The Multicultural Manchester Evening News..Horrocks Darling of The Fabian Fascist’s….

Looking Down on Manchester: A Profile of Paul Horrocks

July 15, 2009 by northwestnews  
Filed under North West

horrocks1THE Editor of the Manchester Evening News, Paul Horrocks, has recently become the darling of the leftist media Establishment in Manchester, with his unremitting tirades against the British National Party.

In his latest editorial outburst, Horrocks begged “the relevant authorities to investigate” the BNP leader for daring to warn about the need for tough measures to defend Europe from the illegal immigration invasion.  Blatantly ignoring Nick Griffin’s clear statement that he was not arguing for migrant boats to be fired upon with African migrants still on board, the Manchester Evening News nevertheless accused Mr Griffin of “advocating murder”.

In view of the residual power that old-fashioned newspapers such as the Manchester Evening News still unfortunately wield, it is only fair that ordinary people should be acquainted with some basic facts about the publicity-shy man who presumes to order them how not to vote.

As editor of the Manchester Evening News since 1997, 55 year old Paul Horrocks has overseen the progressive decline of the paper from a moderately well-respected local journal, to a poorly printed rag, which now has to be given away free to more than half of its readers. 

In recent years, the Manchester Evening News has become notorious for the sheer virulence of its multicultural extremist agenda.  For example, on the very day in July 2005 when it became clear that Britain had been targeted for the first time by “home grown” Muslim terrorists, the Manchester Evening News editorial perversely focussed on berating the “far-Right” in West Yorkshire for supposedly “attempting to make political capital” – by distributing leaflets!

It is a characteristic hallmark of the most passionate zealots of multiculturalism that, in their own personal lives, they often seem strangely reluctant to enjoy the delights of multicultural enrichment which they are so keen to advocate for others.   So it is with Mr Horrocks, who lives, not in some crime-infested and “diverse” district of Manchester, but in the upmarket, and almost exclusively white, rural village of Ainsworth, high on the hills north of Bury.

In lovely Ainsworth village, migrants are rarer than hens’ teeth, which rather undermines Mr Horrocks’ moral authority to lecture the beleaguered British communities of deprived inner-city Manchester about the need to reject the BNP and submit to multiculturalism.    A cynic might suspect that if migrant colonists ever start to appear in Ainsworth in significant numbers, the editorial line of the Manchester Evening News may change abruptly in favour of an immediate curb on mass immigration.

Wikipedia describes the Manchester Evening News’ political stance as “left wing populist”, but it is clear from his lifestyle that Mr Horrocks himself is no demotic hero of the working classes.   After a hard day at the office penning his anti-BNP tirades, Mr Horrocks can, quite literally, look down on the people of Manchester from the beautiful hillside home he shares with his wife.  According to HM Land Registry, his luxury house was purchased in 2007 for more than £963,000.  

Not only is Horrocks the editor of the MEN, but he is also a director of MEN Media Ltd and a former director of Bury’s exclusive Greenmount Golf Club.  One is tempted to wonder just how many African migrants are to be found teeing off with Mr Horrocks at the 18th hole, or enjoying the country views over a gin and tonic up at the clubhouse. 

Mr Horrocks is also a director of the Manchester Investment and Development Agency Service Ltd (MIDAS), where Horrocks shares the boardroom table with three prominent local Labour councillors.   In the light of this, it is perhaps unsurprising that the Manchester Evening News has always been so reluctant to hold the Labour Party to account for its gross failures of governance in Manchester. 

A truly radical campaigning newspaper would fearlessly speak the truth to the party of power, but the Manchester Evening News prefers to demonise the powerless; it is much less risky to attack Nick Griffin and his working-class grassroots supporters – and it certainly pleases the editor’s boardroom pals!

Paul Horrocks has every qualification for senior membership of the Establishment clique who have failed the city of Manchester and ignored the wishes of ordinary Mancunians for far too long.  This is an elite which epitomises everything the British National Party nobly and defiantly stands against.   We should be proud to have incurred the hatred of enemies such as this; if they should ever cease to fear and despise us, then we should start to worry!





Regional press news – this story published 16 June 2009

How should journalists deal with rise of BNP?

by holdthefrontpage staff
The National Union of Journalists is staging a conference this week on how journalists should respond to the rise of the British National Party. 

The far-right party’s recent successes in the European and council elections have posed a dilemma over how its activities should be reported.

While some editors have taken the view in the past that all publicity is good publicity, and that therefore ignoring them is the best option, others such as Paul Horrocks of the Manchester Evening News, have sought to confront the party’s ideas head-on.

Now the union is calling on its members to join the debate, beginning with an event at its London headquarters on Thursday evening.

“The BNP’s election victories have brought a new urgency to questions about how journalists should report fascists and racists,” said a statement on the union’s website.

“There is a danger that racist ideas that ten years ago would have been considered unacceptable could become part of the daily business of politics.”

One editor who has recently blogged about the dilemma is Keith Perch of the Leicester Mercury which has just seen the election of a BNP councillor on its patch in Coalville.

“Until now, we have mostly ignored them, but I sense that we have reached a tipping point and that it makes more sense now to challenge their policies and be sure that those voting for them know exactly what they are voting for,” he wrote.

“I blogged about this dilemna – to report or to ignore – previously and received a reasonable amount of feedback, almost all of which came down on the side of reporting, with the notable exception of someone employed full-time to worry about social cohesion who felt that it was still best to ignore.

“With the election of a BNP county councillor, we have decided that we cannot ignore the situation.”

Roy (16/06/2009 07:53)
Since when is it the NUJ’s job to ‘decide’ which views and ideas are acceptable or not? Do journalists have such little respect for the public that they now feel the need to abandon basic principles of fair reporting and regulate what the electorate can read? This behaviour is disgraceful.

GBGONEMAD (16/06/2009 08:35)
Roy, you are right. The NUJ should be looking at journalists and photographers’ plight who are getting run into the ground on a daily basis.

Keith (16/06/2009 08:50)
I stopped buying newspapers about two years ago because I want to read honest unbiased reporting and not some unionised journalists doctored version of the news. Nowadays all my news come from the tv and the internet and is taken with a heavy pinch of salt.

chris g (16/06/2009 09:01)
I get a bit fed up of the those pontificating about who the public should vote for. The whole point of democracy and free speech is that you should be able to have choice on who to vote for. I’m not a BNP supporter, but if the media and mainstream politicians continue to harp on about their racist ideas it will only draw people further to extremism. By all means challenge but don’t thrust your views on someone else. It causes wars and resentment.

john (16/06/2009 09:07)
The whole idea of journalists getting together to decide how to slant the reporting on the BNP brings to mind the soviet commissar holding a meeting on what the party line is to be on a particular subject. As an American who was close to several old school hard bitten San Francisco newsmen, the idea that these NUJ types should profane the air or the press with the obscenity of calling themselves news reporters boggles the imagination. A reporter as opposed to a propagandist, reports what his subject says accurately which is a concept none of theses marxist obscenities apparently have never heard of. Don’t worry though this article of your which you so boldly put in your trade journal will be wide spread. The BNP will make sure every British household gets a copy of this, because I have never seen a document that so incontrovertibly reveals your total lack of professional integrity.

Stan Mason (16/06/2009 09:14)
This is a disgrace. I can’t believe it’s happening in the UK. The NUJ is dictating how the news should be skewed. I also wonder why no journalists have spoken out about this attempt to undermine the democratic process. And while we’re at it – why does the NUJ have such contempt for the BNP? The Labour party lied to drag the UK into an illegal war which has cost the lives of over 500,000 people. How many people have died because of BNP policies? I can only assume the NUJ is OK with mass murder.

Onlooker (16/06/2009 09:17)
You wouldn’t hear a peep out of the NUJ if the BNP were an extremist left-wing organisation. Why ? Because much of the NUJ leadership harbours extreme left-wing views itself – one of the reasons I and many others tore up our union membership cards years ago. The NUJ has wasted so much of its members’ loyalty and goodwill oiver the years on pointless left-wing campaigns, that now – when it is genuinely needed to fight for its members – it is virtually toothless and discredited.

Joan Walters (16/06/2009 09:26)
How should journalists respond to the election of BNP councillors and MEPs? Answer: with the current wet liberal, Marxist mind set of journalists, you cannot. The pro multicultural, pro multiracial, pro “everything unBritish” ethos of the media means that all of you are incapable of dealing professionally and fairly with BNP MEPS, AMs, councillors, officials or even ordinary members. It’s in your genes, that’s why you have become journalists and not taken proper jobs. Don’t worry, the dole queue beckons for many print hacks as advertising revenues diminish and papers fold – BNP journalists will start to rise and take hold in the new digital media, you lot are finished. You have upset far too many readers with your vile rhetoric and biased reports.

Fatsod (16/06/2009 10:01)
Strange this. First of all, I fail to understand how the BNP is a far right organisation, bearing in mind their socialist credentials on their website, even the ‘send them back’ part is evocative of Old Labour. As for racists and bigots, I hardly think a bawhair off 1 million voters can be described as such, and that amount cannot be written off as a lunatic fringe either. As for the NUJ, well they should be able to report objectively, but I daresay they will not.

Karl Chappell (16/06/2009 10:15)
Why should these so called editors be able to vent their own personal message of hatred just because they have the power of print behind them. I would have thought editors would be more suited to the job if they did not let their political leanings interfere with fair reporting.

CD (16/06/2009 10:20)
You guys, you crack me up. one minute you’re complaining about the ‘Marxist mindset of journalists’, the next you’re saying how socialist and Old Labour you are. Make up your minds, will you? Hitler had some nice socialist, anti-corporate ideas, didn’t he? And how did that one turn out again? Oh, in a big holocaust. Though you might not have heard about that as you seem to think it’s “a total lie” (quote: Nick Griffin):

Colin Cox (16/06/2009 10:35)
It is simple for anyone to discover the truth about the total bias of news reporting. Simply search BNP in a news search engine and you will have great difficulty in finding an unbiased balanced article about the BNP. Why are our opponents so affraid of us and why are they so affraid of letting the individual decide for themselves? They feel the need to dictate to the people how to vote. Wake up Britain and decide for yourself!

lee (16/06/2009 10:58)
Will the NUJ also apply this rule to Marxists and other far left types?

Mark (16/06/2009 11:49)
narc and CD are typical of the intolerant, narrow-minded left/liberal bigots who run our society. Anyone who deviates from the state ideology is automatically a Nazi and their views must be suppressed. To all these intolerant types I say – are your views so empty of logic and facts that the only way you can win an argument is by suppressing the opposition?

Rhory Fraser (16/06/2009 11:50)
As a former journalist, I am ashamed at the grotesque bias of the coverage of the BNP. 1m people voted for the party because they are sick of the effective omerta on the subject of mass immigration. If the State-funded Trotskyists of the so-called ‘Unite Against Fascism’ ever dared to stand under their own banner, how many votes would they garner? It is called democracy and the only political party undermining that process with its funding of egg-throwing anti-democrats like the UAF, is the Labour Party. I am not able to use my real name on this article for fear of reprisals from the militant left. Holdthefrontpage is attacking the wrong people

CD (16/06/2009 11:57)
Oh, and cheers Mark, I’m absolutely delighted – you’ve just proved my point completely. You’ve done the typical BNP thing of accusing anyone who disagrees with you as left wing. That narrow-minded view just shows your black or white (if you’ll pardon the expression) outlook of the world. So thanks for that – keep on spouting that rhetoric and do my job for me. Perhaps you think the British Legion are a bunch of liberal bigots too?

Alan (16/06/2009 13:10)
I look forward to how you plan to deal with the ‘Fall of the Labour Party’! All you are doing is contributing to the journalists who are out of work – newspapers are closing – why? because people can’t trust you any more!

Mike Giggler (16/06/2009 13:13)
Surely the BNP aren’t as black as their painted?

Mike Giggler (16/06/2009 13:28)
Affraid? Oh no, the Gruniard are here!!

CD (16/06/2009 13:32)
Hey, I was quoting them verbatim, spelling error and all. I wouldn’t want to misquote the BNP and change their message in any way, would I? That would just be biased.

FAST WOMAN (16/06/2009 13:59)
Giggler: ‘Surely the BNP aren’t as black as their painted?’ It’s they’re, NOT their. Much worse than affraid, I’m afraid. Memo to self: you’ve got to stop subbing the comments on this site.

Claire (16/06/2009 14:02)
With more and more of the British population becoming disillusioned with politics at the minute, maybe this could be an opportunity to focus on and simplfy the policies of ALL political parties. Think of it as a campaign to get voters back to the ballot box, while ensuring they know exactly what they are voting for.

Arthur (16/06/2009 15:03)
Just like Stalin eh, you loony lefty fascist freaks! Twenty million murdered in the gulags and torture chambers invented by Lenin. How many did Mao do? Pol Pot etc? The truth is ‘waysist’ is it? Well ok, we’re all ‘waysists’ now! And? ……..

Angharad (16/06/2009 15:13)
Challenge BNP policies, you say. Well, yes, lets do that. Here they are for all the world to see: Go for it. Then lets examine the NUJ’s policies. By the by, I don’t remember the NUJ standing for election. Perhaps the ballot forms were so long and folded up that people couldn’t find them. Like Eukrap.

Peter Wesley (16/06/2009 15:29)
This is a typical example of the hypocrisy of the white liberal establishment as it struggles to keep a lid on its own latent racism by projecting it onto the white working class.

Lickyalips (16/06/2009 15:35)
Does anybody else see the irony of the NUJ acting like the fascists they accuse the BNP of being? Since when has democracy been subject to their approval and on their terms only. Must be something to do with the treasonable ‘Common Purpose’ Marxist ideology factory.


The government is prepared to face down Euroscepticism in the press to give a strong pro-European case, Culture Secretary James Purnell told the Fabian ‘Change the World’ conference, rejecting the claim that New Labour was in thrall to Rupert Murdoch.

‘Our approach to News International has been “fairness not favours”‘ said the Culture Secretary, reapplying New Labour’s account of its relationship with the trade unions to that which it should have with the powerful media group.

Beyond facing down calls for a referendum on the Reform Treaty, the government’s strong support for a licence-fee funded BBC and the refusal of BskyB’s bid for Manchester United demonstrated an even-handed approach which refuted claims of favouritism,’ said Purnell.

The Culture Secretary was responding to a challenge from Guardian columnist Polly Toynbee, who argued that Britain’s ‘dire’ relationship with the European Union was excessively influenced by a nexus of Eurosceptic media barons who hold ‘an unbelievably tight grip over the entire media.’

She called on the government to strengthen competition laws and broaden media ownership. New owners ‘might still be fruitcakes, but at least we would have a wider range of fruitcakes owning media.’



Kinnock: Neil Kinnock in conversation with Michael White – Fabian
Tickets were free for Fabian members and for new members joining the Society, … and our media partner The Guardian for their support for this event. …
New Window · Similar Sites · Alexa · Cached · Archived

Jon Slattery: ‘Manchester Evening News should be owned and managed …
It suggests that the best option for the Manchester Evening News would be to stand alone from Guardian Media Group and be owned and managed in Manchester. …
New Window · Similar Sites · Alexa · Cached · Archived



8 responses to “The Multicultural Manchester Evening News..Horrocks Darling of The Fabian Fascist’s….



    1995 TO 2009 HAD NO TIME I GUESS.



  3. Journo’s don’t investigate their paymasters the Fabians Fascists’

    300 in Westminster…….White house God only knows…

    across all parties now–thats their poison………infiltration and subversion.

    wrecking Britain from within as always!!

    Wilson closed more pits than Maggie that was Fabianism in action back then…
    No protests why—the unions are Fabians too.


    Posted By: J
    Date: Monday, 9-Mar-2009 16:27:50 In 1945, the United Kingdom implemented a program of change at the hands of a new left wing government. The structure of support built up in previous decades, the way change was sold to the public, outcomes themselves have much to teach us about America’s future.

    To most Americans, the iconic image of British strength, resolve, and power is that of the cigar-chomping, bulldog-faced Winston Churchill defiantly growling “we shall never surrender” and “this is our finest hour” as Nazi bombs rained down on London every night during the summer of 1940.

    Churchill almost single-handedly saved Britain from defeat at the hands of the Nazis, stepping up to become Prime Minister after Neville Chamberlain resigned in disgrace after diplomatic attempts to achieve “peace in our time” with Hitler proved folly.

    But relatively few Americans may be aware that, despite his historic victory over one of the most evil regimes in history, Churchill was unceremoniously booted by British voters when his Conservative Party was defeated within weeks of Germany’s surrender.

    What followed marked the beginning of the end for the greatest empire since Rome.

    The election of 1945 was a decisive victory for Britain’s Labour Party. Labour gained 394 seats in the 640-seat House of Commons, named Clement Attlee as Prime Minister, and implemented historic changes in Britain, turning a once-great empire into a second-rate socialist welfare state in a span of 20 years.

    The Labour government nationalized key industries in Britain, including rail, mining, air transport, utilities, and communications. Labour also created a “cradle-to-grave” welfare state and nationalized medicine with the creation of the National Health Service. Oppressive taxation was enacted to pay for the massive increase in government spending; by the 1970s income and estate taxes on the wealthy had skyrocketed to 80%.

    In foreign policy, the Labour government engaged in wholesale decolonization, and the world is much worse off as a result. In 1947 British India was decolonized and partitioned into Hindu India and Muslim Pakistan. The resulting chaos displaced 12 million refugees and caused a million deaths. Sixty years and several wars later the former colonies are nuclear-armed powers, still locked in chronic tension over control of the mountain region of Kashmir.

    Burma, Ceylon, and the Palestinian Mandate were also decolonized in the immediate postwar period. Burma — now Myanmar — is home to one of the most repressive military dictatorships in the world. Ceylon, now Sri Lanka, is experiencing a decades-long guerrilla war, and the 60-year Arab-Israeli conflict in the former Palestinian Mandate knows no end. In subsequent decades, Britain also withdrew from East Africa, leaving in its wake the oppressive 30-year dictatorship of Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe and a tribally-divided Kenya, recently wracked by election violence. Sudan, another former East African possession of the British Empire, is home to the ongoing genocide in Darfur.

    By the 1960s, the Labour Party had overturned nearly all of the traditional aspects of a British culture that had been historically staid, stoic, and reserved. Prime Minister Harold Wilson’s government decriminalized abortion and homosexuality, abolished capital punishment, and revised immigration laws to allow large numbers of Third World emigrants to Britain for the first time. Consequently, today’s Britain is a land of social dysfunction, including high rates of drunkenness, property crime, welfare dependency, racial strife, promiscuity and irreligiosity. The illegitimate birth rate in the U.K. hit 50% in 2008, while a mere 10% of the population regularly attends church. Such behavior would have been unimaginable in prim Victorian society a century ago.

    Although Britain’s Conservatives managed to form governments in the postwar period, they were unable to fully reverse the changes implemented by Labour. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher did manage to lower tax rates and privatize some industries in the 1980s, but Conservatives never abolished the welfare state, the NHS, or reversed the social decline that had taken place in the postwar period.

    The Britain that strode across the world as an economic and military colossus during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries – bringing technology, learning, literature, order, and an unprecedented creation of wealth — was gone forever by the 1960s, its culture replaced by a trite and ephemeral trendiness epitomized by Beatlemania, punk rock, and “Cool Britannia.”

    The Ideological Clique Behind the Change

    These changes did not take place by accident. They were planned by British cultural elites, particularly by members of the Fabian Society, who had worked for over a half-century to promote the policies finally implemented by Labour governments after 1945.

    The Fabians advocated a gradual, democratic socialist takeover rather than violent revolution. Fabians sought control over more banal aspects of life — transport, utilities, medicine — that were far less threatening to the general public than the prospect of armed revolution.

    The society was named after the Roman general Fabius Maximus, whose tactic was to wait for the ideal opportunity. The society’s motto — “For the right moment you must wait… but when the right moment comes you must strike hard” — is eerily similar to White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel’s sentiment that “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste,” because “crisis provides the opportunity for us to do things that [we] could not do before.”

    Fabian Society membership was a Who’s Who of prewar British intellectuals, writers and artists who had rejected classical free-market economics, traditional religion, nationalism and imperialism. They included nerdy academic socialists like Harold Laski and G.D.H. Cole, as well as a motley collection of misfits, pacifists, deviants and utopian radicals.

    The writer H.G. Wells, advocate of eugenics and a utopian global state, was a Fabian. Noted for his infidelity, he had an affair with the American eugenicist and founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger. Playwright and critic George Bernard Shaw, an advocate of feminism, socialism, and vegetarianism, was a Fabian; he opposed British involvement in World War I but became an admirer of the USSR in the 1930s. “Sexologist” Havelock Ellis, who married a lesbian and was said to only become aroused when watching women urinate, was a member, as was Edward Carpenter, a vegan gay-rights activist and nudist. Economist John Maynard Keynes, whose theories influenced the policies of nearly all Western governments since the 1930s and are in vogue in the Obama administration today, was briefly a member.

    The Fabian Society was disproportionately influential in the Labour government of 1945; though the Society numbered only several thousand, more than half of the Labour Party MPs were members. Nearly all leaders of the postwar Labour Party have been members, including Attlee, Harold Wilson, James Callaghan, Neil Kinnock and Tony Blair.

    Just as the Fabians influenced the Labour Party agenda, today’s Democratic Party reflects the disproportionate influence of a clique of elite cultural and academic leftists now seeking to implement a socialist agenda they have been promoting since the 1960s. This agenda includes nationalized health care, taxpayer-funded abortion, federal control of education, gay marriage, openly-practicing homosexuals in the military, and much, much higher taxes.

    Like the Fabian-influenced Labour government, the Obama administration has embarked on a course to “remake” America. The administration will effectively nationalize transportation and utilities through its “green energy” initiatives (indeed, Congresswoman Maxine Waters recently advocated nationalizing the oil industry) openly seeks to nationalize health care (the $787 billion “stimulus” bill includes billions of dollars to begin centralizing health care records) and is using the mortgage and banking crisis to effectively nationalize the financial services and banking sector.

    In foreign policy, the Obama administration has announced a deadline to withdraw all combat troops from Iraq, and indicated a willingness to cease implementation of a missile-defense shield in Europe. Obama, who campaigned as a “citizen of the world” and effectively apologized to Middle Eastern audiences for the U.S. invasion of Iraq in his first televised interview as president, seeks to curtail American military hegemony and replace it with reliance upon global institutions such as the U.N.

    On immigration, Obama and the Democratic Party support citizenship for 12 million mostly Spanish-speaking illegal aliens currently residing in the U.S.; such a plan would invariably allow those new citizens to sponsor even more non-English speaking family members to emigrate to the U.S.

    The agenda of the American Left bears an uncomfortable similarity to that of the Fabian Society intellectuals that reshaped British society. If this agenda is successfully implemented by Barack Obama, the election of 2008 in the United States will be a watershed event, much like the British election of 1945.

    But this analogy is not an optimistic one. If one wants to know what the United States will look like fifty years after Obama, one need only look at the fall of Britain from its imperial height in 1945 to the Britain of today — a second-rate, secularized “nanny state” whose disarmed citizens are monitored by thousands of police cameras and whose police actively prosecute “hate crimes” and offenses against “multiculturalism.”

    Like Britain, the United States will almost certainly remain an important financial center and regional power several decades from now, but the center of global gravity will long since have shifted to the Chinese as the United States abandons it global dominance and becomes preoccupied with a liberal, postmodern, domestic agenda. It does not have to be this way — the United States can still assert itself as global hegemon if it has the will to do so – but the successful implementation of the Obama agenda will assure that it does not.

    If Obama achieves the goals articulated in his campaign, his presidency will surely mark the end of “the American Century” just as the election of 1945 signaled the end of Victorian and Edwardian British global dominance.
    What are the odds of the American Fabians just agreeing to leave limited-government, pro-freedom Americans to wither and die on the vine?

    Care to bet your life on it?

  5. The National Union of Journalists is staging a conference this week on how journalists should respond to the rise of the British National Party.
    The far-right party’s recent successes in the European and council elections have posed a dilemma over how its activities should be reported.

    Here’s a novel idea – try reporting truthfully for a change..ignore your Fabian and Common Purpose Commi MASTERS!!







    Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian
    Mises Daily: Friday, November 11, 2005 by George Reisman

    My purpose today is to make just two main points: (1) To show why Nazi Germany was a socialist state, not a capitalist one. And (2) to show why socialism, understood as an economic system based on government ownership of the means of production, positively requires a totalitarian dictatorship.

    The identification of Nazi Germany as a socialist state was one of the many great contributions of Ludwig von Mises.

    When one remembers that the word “Nazi” was an abbreviation for “der Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiters Partei — in English translation: the National Socialist German Workers’ Party — Mises’s identification might not appear all that noteworthy. For what should one expect the economic system of a country ruled by a party with “socialist” in its name to be but socialism?

    Nevertheless, apart from Mises and his readers, practically no one thinks of Nazi Germany as a socialist state. It is far more common to believe that it represented a form of capitalism, which is what the Communists and all other Marxists have claimed.

    The basis of the claim that Nazi Germany was capitalist was the fact that most industries in Nazi Germany appeared to be left in private hands.

    What Mises identified was that private ownership of the means of production existed in name only under the Nazis and that the actual substance of ownership of the means of production resided in the German government. For it was the German government and not the nominal private owners that exercised all of the substantive powers of ownership: it, not the nominal private owners, decided what was to be produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it was to be distributed, as well as what prices would be charged and what wages would be paid, and what dividends or other income the nominal private owners would be permitted to receive. The position of the alleged private owners, Mises showed, was reduced essentially to that of government pensioners.

    De facto government ownership of the means of production, as Mises termed it, was logically implied by such fundamental collectivist principles embraced by the Nazis as that the common good comes before the private good and the individual exists as a means to the ends of the State. If the individual is a means to the ends of the State, so too, of course, is his property. Just as he is owned by the State, his property is also owned by the State.

    But what specifically established de facto socialism in Nazi Germany was the introduction of price and wage controls in 1936. These were imposed in response to the inflation of the money supply carried out by the regime from the time of its coming to power in early 1933. The Nazi regime inflated the money supply as the means of financing the vast increase in government spending required by its programs of public works, subsidies, and rearmament. The price and wage controls were imposed in response to the rise in prices that began to result from the inflation.

    The effect of the combination of inflation and price and wage controls is shortages, that is, a situation in which the quantities of goods people attempt to buy exceed the quantities available for sale.

    Shortages, in turn, result in economic chaos. It’s not only that consumers who show up in stores early in the day are in a position to buy up all the stocks of goods and leave customers who arrive later, with nothing — a situation to which governments typically respond by imposing rationing. Shortages result in chaos throughout the economic system. They introduce randomness in the distribution of supplies between geographical areas, in the allocation of a factor of production among its different products, in the allocation of labor and capital among the different branches of the economic system.

    In the face of the combination of price controls and shortages, the effect of a decrease in the supply of an item is not, as it would be in a free market, to raise its price and increase its profitability, thereby operating to stop the decrease in supply, or reverse it if it has gone too far. Price control prohibits the rise in price and thus the increase in profitability. At the same time, the shortages caused by price controls prevent increases in supply from reducing price and profitability. When there is a shortage, the effect of an increase in supply is merely a reduction in the severity of the shortage. Only when the shortage is totally eliminated does an increase in supply necessitate a decrease in price and bring about a decrease in profitability.

    As a result, the combination of price controls and shortages makes possible random movements of supply without any effect on price and profitability. In this situation, the production of the most trivial and unimportant goods, even pet rocks, can be expanded at the expense of the production of the most urgently needed and important goods, such as life-saving medicines, with no effect on the price or profitability of either good. Price controls would prevent the production of the medicines from becoming more profitable as their supply decreased, while a shortage even of pet rocks prevented their production from becoming less profitable as their supply increased.

    As Mises showed, to cope with such unintended effects of its price controls, the government must either abolish the price controls or add further measures, namely, precisely the control over what is produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it is distributed, which I referred to earlier. The combination of price controls with this further set of controls constitutes the de facto socialization of the economic system. For it means that the government then exercises all of the substantive powers of ownership.

    This was the socialism instituted by the Nazis. And Mises calls it socialism on the German or Nazi pattern, in contrast to the more obvious socialism of the Soviets, which he calls socialism on the Russian or Bolshevik pattern.

    Of course, socialism does not end the chaos caused by the destruction of the price system. It perpetuates it. And if it is introduced without the prior existence of price controls, its effect is to inaugurate that very chaos. This is because socialism is not actually a positive economic system. It is merely the negation of capitalism and its price system. As such, the essential nature of socialism is one and the same as the economic chaos resulting from the destruction of the price system by price and wage controls. (I want to point out that Bolshevik-style socialism’s imposition of a system of production quotas, with incentives everywhere to exceed the quotas, is a sure formula for universal shortages, just as exist under all around price and wage controls.)

    At most, socialism merely changes the direction of the chaos. The government’s control over production may make possible a greater production of some goods of special importance to itself, but it does so only at the expense of wreaking havoc throughout the rest of the economic system. This is because the government has no way of knowing the effects on the rest of the economic system of its securing the production of the goods to which it attaches special importance.

    The requirements of enforcing a system of price and wage controls shed major light on the totalitarian nature of socialism — most obviously, of course, on that of the German or Nazi variant of socialism, but also on that of Soviet-style socialism as well.

    We can start with the fact that the financial self-interest of sellers operating under price controls is to evade the price controls and raise their prices. Buyers otherwise unable to obtain goods are willing, indeed, eager to pay these higher prices as the means of securing the goods they want. In these circumstances, what is to stop prices from rising and a massive black market from developing?

    The answer is a combination of severe penalties combined with a great likelihood of being caught and then actually suffering those penalties. Mere fines are not likely to provide much of a deterrent. They will be regarded simply as an additional business expense. If the government is serious about its price controls, it is necessary for it to impose penalties comparable to those for a major felony.

    But the mere existence of such penalties is not enough. The government has to make it actually dangerous to conduct black-market transactions. It has to make people fear that in conducting such a transaction they might somehow be discovered by the police, and actually end up in jail. In order to create such fear, the government must develop an army of spies and secret informers. For example, the government must make a storekeeper and his customer fearful that if they engage in a black-market transaction, some other customer in the store will report them.

    Because of the privacy and secrecy in which many black-market transactions can be conducted, the government must also make anyone contemplating a black-market transaction fearful that the other party might turn out to be a police agent trying to entrap him. The government must make people fearful even of their long-time associates, even of their friends and relatives, lest even they turn out to be informers.

    And, finally, in order to obtain convictions, the government must place the decision about innocence or guilt in the case of black-market transactions in the hands of an administrative tribunal or its police agents on the spot. It cannot rely on jury trials, because it is unlikely that many juries can be found willing to bring in guilty verdicts in cases in which a man might have to go to jail for several years for the crime of selling a few pounds of meat or a pair of shoes above the ceiling price.

    In sum, therefore, the requirements merely of enforcing price-control regulations is the adoption of essential features of a totalitarian state, namely, the establishment of the category of “economic crimes,” in which the peaceful pursuit of material self-interest is treated as a criminal offense, and the establishment of a totalitarian police apparatus replete with spies and informers and the power of arbitrary arrest and imprisonment.

    Clearly, the enforcement of price controls requires a government similar to that of Hitler’s Germany or Stalin’s Russia, in which practically anyone might turn out to be a police spy and in which a secret police exists and has the power to arrest and imprison people. If the government is unwilling to go to such lengths, then, to that extent, its price controls prove unenforceable and simply break down. The black market then assumes major proportions. (Incidentally, none of this is to suggest that price controls were the cause of the reign of terror instituted by the Nazis. The Nazis began their reign of terror well before the enactment of price controls. As a result, they enacted price controls in an environment ready made for their enforcement.)

    Black market activity entails the commission of further crimes. Under de facto socialism, the production and sale of goods in the black market entails the defiance of the government’s regulations concerning production and distribution, as well as the defiance of its price controls. For example, the goods themselves that are sold in the black market are intended by the government to be distributed in accordance with its plan, and not in the black market. The factors of production used to produce those goods are likewise intended by the government to be used in accordance with its plan, and not for the purpose of supplying the black market.

    Under a system of de jure socialism, such as existed in Soviet Russia, in which the legal code of the country openly and explicitly makes the government the owner of the means of production, all black-market activity necessarily entails the misappropriation or theft of state property. For example, the factory workers or managers in Soviet Russia who turned out products that they sold in the black market were considered as stealing the raw materials supplied by the state.

    Furthermore, in any type of socialist state, Nazi or Communist, the government’s economic plan is part of the supreme law of the land. We all have a good idea of how chaotic the so-called planning process of socialism is. Its further disruption by workers and managers siphoning off materials and supplies to produce for the black market, is something which a socialist state is logically entitled to regard as an act of sabotage of its national economic plan. And sabotage is how the legal code of a socialist state does regard it. Consistent with this fact, black-market activity in a socialist country often carries the death penalty.

    Now I think that a fundamental fact that explains the all-round reign of terror found under socialism is the incredible dilemma in which a socialist state places itself in relation to the masses of its citizens. On the one hand, it assumes full responsibility for the individual’s economic well-being. Russian or Bolshevik-style socialism openly avows this responsibility — this is the main source of its popular appeal. On the other hand, in all of the ways one can imagine, a socialist state makes an unbelievable botch of the job. It makes the individual’s life a nightmare.

    Every day of his life, the citizen of a socialist state must spend time in endless waiting lines. For him, the problems Americans experienced in the gasoline shortages of the 1970s are normal; only he does not experience them in relation to gasoline — for he does not own a car and has no hope of ever owning one — but in relation to simple items of clothing, to vegetables, even to bread. Even worse he is frequently forced to work at a job that is not of his choice and which he therefore must certainly hate. (For under shortages, the government comes to decide the allocation of labor just as it does the allocation of the material factors of production.) And he lives in a condition of unbelievable overcrowding, with hardly ever a chance for privacy. (In the face of housing shortages, boarders are assigned to homes; families are compelled to share apartments. And a system of internal passports and visas is adopted to limit the severity of housing shortages in the more desirable areas of the country.) To put it mildly, a person forced to live in such conditions must seethe with resentment and hostility.

    Now against whom would it be more logical for the citizens of a socialist state to direct their resentment and hostility than against that very socialist state itself? The same socialist state which has proclaimed its responsibility for their life, has promised them a life of bliss, and which in fact is responsible for giving them a life of hell. Indeed, the leaders of a socialist state live in a further dilemma, in that they daily encourage the people to believe that socialism is a perfect system whose bad results can only be the work of evil men. If that were true, who in reason could those evil men be but the rulers themselves, who have not only made life a hell, but have perverted an allegedly perfect system to do it?

    It follows that the rulers of a socialist state must live in terror of the people. By the logic of their actions and their teachings, the boiling, seething resentment of the people should well up and swallow them in an orgy of bloody vengeance. The rulers sense this, even if they do not admit it openly; and thus their major concern is always to keep the lid on the citizenry.

    Consequently, it is true but very inadequate merely to say such things as that socialism lacks freedom of the press and freedom of speech. Of course, it lacks these freedoms. If the government owns all the newspapers and publishing houses, if it decides for what purposes newsprint and paper are to be made available, then obviously nothing can be printed which the government does not want printed. If it owns all the meeting halls, no public speech or lecture can be delivered which the government does not want delivered. But socialism goes far beyond the mere lack of freedom of press and speech.

    A socialist government totally annihilates these freedoms. It turns the press and every public forum into a vehicle of hysterical propaganda in its own behalf, and it engages in the relentless persecution of everyone who dares to deviate by so much as an inch from its official party line.

    The reason for these facts is the socialist rulers’ terror of the people. To protect themselves, they must order the propaganda ministry and the secret police to work ’round the clock. The one, to constantly divert the people’s attention from the responsibility of socialism, and of the rulers of socialism, for the people’s misery. The other, to spirit away and silence anyone who might even remotely suggest the responsibility of socialism or its rulers — to spirit away anyone who begins to show signs of thinking for himself. It is because of the rulers’ terror, and their desperate need to find scapegoats for the failures of socialism, that the press of a socialist country is always full of stories about foreign plots and sabotage, and about corruption and mismanagement on the part of subordinate officials, and why, periodically, it is necessary to unmask large-scale domestic plots and to sacrifice major officials and entire factions in giant purges.

    It is because of their terror, and their desperate need to crush every breath even of potential opposition, that the rulers of socialism do not dare to allow even purely cultural activities that are not under the control of the state. For if people so much as assemble for an art show or poetry reading that is not controlled by the state, the rulers must fear the dissemination of dangerous ideas. Any unauthorized ideas are dangerous ideas, because they can lead people to begin thinking for themselves and thus to begin thinking about the nature of socialism and its rulers. The rulers must fear the spontaneous assembly of a handful of people in a room, and use the secret police and its apparatus of spies, informers, and terror either to stop such meetings or to make sure that their content is entirely innocuous from the point of view of the state.

    Socialism cannot be ruled for very long except by terror. As soon as the terror is relaxed, resentment and hostility logically begin to well up against the rulers. The stage is thus set for a revolution or civil war. In fact, in the absence of terror, or, more correctly, a sufficient degree of terror, socialism would be characterized by an endless series of revolutions and civil wars, as each new group of rulers proved as incapable of making socialism function successfully as its predecessors before it. The inescapable inference to be drawn is that the terror actually experienced in the socialist countries was not simply the work of evil men, such as Stalin, but springs from the nature of the socialist system. Stalin could come to the fore because his unusual willingness and cunning in the use of terror were the specific characteristics most required by a ruler of socialism in order to remain in power. He rose to the top by a process of socialist natural selection: the selection of the worst.

    I need to anticipate a possible misunderstanding concerning my thesis that socialism is totalitarian by its nature. This concerns the allegedly socialist countries run by Social Democrats, such as Sweden and the other Scandinavian countries, which are clearly not totalitarian dictatorships.

    In such cases, it is necessary to realize that along with these countries not being totalitarian, they are also not socialist. Their governing parties may espouse socialism as their philosophy and their ultimate goal, but socialism is not what they have implemented as their economic system. Their actual economic system is that of a hampered market economy, as Mises termed it. While more hampered than our own in important respects, their economic system is essentially similar to our own, in that the characteristic driving force of production and economic activity is not government decree but the initiative of private owners motivated by the prospect of private profit.

    The reason that Social Democrats do not establish socialism when they come to power, is that they are unwilling to do what would be required. The establishment of socialism as an economic system requires a massive act of theft — the means of production must be seized from their owners and turned over to the state. Such seizure is virtually certain to provoke substantial resistance on the part of the owners, resistance which can be overcome only by use of massive force.

    The Communists were and are willing to apply such force, as evidenced in Soviet Russia. Their character is that of armed robbers prepared to commit murder if that is what is necessary to carry out their robbery. The character of the Social Democrats in contrast is more like that of pickpockets, who may talk of pulling the big job someday, but who in fact are unwilling to do the killing that would be required, and so give up at the slightest sign of serious resistance.

    As for the Nazis, they generally did not have to kill in order to seize the property of Germans other than Jews. This was because, as we have seen, they established socialism by stealth, through price controls, which served to maintain the outward guise and appearance of private ownership. The private owners were thus deprived of their property without knowing it and thus felt no need to defend it by force.

    I think I have shown that socialism — actual socialism — is totalitarian by its very nature.


    In the United States at the present time, we do not have socialism in any form. And we do not have a dictatorship, let alone a totalitarian dictatorship.

    We also do not yet have Fascism, though we are moving towards it. Among the essential elements that are still lacking are one-party rule and censorship. We still have freedom of speech and press and free elections, though both have been undermined and their continued existence cannot be guaranteed.

    What we have is a hampered market economy that is growing ever more hampered by ever more government intervention, and that is characterized by a growing loss of individual freedom. The growth of the government’s economic intervention is synonymous with a loss of individual freedom because it means increasingly initiating the use of physical force to make people do what they do not voluntarily choose to do or prevent them from doing what they do voluntarily choose to do.

    Since the individual is the best judge of his own interests, and at least as a rule seeks to do what it is in his interest to do and to avoid doing what harms his interest, it follows that the greater the extent of government intervention, the greater the extent to which individuals are prevented from doing what benefits them and are instead compelled to do what causes them loss.

    Today, in the United States, government spending, federal, state, and local, amounts to almost half of the monetary incomes of the portion of the citizenry that does not work for the government. Fifteen federal cabinet departments, and a much larger number of federal regulatory agencies, together, in most instances with counterparts at the state and local level, routinely intrude into virtually every area of the individual citizen’s life. In countless ways he is taxed, compelled, and prohibited.

    The effect of such massive government interference is unemployment, rising prices, falling real wages, a need to work longer and harder, and growing economic insecurity. The further effect is growing anger and resentment.

    Though the government’s policy of interventionism is their logical target, the anger and resentment people feel are typically directed at businessmen and the rich instead. This is a mistake which is fueled for the most part by an ignorant and envious intellectual establishment and media.

    And in conformity with this attitude, since the collapse of the stock market bubble, which was in fact created by the Federal Reserve’s policy of credit expansion and then pricked by its temporary abandonment of that policy, government prosecutors have adopted what appears to be a particularly vengeful policy toward executives guilty of financial dishonesty, as though their actions were responsible for the widespread losses resulting from the collapse of the bubble. Thus the former head of a major telecommunications company was recently given a twenty-five year prison sentence. Other top executives have suffered similarly.

    Even more ominously, the government’s power to obtain mere criminal indictments has become equivalent to the power to destroy a firm, as occurred in the case of Arthur Andersen, the major accounting firm. The threatened use of this power was then sufficient to force major insurance brokerage firms in the United States to change their managements to the satisfaction of New York State’s Attorney General. There is no way to describe such developments other than as conviction and punishment without trial and as extortion by the government. These are major steps along a very dangerous path.

    Fortunately, there is still sufficient freedom in the United States to undo all the damage that has been done. There is first of all the freedom to publicly name it and denounce it.

    More fundamentally, there is the freedom to analyze and refute the ideas that underlie the destructive policies that have been adopted or that may be adopted. And that is what is critical. For the fundamental factor underlying interventionism and, of course, socialism as well, whether Nazi or Communist, is nothing but wrong ideas, above all, wrong ideas about economics and philosophy.

    There is now an extensive and growing body of literature that presents sound ideas in these two vital fields. In my judgment, the two most important authors of this literature are Ludwig von Mises and Ayn Rand. An extensive knowledge of their writings is an indispensable prerequisite for success in the defense of individual freedom and the free market.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s