What is fascism?

Have philosophical discussions about politics, law, and government.
Featured Article: Definition of Freedom - What Freedom Means to Me
Karpel Tunnel
Posts: 948
Joined: February 16th, 2018, 11:28 am

Re: What is fascism?

Post by Karpel Tunnel »

If I mull over the uses I hear: including things like the term feminazies, calling the police fascists, traditional uses of the term....
it seems like people mean

trying to extremely limit the behavior of others without good cause and willing to use force - physical, legislative or other forces - to exert that unnecessary or evil control.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: What is fascism?

Post by Steve3007 »

Burning ghost wrote:Saying who you wish to call a “fascist” doesn’t really help narrow down a definition.
But as a way of defining a class of objects - of going from the specific to the general - it's not a bad start. It seems not unreasonable to define the class of objects known as "fascists" by pointing to proposed instances. The same as I would do if I had to define the term "chair" or "clock" to someone who has never seen one before.

Once we've pointed to a few fascists, chairs and clocks we can ponder what each of the proposed instances of those classes have in common with the other proposed instances of the same class.
Georgeanna
Posts: 436
Joined: October 29th, 2017, 1:17 pm

This is off topic: response to fooloso4

Post by Georgeanna »

This is Off Topic.

Fooloso4 wrote:
' This may get lost in all the arguing about overzealous moderation, but in the hope that there is still enough tolerance and flexibility to allow it to stand as it is, against the risk of it being shunted elsewhere because it will be seen as off topic rather than expanding on issues and assumptions that are germane to any philosophical discussion, I will post it. But true to the theme of what follows, I will not spell out the connections.'

-----

What is seen and deleted as 'Off Topic' is very much on my mind right now.
If a certain moderator has a narrow view of what ought to constitute the right content of a thread and deletes posts without any explanation, then this can create more problems than it tries to solve.

I also think that some posters are more likely to be scrutinised and censored than others.
For example, another moderator such as yourself will be allowed to go off topic whereas someone else is jumped on for personal reasons or 'previous'.

I have taken my views to the Feedback forum. And will now desist.

Thanks for following up on Hobbes quote. Most valuable.
User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3065
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: What is fascism?

Post by Burning ghost »

Steve3007 wrote: October 22nd, 2018, 7:30 am
Burning ghost wrote:Saying who you wish to call a “fascist” doesn’t really help narrow down a definition.
But as a way of defining a class of objects - of going from the specific to the general - it's not a bad start. It seems not unreasonable to define the class of objects known as "fascists" by pointing to proposed instances. The same as I would do if I had to define the term "chair" or "clock" to someone who has never seen one before.

Once we've pointed to a few fascists, chairs and clocks we can ponder what each of the proposed instances of those classes have in common with the other proposed instances of the same class.
But this work has already been done to some degree here and there. Like Karp mentions above, people start to use the term out of context - I remember some Israeli youths called the Israeli police “Nazis.” If the term is being misused then the meaning becomes diluted.

We all know what a chair is and we are not often in a position where we cannot decide if some give object is a chair or not. When it comes to recognising “fascism” we really should start out by saying what defines fascism not who we wish to apply the label to - if we don’t then we don’t really understand what we are labelling someone (that in itself is very likely the beginnings of someone becoming a fascist.)

The obvious, yet seemingly not obvious meaning judging by what people are saying here, is being ignored in order to push a personal agenda.

The title of the OP is “What is fasicsm?” not “who.” Even if it was “who” then what good is it to label people as this or that if you’ve not made explicit what you actually mean.

What is obvious enough to me is that it is fueled, as a political movement, by claims of groups of people being dispossessed by other groups of people. It takes up this attitude as motivation to treat other humans as unhuman. Does this mean if I happen to refer to someone as a “monster” or “vermin” that I am a fascist? Not really. It only matters if hold an opinion of someone based purely on their arbitrary circumstances and judge them as “other” compared to me without bothering to even engage with them (due to rage, hate, and/or some other form of deflected self-loathing - due to position or unfortunate circumstances befallen onto me.

So yeah, label people as a fascist and pick out several of them. No matter what you still have to say what you mean. If I call a woman a “bitch” or a man a “bastard” they are both insults aimed to hurt not technical definitions of what a bitch or a bastard is. You can call me all sorts of names and I may not like it. When you start to associate what someone says and does with their political stance without bothering to pay attention to the nuances of the terms being used then I’m done talking because the conversation has reduced to beyond the childish taunts into the realms of propaganda.
AKA badgerjelly
Fooloso4
Posts: 3601
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: What is fascism?

Post by Fooloso4 »

Greta:

Fooloso4 wrote:

One of the keys for doing so is an art of writing that was all but forgotten by Nietzsche’s time, that is, esotericism. By this he meant the art of saying something while seeming to say something else.

Interesting. No doubt this is a silly question but, based on that shorthand definition, why wouldn't the doublespeak of politicians and salespeople be considered to be esoteric?

Actually, it is a very good question. All have in common an art of persuasion. It is possible to read between the lines of a salesperson’s pitch, but the salesperson does not intend to convey a message that does not promote the product. The politician might - saying one thing to the general public while signalling to those in power that there will be a different agenda. Trump is interesting in this regard, because some of his followers take the position that his words should be ignored, focus on what he actually does. There are two main reasons for this, he is a habitual liar and has no filter between whatever comes to mind and what he says.

Plato wrote a trilogy of connected dialogues - Theaetetus, Sophist, and Statesman. All three deal with the identity of the philosopher. There is, however, no dialogue Philosopher. Some have concluded that it forms the third of the trilogy but is missing. Others, however, read between the lines. Two books that deal with this are Jacob Klein’s “Plato's trilogy: Theaetetus, the Sophist, and the Statesman” and Seth Benardete’s “The Being of the Beautiful”.

Rather than provide answers in order to understand the esoteric writings of the philosophers we must think. In being led to think rather than being led to accept we are led to see how the philosopher differs from the sophist and statesman, and thus, how one is led to lead themselves rather than follow another. And in this way philosophy as opposed to "a philosophy" is anti-fascist.
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14997
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: What is fascism?

Post by Sy Borg »

Strictly speaking, fascism is the political movement of the Third Reich in WWII.

The word "fascism" is more loosely applied today, and is largely subjective; one person's order is another's fascism.

Human beings form hierarchic societies and that requires some humans to control others. Those who see the control as heavy handed or performed with prejudice will claim it is "fascism". Due to the stigma left by Hitler's rampage, the term is now used in an attempt to shame or expose others, and it tends to say more about the utterer than the uttered.
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14997
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: What is fascism?

Post by Sy Borg »

Fooloso4 wrote: October 22nd, 2018, 10:56 amRather than provide answers in order to understand the esoteric writings of the philosophers we must think. In being led to think rather than being led to accept we are led to see how the philosopher differs from the sophist and statesman, and thus, how one is led to lead themselves rather than follow another. And in this way philosophy as opposed to "a philosophy" is anti-fascist.
Thanks Fooloso. You are always generous with your knowledge.

So basically the difference is a matter of what the speaker hopes to achieve, intent. As with artists, thinkers are at the mercy of the audience's interpretation, so it's quite possible that a politician's manipulation may spur a person to unexpected productive thought (perhaps about the nature of politicians) and meanwhile many a student will take home a teacher's words rather than the intent https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QereR0CViMY.
Fooloso4
Posts: 3601
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: What is fascism?

Post by Fooloso4 »

Greta:
So basically the difference is a matter of what the speaker hopes to achieve, intent.
Yes. Plato’s philosopher, like the sophist and statesman, deceives and dissembles, but the philosopher does not do so to gain something from others, but rather to be free from their interference (the Republic ironically defines justice as minding your own business). His or her (women could be philosopher-kings) concern, however, was not entirely selfish. Plato presents a salutary public teaching that shaped the history of the west for two thousand years - Christianity, Platonism for the masses.
As with artists, thinkers are at the mercy of the audience's interpretation …
The relationship between an artist or thinker and their interpretation is an interesting one. Interpretation takes on a life of its own.
… so it's quite possible that a politician's manipulation may spur a person to unexpected productive thought.
As was the case with Plato in response to Socrates execution.
… and meanwhile many a student will take home a teacher's words rather than the intent
Sometimes there are ongoing disputes as to what that intent is and how the words are used as evidence to support different claims of intent. I am reminded here of the students of Leo Strauss. As some here may know, some of them because politically active and leaders of the “neo-cons” but others remain relatively apolitical, preferring to discuss political philosophy, eschewing politics. I do not think he intended for his students to become vocal supporters of Trump, and yet they did and are convinced he would have approved. Others see him as a demagogue, just the kind of person one should have learned from a study of political philosophy to oppose. As with many influential teachers, their students sooner or later develop factions. Questions of intent never to be resolved.

And unless someone think we have gone too far off topic, the problem of demagogues points us back, as does the following:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QereR0CViMY.

Yes, repeat after me: “We are all individuals”. This is actually a wonderful example - telling people that they are individuals who think for themselves (exoteric message). The one guy who denies he is an individual shows that he alone (perhaps, but maybe he is just an idiot, see the Greek origin of the term which is retained in the term 'idiosyncratic') is what all, including him, are the opposite of what they claim to be (the not so hidden esoteric meaning).
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14997
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: What is fascism?

Post by Sy Borg »

Fooloso4 wrote: October 22nd, 2018, 6:05 pm Greta:
So basically the difference is a matter of what the speaker hopes to achieve, intent.
Yes. Plato’s philosopher, like the sophist and statesman, deceives and dissembles, but the philosopher does not do so to gain something from others, but rather to be free from their interference (the Republic ironically defines justice as minding your own business). His or her (women could be philosopher-kings) concern, however, was not entirely selfish. Plato presents a salutary public teaching that shaped the history of the west for two thousand years - Christianity, Platonism for the masses.
I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that philosophers threw the people red herrings to get them to leave them some space?
Fooloso4 wrote:
… and meanwhile many a student will take home a teacher's words rather than the intent
Sometimes there are ongoing disputes as to what that intent is and how the words are used as evidence to support different claims of intent. I am reminded here of the students of Leo Strauss. As some here may know, some of them because politically active and leaders of the “neo-cons” but others remain relatively apolitical, preferring to discuss political philosophy, eschewing politics. I do not think he intended for his students to become vocal supporters of Trump, and yet they did and are convinced he would have approved. Others see him as a demagogue, just the kind of person one should have learned from a study of political philosophy to oppose. As with many influential teachers, their students sooner or later develop factions. Questions of intent never to be resolved.
It's all learning for me here. I don't know political philosophy. I did some reading:
The West Coast belief that the American founding represented the Aristotelian ideal could be construed as a manifest belief in American Greatness, and therefore it might make some sense that the Trump slogan “Make America Great Again” might have resonance among West Coasters (though it must be noted that it was an East Coaster, Bill Kristol, who championed an “American Greatness Conservatism” in the 1990s). Another possible reason for the support of Trump may be that the West Coasters are more focused on the threat posed by the administrative state to self-governance, and yet are also more inclined to believe in the power of strong individual leaders in great moments of crisis to shape political life.

East Coast Straussians tend to be more protective of the institutional architecture of the Constitution, not only as a manifestation of the general principles of the Declaration of Independence but also as hard-headed constraints on political power and will, because they are more skeptical of the potential of individual statesmen and of the mass public to transform politics. For them, Trump is a manifestation of the democratic despotism Alexis de Tocqueville warned against.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story ... icy-214424

I have felt for a while that America's issue is governance of a large population. Theirs is the only large population that's neither authoritarian (China, Russia) nor chaotic (India, Indonesia, Brazil, Pakistan, Nigeria, Bangladesh and Mexico). It appears there are natural limits involved. For me, it's reminiscent of how chimps tend not to aggregate in groups larger than one hundred. Most groups split when the populations exceed that number to some extent. The greater intensity of competition in large populations means more potential for division between interest groups, and these schisms are inevitably stoked by bad actors with agendas.

So a tendency towards division in large societies can be taken as a given. One solution, as spectacularly demonstrated in Iraq, is the "strongman", the authoritarian who forces citizens to work together by suppressing dissidents. As soon as Saddam was toppled Iraq's factions were again free to resume what must have been continually-simmering and suppressed conflicts. Ditto Libya. Enter the trolley problem: is it better to harm a select few to create a more cohesive society for the many?

US can reasonably be expected to lean towards either authoritarianism or divided chaos as the pressures of population build ever greater schisms in its society. There will no doubt be some elements of fascism, but I like to think the lessons of WWII will temper potential society-wide mania and extremism at least to some extent.
Georgeanna
Posts: 436
Joined: October 29th, 2017, 1:17 pm

Re: What is fascism?

Post by Georgeanna »

Fascism: I sometimes fear...


I sometimes fear that

people think that fascism arrives in fancy dress

worn by grotesques and monsters

as played out in endless re-runs of the Nazis.



Fascism arrives as your friend.

It will restore your honour,

make you feel proud,

protect your house,

give you a job,

clean up the neighbourhood,

remind you of how great you once were,

clear out the venal and the corrupt,

remove anything you feel is unlike you...



It doesn't walk in saying,

"Our programme means militias, mass imprisonments, transportations, war and persecution."



Posted by MichaelRosen at 07:56

http://michaelrosenblog.blogspot.com/20 ... -fear.html
Georgeanna
Posts: 436
Joined: October 29th, 2017, 1:17 pm

Re: What is fascism?

Post by Georgeanna »

Fascism: misuse or overuse of the term means complacency in the face of reality.

We need rigour when situations are unfolding before our very eyes. And yet do not see.
The lessons of history and philosophy are not boring; they are about the human condition and what we are capable of. Still.

------

Extracts from: https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opini ... 14174.html

'' The question that we still grapple with:

Why do warning signs that are so easily identified in hindsight elide recognition contemporaneously?

Historians have been divided over whether to describe Trumpism as fascism. As Gavriel Rosenfeld, professor of history at Fairfield University, told me by phone a few weeks ago, this is a good thing: a rigour in the face of an unfolding situation. It's also true that overuse of the term "fascism" undermines its effect. In understanding "never again" as a statement of fact, rather than as an instruction to remain on guard, it is possible we may have grown complacent and perhaps opened the door to misuse: these days, everyone is a fascist.

Rosenfeld, whose book Hi Hitler! explores the trivialisation of Nazism, says the internet has played a role in this sort of neutering effect by turning Hitler into a meme, a punchline, or a series of cats-that-look-like-Hitler pics.

Leaders with tendencies that can credibly be defined as fascistic may now, for some people at least, elude such description because the term has been defanged.

So we are caught somewhere between not wanting to belittle history, nor make inaccurate comparisons - but also not wanting to underplay current realities either. We struggle to find a useful space between normalisation and alarmism.

But maybe we should just accept that even an accurate invocation of fascism will sound exaggerated, in a world that doesn't believe it possible for there to be a modern-day, Western application.

Reaching for the term "fascist" isn't about applying the ultimate insult, so much as preparing for the right response. It would mean not taking a government or leadership as normal.

And, in broader terms this would be the anti-fascist argument: that fascism, once identified as a political and social force, requires an altogether different form of opposition.

If that's the case, judicious caution in using the term may be keeping us locked into ineffective responses. We remain in the realm of rational debate - itself essential, itself in need of robust defence in a post-truth world.

And yet, hate and bigotry can overwhelm societies when the reasonable are tied up in knots worrying about displaying intolerance or denying extremist haters a megaphone.

Time and focus is exhausted in trying to debate a tide of violent racial superiority, while it is only ever amplified and legitimised by such encounters.

It has potential to overwhelm, this urge to habituate, to be measured in the face of current reality. But sometimes this reasonable, polite response won't cut it.

Sometimes the most effective tool we have is a forceful humanity - one that draws a line, resists the tide to normalise and ensures that far-right hatreds do not find any space to breathe in our societies.''

- Rachel Shabi.
User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3065
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: What is fascism?

Post by Burning ghost »

Shabi name, shabby by nature! :)

I do agree with this:
The question that we still grapple with:

Why do warning signs that are so easily identified in hindsight elide recognition contemporaneously?
Probably one of the most obtuse sentences I’ve read today (and I’ve been reading some of my own notes today!)

Given that she’s won an “Orwell Award” one would’ve assumed she’d bothered to read his essay “Politics and the English Language,” but I guess she hasn’t, or has simply elided, the recourse he espoused contextually within his segmented critique of barbarity of the English language within journalism and among academia.

Seriously, there are faults in teh article, double standards espoused, and a generalized stating of the obvious dressed up to look like it has intellectual weight. No mention of the “far left” contingent? A vague insinuation that religious affiliation is akin to ethnicity (or what is colloquially known as “race”) likely due to the problem of demarcating between Judaism and being a Jewish.

There was a mention of anti-fascists but little depth given from that position - remember both the anti-fascists and the fascists wanted to “cleanse” the Jewish community.

I wouldn’t waste time trying to make out Trump to be this or that and to try and pin labels on him. Let him speak and simply print what he says. If people cannot see a problem then they are the problem. No need to conflate terms and throw fuel on the fire - Hitchens was a great one for open debate with far right types and far left types. He gave them a platform to speak openly about their views.

AN EXERCISE -

What is “fascism”? Simply ask yourself what you would do if you were a fascist, how you’d get into a position of authority, and then see first hand what “fascism” means to you.
AKA badgerjelly
User avatar
ThomasHobbes
Posts: 1122
Joined: May 5th, 2018, 5:53 pm

Re: What is fascism?

Post by ThomasHobbes »

Greta wrote: October 21st, 2018, 6:27 pm
ThomasHobbes wrote: October 21st, 2018, 4:30 pm

You asked me for a thoughtful post of fascism. I made that post. It was deleted.So **** off.
Stuff happens, Hobbesy. I lost good posts too in the early days and whined at the mods just like you. It took years for the penny to drop.

I would not confuse fascism with mods strictly enforcing forum rules. I'm not so strict these days personally. Over time you find that if there are no especially bad actors then threads sometimes will flare up but people generally seem work things out one way or another without mods being involved. It's a balancing act. You don't want people coming to the forum and finding a load of flame wars when they are hoping for material of possible interest.
Do you even know the content of the posts that your dogs deleted?
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14997
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: What is fascism?

Post by Sy Borg »

If that is how you refer to those with whom you have disagreements then it's hard to care what posts of yours are deleted.

Que sera sera.
Fooloso4
Posts: 3601
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: What is fascism?

Post by Fooloso4 »

Greta:
I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that philosophers threw the people red herrings to get them to leave them some space?
Because philosophy, the unflinching inquiry into the truth of all things, was a threat to the city, the city became a threat to philosophy. The poets who were wise provided the founding mythologies by which the people lived. The philosopher, the lover of wisdom, undermined the authority of the poets and their mythologies, but had nothing to replace those mythologies with that would guide the people. Plato created a philosophical mythology, a mythology of truth and beauty and justice and above all the good. The philosopher took on the appearance of being wise - those who have escaped the cave and know things as they are in themselves. Rather than being a threat to the city they became its saviors. The only problem is that the philosopher did not actually possess this knowledge. Under it all, Plato and Aristotle remained, like Socrates, skeptics, knowing that they did not know.

It is, however, not just a matter of the philosophers protecting themselves from the city. They protect the city from the truth, the truth that no one is wise, no one knows the truth regarding what is just and noble/beautiful and good. The danger is that if no one knows then all claims of what today are called ‘values’ may be given equal weight and or no claims given any weight.

The Socratic solution employed by both Plato and Aristotle was reasoned inquiry and deliberation. An attempt to determine what is best without knowledge of what is best. It is fundamentally tenuous and ungrounded, but reason itself became the ground. A ground that went unquestioned until recent times when philosophers overtly questioned the whole picture of grounds.
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of Politics”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021