamedabu's picture

If I figured out say a couple hundred years ago how to game the system, sorry, be the system.. Through the money system. That is it isn't it? To be one of the few, way before internet days, back in the ages of Queens and other powerful people. You have a system, and being in the money game, royality customers, I am sure they were hugley secptical. But this is a scam that can be replecicated time and time again. All they needed was to during good years, diverete the propfits to some idelist inbred or such and all would be well.  I don't know what to say, if one breaks it down it is sure to work. You have to admire the geniesus of the whole system. But to be boy toy just out there slutting yourself.. I can guarantee you I wouldn't have had the interest and would have ended up like some cobbler. Just happy to have hay, hey? But to observe that others have done it, learned it and are on a quest to expose it and oddly enough be part of it..

Michael's picture

We're really just a laboratory experiment and are all currently playing our role. Confirmed by many documents.

Michael's picture

The Illuminati can kill as many of us as they see fit. If they kill too many of us, they know how to make more.

This is how they think.

shuckster's picture

To the Illumifucks you are just an output - put protein and carbohydrates in, get organic compounds out. Simple science, sir

ITrustMyGut's picture

truth is... its too late I believe...

in this absolute corupt world.. any privitazation efforts.. are just new crony capitalist BS... insiders getting inside deals... raping the  "public funds" ( as if there were any left )

nothing but full reset can save us now...

dognamedabu's picture

I live here as well. It seems in all likelyhood that the fatel flaw in the BC Ferry model is what the author was trying to get at. Crown corperations are a really interesting business model to look into. On its sleeve it is about 'the public'. But right in its charter is that it is owned by the crown, which by any measure is far removed from the public. 

dognamedabu's picture

A Capitalist reponse comes from . The Pubic is asked to have run an efficient business model when there are some alternatives private ones availible? It's the public part that always become the issue. Most want more out of government than they put in. The soluation these bright people think is to just have more government. Oh dear! I am sure I am not the only one here to realize where this all leads. 



dognamedabu's picture

A capitalist response to be frank is can you risk your capital to create a system where people find it afforidible to get to the rest of North America without breaking the bank? I'm sure many have partaked riskier ventures. But this takes huge capital and a williness to provide. ANd not facing gov as your main competion. What if there were no such thing as public? How would I get across? I showed one way. Take a plane. Sure its it is more but $49 means nothing to those needing to be there. I am convinced if totally allowed to the public, there would be people who can take 10 cars, make $200 and be so far removed from public. To have a system where this is the case is like saying MIB is based on true files. To the other, I am sorry but if you choose to live on an island...You have to imagine that sometimes the cost/benifit does ask you sincirely if you are willing to take the trade off. And this is where public takes us for a ride. They will think it is their right to live on some island in north west north america. Only if we can get others to pay. And all that time and effort finding other ways is just a smoke screen for the inevitable. Why I like ZH is they never onced demanded anything but attention. I can pay that. 

Bay of Pigs's picture

BC Ferries now costing $60 for a car and driver ONE WAY. 15-20 year lows for cars and walk ons...gee, I wonder why?


OutLookingIn's picture

...and they LOST $16 million CAD last year!

Flying Tiger Comics's picture

Seventeenth century monopolies / early eighteenth century bubble companies.


In an age where most people have the education of a boiled potato and the reasoning capacity of a garden slug reaching back into "ancient" history for another unoriginal way to rip off the citizenry seems like a safe bet.


All that's really changed is that the medieval struggle between aristocrat and merchant has finally been resolved in favour of the merchant class... which of course as a result is the new aristocracy.


The world will not be safe until the last banker is strangled with the guts of the last politician. Journalists are cockroaches and will be no further threat once the ruling classes of the world control system are liquidated.

As popular war advances, peace moves closer.

Guns n Roses said it.

So it must be true.

AnAnonymous's picture

All that's really changed is that the medieval struggle between aristocrat and merchant has finally been resolved in favour of the merchant class... which of course as a result is the new aristocracy.


US citizen class warfare.

Another thing that changes: the new ruling class needs a lot of resources to support itself. A lot of. Consumption all over the way.

putaipan's picture

i might be wrong about this, but i believe this is at the heart of the problem- your reference to the 'crown' is simular to our problem with the 'federal' in federal reserve. it goes back to the liveries and the establishment of corporations in the 'city' of london. this is the legal structure for the fascism herein described. anyone with more info, please let us know. thnx.

Ghordius's picture

excellent remark, and yes, you are fundamentally correct. for the princes of the old times, all corporative power was very suspect and had to be harnessed. a "company" was a special royal permission to excercise a trade (often a monopoly) with limited liability in an age where debtor's prisons were common. this goes back to the Roman Augustean age.

On the other side, corporative power - as the association of tradesman in medieval cities, something that nowadays would smack of monopoly, trade unionism and political parties all rolled in one, propelled the rise of the "middle class" of that age - the bourgeousie -  until it was forbidden/reformed by the French Revolution, with it's liberal ideals of freedom of trade.

Interestingly, the term "crony capitalism" seems not strong enough, and both Mises Institutes like the term fascism. I have written several times here on ZH that this is not the case, since fascist economic application is quite different and fascism is often the result of the rejection of crony capitalism (with a more state-led alternative), but alas, it's near enough for certain aspects.

Also interestingly, both Mises Institutes never put the "thing" this way: the state is the biggest "household" with the biggest spending power. it consumes services and goods, and this includes those of the Security-Industrial Complex. as long as this Complex is propelled by taxpayer (and future taxpayer) money, it's a political excercise. more funds creates more possibility of sleaze, including bribes and lobbyists. it's always a question of degrees of corruption.

ultimatively, every lobbyist is sent to the capital to get more taxpayer money or legal protection for a market distortion - that simple, they might not work for you but ultimately they are paid by you, the taxpayer and citizen.

Offthebeach's picture

1. DON'T pay any tax, fine,fee,pethat, license.......unless you are absolutely forced. 2. Protect against stealth taxes via money printing, 3. Accelerate the downfall/revolution by becoming part of the problem. Get on SSI, Disability, get farmland exemptions, ..... Get a gov jpb. You'll be paid to be an enemy, sow desension and save a muppet from itself. The Muppet serf/slave system is already grinding to a hault on its own contradictions. Lastly, have fun. The hate that.

Western's picture

You're correct in that the "Federal" in  "Federal Reserve" is a misnomer, in the sense that it fools people into believing the fed-res is a government branch, when really it is a private company.


BUT...........  The "Crown" is not a similar misnomer, because the province and federal government actually do run/own a crown corporation... they refer to themselves as the crown because anything government related in canada is an agent for the queen, we are after all a colony of the british empire.

dognamedabu's picture

The whole game was to make everyone think the 'crown' was irrelivant. Well maybe not the whole game but a big part of it. The crown figured out it was very much more easy to control corporations than control empires that 'control' the empire itself. Am I alone in seeing the evil brilliance? It is Fascism to the the ultimate. By including greed and corropution they made sure they cornered the game. This is why I actually think the west will smash the east. Our rulers are like that much far ahead. 

Disenchanted's picture




The "Crown" has nothing to do with the Queen.



The Crown has never been the King or Queen of England since the establishment of this corporate body. The Crown is the directorate of the corporation. The island of Britain is a financial oligarchy run by the "Crown" which refers to the "City of London," not the Queen. The City is run by the Bank of England, a "private" corporation. The City is a sovereign state located in the heart of greater London. It became a sovereign state in 1694 when king William the third of Orange privatized and turned the Bank of England over to the banksters. Considered the "Vatican of the financial world," the City is not subject to British law.


It has its own courts, its own laws, its own flag and its own police force, separate from the metropolitan. City (crown/corporation) police drive red police cars and their uniforms are slightly different from the Metropolitan Police. Read Here

Western's picture

To expand on what I said. "The Crown" specifically refers to the pope's triple crown (which itself owns the crown of england)... we seem to be in agreement there.


I wasn't going to get into that discussion, I was trying to keep things simple for sake of brevity.

Disenchanted's picture



Were you aware that the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia describes the Rothschilds as "the guardians of the Papal Treasure?" (scroll down in the link to the "The Union Générale" subheading) The full quote:


It is a somewhat curious sequel to the attempt to set up a Catholic competitor to the Roths-childs that at the present time the latter are the guardians of the papal treasure.


What was that that old man Rothschild said about controlling an entity's money? Do you think they've given up control of the Papal Treasure since then?  So who owns who?

old naughty's picture

"Crown". Didn't you get it yet?

batterycharged's picture

The US military is essentially handing over public money to private enterprise.

How has that worked out? Cutting costs? Really?

Usually when you hear "let the private sector take over" it means there's some lobby somewhere trying to steal public funds. Like the noise about moving social security over to Wall Street. It's not to increase efficiencies while cutting waste, it's an attempt to raid public cofers.

My issue with gov't spending isn't the intent, it's the lack of oversight and blantant theft of the money.  Giving houses to the poor is fine with me, but just watch Sopranos and what they did with HUD to get an idea of how all roads to hell are paved with good intentions.

Melenias's picture

I don't like the state

cherry picker's picture

The right word for what is happening is Nazi.

The world thought it killed the Third Reich, but it had children and they are growing

Dr. Engali's picture

I agree and it's astonishing to me how they have accelerated the pace over the past 10 years. I barely recognize this country.

Flying Tiger Comics's picture

As SS-General Wolff (NASA) told SS-General Dornberger (Bell Helicopters) in 1945, "the military phase of the stuggle is ended. Now begins the political phase, and we will win this phase decisively!"


And they did. Our cops look like stormtroopers, fat ones, to be sure, but stormtroopers (and the special forces and special services police in fact are not fat idiots, but sleek nazis); the destruction of the common law and other institutions from Britain and the USA are destroyed, and with them the anglo-saxon foundations of true Western civilisation.

In its place is the gutter-trash socialism of Europe and the defeatism of effeminate puppets like Barry Soetoro.

Whilst behind the scenes lie waiting the cattle trucks of the NWO.

Awesome time to be alive, hein?

reTARD's picture

Agreed. The Nazis never ended with the Third Reich. The Rockefellers funded and supported Hitler, only to continue the Nazism here today.

And because such elites as the Rockefellers control the world mass media as well as the state-run education systems, sadly most of the world's population are socialists even though most don't realize it. After all everyone lives as a "citizen" of a state which socially and collectively "provides" some protection and risk-averting ("safety net") services via centralized organizations whether they are PPP or directly from goverment itself.

Another PPP is JPM as they administer SNAP.

Bob's picture

I heard from Webster Tarpley a few days ago that the Rockefellers also sponsored both Hayek and Mises in some fashion. 

Do you know anything about this?

Sean7k's picture

Yes, their foundation was instrumental in establishing Hayek and Mises, first in London and then eventually in New York. It was during the pre-war window in Austria when the Nazi's were rounding up dangerous intellectuals.

The Rockefeller foundation eventually stopped funding Mises, in the early fifties, if I remember right. Hayek was established in University and seemed to play the game a little better than Mises. 

my puppy for prez's picture

Hayek established the Mt. Perelin Society, and was closely associated with the PAN EUROPEAN MOVEMENT.  Hmmm.....

The article below is fascinating, very in depth, and will show that most that advocate for libertarianism and Austrian-everything don't have any CLUE as to its origins and connections with globalism.  I have to admit, I was surprised by this information.  

No need to down arrow me....I am neither a socialist, marxist, or fascist.  I am simply trying to learn as much as I can, and research things FULLY before I advocate.  It is clear that the Hegelian Dialectic is very present in the feud b/t marxism and austrianism.  I am starting to think that ALL roads lead to globalism, no matter what the system, simply because the concentration of power, be it public or private, is intent globalism.  Localism is the only answer!


“In 1931, von Hayek accepted an invitation to visit London to deliver a series of lectures at the London School of Economics. During this period, he became formally affiliated with the British Fabian Society. He eventually accepted a full-time teaching chair at LSE.

“Then in 1939, he initiated an organization that would evolve into the Mont Pelerin Society. The earlier group, the Society for the Renovation of Liberalism, included Frank Knight and Henry Simons, both of whom would train [Milton] Friedman at the University of Chicago; the American Fabian socialist Walter Lippman; Viennese Aristotelian Society leader Karl Popper; fellow Austrian School economist Ludwig von Mises; and Sir John Clapham, a senior official of the Bank of England who from 1940-46 was the president of the British Royal Society.

“It was this group, with the exception of Knight, who died, that gatheredat von Hayek’s initiativeat Mont Pelerin, Switzerland in April 1947 to form the Mont Pelerin Society. Among the other founders of Mont Pelerin were Otto von Hapsburg, the heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne; and Max von Thorn und Taxis, the Regensberg, Bavaria-based head of the 400-year-old Venetian Thorn und Taxis family. The explicit purpose of the society was to revive and spread the Conservative Revolutionary ideas spelled out in von Hayek’s book  The Road to Serfdom. (The Legacy of Friedrich von HayekFascism Didn’t Die With Hitler)

Bob's picture

Why are so many things not as they seem?

And why does asking any question seem to lead you down but another rabbit hole?

Can't say I enjoy it, but it's impossible to not wonder why "libertarianism" supports "neoliberalism" which ultimately serves to further concentrate capital and power to the detriment of the majority of mankind . . . and in fundamental contradiction of what seem to be the genuine sensibilities of most of those who promote it.

That part always seems ignored in the heady rush of idealism.  

Sean7k's picture

This is one area where Mises vehemently contested with Hayek. Hayek saw benefits in socialism if properly distinguished. Mises saw no hope of that. Still, he was a mentor to Hayek and this conflicy wasn't resolved until the sixties. See "The Last Knight Of Liberalism" by Hussman.

Further, the Austrians were a school of economic philosophy, not a club or society. That philosophy was dynamic not static. There goals were the better understanding of economics and how it explained behavior. 

Even Rothbard changed as he continued to examine the world and its' history. 

There isn't a slot for every peg. The beauty of Austrian theory lies in its' freedom to examine all phenomena without the restrictions of being a reigning paradigm. 

reTARD's picture

I cannot say that I advocate Hayek necessarily as I just started to read his "The Road to Serfdom." That said, I was amazed that I had already came to quite a few of Hayek's points/conclusions via my own thought process prior to the reading.

Remember that the elites like the Rockefellers play both sides of the wars and of the debates. After all Hayek won a Nobel Prize and one does not win one without some elite's blessing.

But why can't there be whistleblowers or former insiders who can be good guys? Should we discredit people like the John Perkins (Confessions of an Economic Hitman), Nomi Prins (former Goldman Sachs), and others? While I believe Webster Tarpley is quite a good historian, I take his stuff with a grain of salt as he is also quite a socialist. I'll listen to everybody and decide for myself whether to accept some or any of their ideas.

Otherwise, I'd have an anarchist (ruler-less, voluntary), anti-state and anti-collective bent.

azzhatter's picture

and some of the children have emigrated

world_debt_slave's picture

ah, yes, I remember reading about these a few years back, fav. program of Timmie boy and Uncle Ben.

Sockeye's picture

And P3s allow governments to put these projects off balance sheet, hiding public debt.

"This year, B.C.'s provincial debt is at $47.3 billion. On the surface, the debt increase under a decade of B.C. Liberal governance is $13.5 billion.
Nevertheless, that is merely a faí§ade because the debt does not cover many of the B.C. Liberals' public-private-partnership projects, like the upgrading of the Sea-to-Sky Highway, the construction of the Canada Line, or the Abbotsford Hospital.
Actually, the B.C. Liberals have another ledger called “contractual obligation” to record these “debts".
The B.C. Liberals have been building infrastructure projects with the P3 model. Compared to the traditional approach of government borrowing and holding a public tender, the P3 model costs more.
These P3 projects are considered "contractual obligations” instead of debts.
Thus, they are not stated in the government budget and the government does not provide detailed information about them because they are deemed to be private business secrets."

bob_dabolina's picture

Whoever penned this missive is behind the curve.

...shoulda' been written, like, 15 years ago.

Sean7k's picture

"As We Go Marching", by John Flynn 1939. 

It was true for FDR and every president afterwards. Before they were defeated in War, Hitler and Mussolini were admired greatly by all the world leaders of the day. It is no surprise that their policies have been carried forward. The natural condition of the state is tyranny.

Disenchanted's picture



In light of the post I made further down the thread, it's ironic that this is hosted by  LOL!


As We Go Marching by John T Flynn (Copyright 1944)


even more ironic, see Part Three:


Sean7k's picture

Thanks for the correction on the copyright. It has been a while since I read it.

AurorusBorealus's picture

The largest public-private partnership in the United States is healthcare.  Medicare (and Medicaid) pay the premiums for private insurers to provide HMOs to seniors.  The HMOs then pay private (usually not-for-profit, but not always) healthcare providers, who in turn pay private suppliers (such as McKesson, who boasts the highest-paid CEO in the country) and contractors.  The government then regulates each private company through the Department of Health and monitors the entire system with a series of inspectors from the various state "Departments of Health" who patrol the healthcare system, collecting supplications of all those "private" industries that milk the tit of state.

Keep this in mind when politicians speak of our "private" healthcare system.  It really is the embodiment of fascism, and the model for all these other public-private partnerships.

icanhasbailout's picture

The purest form of fascism is central banking.

Flying Tiger Comics's picture

International Bank of Settlements: created by Schacht (Nazis).

Interpol: created by Heydrich (Nazis).

European Union: created by Hitler (with help) (Nazis).

"Nazis are right wing not left wing"

-which proves what a total load of shit it is to bother about "left" and "right".

Socialism is an elitist doctrine founded on jewish hatred of anglo-saxon culture and the desire of elites generally to rule over the whole of the Earth. Jewish people of good faith realise this and fight it, along with the rest of us. As for the elite themselves- they have no real religion, culture or morality. Their only creed is dominion, as it has been from the time of Genesis (Nimrod) to now (???)

But there are twelve stars on the EU flag and its symbol is the tower of babel rebuilt. Tells you all you need to know. It's part of their doctrine, to do with free will, that the victim must be told what is to come, so that in theory resistance is possible- whilst in practice fighting them is very difficult.

Clashfan's picture

I disagree and say that they definitely have a Luciferian subculture that is both a religion and a culture, one of child rape, mind control, fomented war, and satan worship.

shovelhead's picture


You forgot to mention that they also kill those pure Aryan children to drain their blood to make matzohs (Illuminati natchos).

Buggery and a bisquit.